1971-01-15

VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, of H. Russell MacEwan, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Central Nova, by resignation. Accordingly I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House under Standing Order 43 to present a motion. I do so because of the many people across Canada who are making statements about the critical unemployment situation and the desirability of having some of these people appear before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so that we can get the picture and come to grips with the problem. I therefore ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That the critical unemployment situation in Canada be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and that the committee consider calling witnesses who can underline the seriousness of the problem and who have proposals to make, including the Minister of Labour for Quebec who has stated that there could be a revolution in that province if unemployment gets any worse.


Mr. Baldwin:: And the Leader of the Opposition who has been travelling around getting information.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. As the policies of six departments-the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Transport, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Manpower and Immigration-largely determine the condition of the Canadian economy and consequently the level of employment in the country, has the government given consideration to designating one minister, preferably the Minister of Finance, to co-ordinate the policies of these six departments as they affect general economic conditions in the country so that a co-ordinated and more effective attack may be made on the problem of unemployment?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has been a member of cabinets in the past and he knows that the best way of co-ordinating government policy is through the cabinet itself. Many countries have tried the experiment of appointing super economic ministers and invariably they have failed. I do not think it is a useful precedent.



UNEMPLOYMENT-LAY-OFF OF EMPLOYEES BY AIR CANADA

George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question. I might just say that the results to date do not indicate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: May I carry on with my supplementary question? We used to have co-ordination, but not you fellows.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I will now carry on with my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about your cabinet, George.


George Harris Hees: Will the Acting Prime Minister look into the reasons why Air Canada, a government controlled Crown

January 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
corporation, has laid off between 400 and 500 employees at this particular time, thus setting a very undesirable example-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have two reservations about the hon. member's additional question. I have some doubts whether it is a supplementary question. I think that the hon. member is really taking advantage of the opportunity to ask a supplementary question dealing generally with unemployment to ask a supplementary question not immediately related to the first one. Second, I have the impression that this question was asked yesterday, but if I am wrong perhaps the minister might like to reply to the hon. member's supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: May I just finish my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? As I was about to say, this is setting a very bad example to private industry at the present time.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has been discussing this situation with Air Canada and perhaps he could be permitted to reply.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House, I believe on Wednesday, I have meetings with Air Canada scheduled for Monday of next week, but up to now I have been following the exemplary conduct of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings when he held this portfolio in keeping my distance, as it were, from Air Canada internal management matters. However, there are some basic questions involved here and I have undertaken to consult with the highest level of management of Air Canada to see if a solution can be worked out.


Mr. Robert C. Coaies (Cumberland-Colchester North):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Transport also discuss with Air Canada at the same time the proposed transfer of the reservation service from Ottawa-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have had two supple-mentaries which have had little to do with the original question. I recognize they are legitimate questions but they should not be brought in as supplementaries. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR MEETING OF LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION COMMITTEE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Scarborough West in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. Will the hon. member consider covering a meeting of his committee so that we might invite a person like the Minister of Labour of the province of Quebec to
appear before that committee to discuss with us the seriousness of the unemployment situation in the province of Quebec?


Mr. MacEachen:: You know better than that, Stanley.


Mr. David Weaiherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I think we can take this matter up in our steering committee, but I am a bit doubtful at this time that we have any authority to do this.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: How about desire?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has any emergency plans to assist the 84,000 people who are classified as the hard-core unemployed, people who have been unemployed for more than six months, compared with the total of 46,000 last year, in view of the fact that most of them cannot qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and are forced to go on short-term welfare which is not adequate and certainly cannot provide a decent standard of living for their families?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking a question which is very general in its terms. He is inviting the minister, or someone on behalf of the ministry, to make a statement as to what plans may be contemplated by the government to alleviate the very serious situation to which he has alluded. I would think this statement ought normally to be made on motions.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question. This is an urgent matter and I think there should be some latitude so we can get a response from the Acting Prime Minister. May I ask him if there is any contemplation of immediate changes in the unemployment insurance regulations so that many of these people can qualify who do not now qualify under the old Act, and also whether any changes are contemplated in the Canada Assistance Plan with respect to assistance to the provinces, so that these people can at least survive until spring?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the government now has under consideration legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act and has published a white paper on this subject. On the second point, Mr. Speaker, the ministers of welfare are meeting here in Ottawa toward the end of this month, and I repeat what I said yesterday that this subject will undoubtedly be under discussion. May I also point out that these suggestions of the hon. member can be discussed during the debate which will take place on Monday.

January 15, 1971


John Howard Lundrigan: I would ask the minister if in fact we can conclude from his statement that the amendments to the unemployment insurance benefits, which were to be brought into effect some time later in 1971, not earlier than July, are being pushed forward so that people can qualify now, particularly the 84,000 hard-core unemployed who have been out of work for longer than six months and who cannot qualify under the old regulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand from the Government House Leader that he would like to bring the unemployment insurance legislation forward as soon as it is reasonably possible. We are, of course, having discussions with the provinces. I am sure the hon. member recognizes they have a very active interest in this subject, and we would want to have a plan that is generally acceptable throughout the country.
* # *



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very serious statement made yesterday by the Minister of Labour of Quebec that a revolution could occur in that province if unemployment grows larger, is the government considering meeting with the government of Quebec to consider what further steps can be taken in the very near future to reduce the number who are likely to be unemployed in Quebec in the next few months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I ought to repeat what the Prime Minister of Quebec himself said, that violence is not going to help to improve the climate for investment in the province of Quebec. I would hope conditions there will not develop in such a way as to discourage investment, which is the key to employment in that province. We are having discussions continually with the province of Quebec on the unemployment situation, and I can assure the hon. member that no one is more concerned than the federal government about dealing with this very serious problem.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a supplementary?


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct a question to the hon. Acting Prime Minister.
Since the premier of Quebec has formally recognized his inability to create 100,000 jobs and rejected part of the blame on the federal government, may I ask the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Acting Prime Minister whether he does intend to meet the premier of Quebec to discuss this matter?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I change the subject. My question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerns the tourist industry and the parks. Since the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has spent $3 million in putting in water and sewer services for business enterprises serving about two million tourists who visit Banff and western Canada, would the minister please check into why the franchise for the building of various facilities for the tourists was given to Imperial Oil, a corporation that is 66 per cent foreign controlled, and at a spot other than the visitors' centre where the taxpayers' money has been spent to put in the facilities?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a development at Lake Louise, a beautiful spot in the Banff national park, and public tenders were called. Several companies submitted bids, but finally only those of Imperial Oil and a few other financial interests were kept. That is why the contract was awarded to them; in fact, they were the only tenderers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I follow up that answer with a supplementary question. Would the minister be prepared to discuss this matter seriously with the citizens of that area and of Banff, who have served tourists for ten years, and ascertain why road and sewers were put in at a cost of $3 million at a place where there are no enterprises and why the department is now giving a franchise to a foreign corporation over and above their rights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a suggestion to the minister. He must assume that it will be considered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could rephrase his supplementary question. After that, perhaps we could go to another subject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, we have only been on the present subject for a few moments. Would the minister be prepared to make a full and clear statement on this subject on motions in the
2444

January 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
near future, as there is urgency in that it is going ahead now and the taxpayers' money is being squandered?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Calgary North should be the last person to raise this question because the National Parks Service has done more for Alberta than for any other province and if there are millions of visitors in Alberta, the credit goes to this government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ALBERTA-ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITY IN DINOSAUR AREA

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the question of parks may I ask a supplementary question related to national parks in Alberta. In view of the statement made by officials of his department on the question of timber cutting in Wood Buffalo National Park, following the matter having been raised by myself and the hon. member for Skeena, can the minister tell us whether we are any nearer to having a national park in the dinosaur area of Alberta than we were one year ago when the minister from the Alberta government told the committee that the provincial government was prepared to negotiate the transfer or exchange-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that this question ought to be placed on the Order Paper.



HIGHWAYS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the controversies which have arisen in Montreal and Toronto over the construction of expressways, would the minister inform the House if his department is undertaking joint research with the provincial and municipal governments involved in order to bring about new solutions in the sphere of mass transit, particularly since the province of Quebec is indicating that it will use the majority of funds made available by the Minister of Finance to continue with the controversial trans-Canada link in the city of Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a complicated question. I will do my best to answer it briefly. In the first instance, we have a section within the department which is working closely with the provinces on the question of rapid transit within the large metropolitan areas. Our primary responsibility at the moment is in general research not
[Mr. Woolliams.l
connected with any one specific project, such as the ones the hon. member referred to in Toronto and Montreal. In the case of Montreal, there is an added complexity or an added federal involvement in view of our participation in a route system to link Ste. Scholastique airport. Meetings on that subject have not yet taken place, certainly not at the ministerial level. For that reason I am not really in a position to say just what attitude we would adopt with regard to work that has already begun on a controversial section of this road. There may be something to report after our first meeting with the province.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. The reason I raise this question is that controversies have arisen. The Minister of Finance has indicated that supplementary work-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask the supplementary. That is why he is seeking the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and it was part of my original question which remains unanswered. In light of the funds being made available by the federal government, the province of Quebec has indicated it is going ahead with its proposals respecting the Trans-Canada highway-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member. It seems we are reaching the area of debate. It seems to me that the hon. member's supplementary goes beyond the limited terms of a question.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that $68 million have been made available to Quebec to provide jobs through the construction of expressways, is the minister in a position to say if the total amount will be used to build roads in Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking from memory but, as I recall, the amount that was specifically assigned to help with the construction of access routes to Ste. Scholastique airport was in the neighbourhood of $20 million. That has not yet been assigned specifically to any one route. We have simply stated that in principle this is what we are prepared to do. The discussions with the province with regard to how it is to be employed have not yet taken place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
* # *



AIRPORTS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister be holding further meetings with the city of Regina with regard to the sale of city-owned property at the Regina airport? If so, will the minister inform the House when such meetings will be held?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mi;
Speaker, yesterday in a telephone conversation with the newly elected mayor of Regina I accepted his invitation for further discussions. These will be held at a later date to be indicated by him. I informed him that I would meet with him at his convenience either in Ottawa or in Regina.


John Stratford Burton: Does the government find unacceptable the land values established by the two appraisers selected by the government and the city?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the serious reports with respect to the possible closing of the Dunlop tire plant in the town of Whitby, can the minister indicate what steps, if any, his department intends to take in order to prevent such an occurrence?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: I have no report to that effect, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member was kind enough to bring this to my attention yesterday and I am having it checked now. I know though that officials of my department were recently in Whitby and received no indication of such action. It is well known that my department is trying to bring about a tire plant for Canada. Everyone agrees there is a need for rationalization in that. I was amazed to find out, for example, that 191 different types of tires make up for only six per cent of the Canadian production. This has to be rationalized.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You need a retread.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are working along the line of freedom of imports of certain types of tires against increased production of a fewer number of types.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
23786-14}
Inquiries of the Ministry


Norman Augustine Cafik: As many people feel that the regional development loans made available by the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia to the Michelin tire plant in Nova Scotia have contributed to some of the difficulties that Canadian manufacturers are experiencing, will the minister indicate whether such loans will be made available to plants already existing in this country to assist them to be more competitive?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think anyone who is familiar with the problems of the tire companies in Canada would say they originated with the Michelin deal. These difficulties have been with us for a number of years and I do not think they can be attributed to the recent decisions of the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has action been taken on reports from the Indian settlement at Southend where people are existing on meagre means because of low fur returns, the unavailability of game and the difficulty in catching fish because of slush on the ice?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have inquired about the matter and I am pleased to advise the House that we have granted supplementary assistance to the persons concerned owing to their difficult position. We have obtained from the Saskatchewan government the authorization for Indians to kill elk and moose. My department has provided the Indians with the necessary means of transport to carry that meat to the village. It now seems that the situation has again become normal.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question, too, is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister advise us whether a definite decision has yet been reached as to the boundaries of the Bonne Bay park in western Newfoundland and, if so, when will survey work be started having regard to the unemployment crisis we are facing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that a question of this nature should normally be put in writing. If there is urgency, the minister might like to

January 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
reply, but I have suggested on earlier occasions that questions of this nature are normally placed on the Order Paper.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, 32 questions in my name have now been on the Order Paper for some months and have not been answered. I have to try to get answers somewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Incidentally, I congratulate him on attaining a batting average of 33 per cent in his required roster appearances this week. I asked his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the other day a question with respect to the situation of at least 100 native Indian fishermen who will be put out of work. The Minister of Fisheries told us there was a finance plan available under the Indian Fishermen's Assistance Board. Now that the minister is here, can he explain what this program is and tell us when it will come into effect?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First, I should like to congratulate the hon. member on his candidacy; it is too bad he will not get 33 per cent of the votes, but I wish him the best of luck. As far as Indian fishermen in British Columbia are concerned, I am well aware of the situation to which he refers. I know that some fishing companies are cutting down their fleets. We have some funds available. I have sent some of my officials to the area; we shall try to assess the situation and adjust our financial program so as to assist as many Indians as possible to stay in business as good fishermen.


Frank Howard: Might I say that my objective is not 33 per cent; it is much higher than that. Inasmuch as the Minister of Fisheries has refused an invitation to attend a meeting called by the North Coast District Council in Prince Rupert, for the 25th of this month to deal with this matter, will the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be prepared to attend that meeting and speak to the people personally?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have received an invitation to go there and I am afraid I could not accept such an invitation at this time. However, I have on several occasions met here in Ottawa the leaders of the Indian Association concerned with fishermen and I will always be pleased to see them. If I had any occasion to travel to British Columbia-



TRANSPORT


Mr. W. C. Scofi (Vicioria-Haliburfon):: My question can be answered by either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It deals with the Trent and Rideau canal systems in Ontario. Under whose jurisdiction do canals fall at the present time, as they seem to be in a state of limbo?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the hon. member's question should be placed on the Order Paper.
Mr. Scot!: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question, since the navigation season-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is suggesting that questions placed on the Order Paper are not serious questions. Even if it is serious, this is the type of question which should be placed on the Order Paper. If there is urgency, as there may very well be, the hon. member can give me notice of his intention to raise the matter at the time of the adjournment and it will be given precedence.


William C. Scott: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My question is for the
Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It relates to student employment during the coming summer months. I know this subject has been alluded to several times this week but in view of the representations all hon. members are receiving I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether, some time during the next week or two, he will give an outline to the House of Commons of the general type of plan the government has in mind for student employment. I realize that some of these plans take a long time to work out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question and perhaps the Acting Prime Minister might be given an opportunity to reply.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Minister of Manpower did make reference to plans that are under discussion. These will be brought before cabinet shortly. I do not know whether it will be possible to give an answer within the next week or so but certainly the matter is under active consideration.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will allow a supplementary but if hon. members will look around the House they will see

January 15, 1971

there are perhaps 50 or 60 members who are seeking to ask questions. There are only a few minutes left and obviously all of them cannot expect to have their questions answered during this 40-minute period.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A brief supplementary. Since the Secretary of State, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the Minister of Labour, together with other ministers, have already expressed views on this subject, would the Acting Prime Minister give priority to this problem as many students are very concerned about the future?



TRANSPORT


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. According to press reports the Ontario Minister of Transport has proposed a meeting between officials of his department, the federal transport ministry, and executives of the railway companies operating in the province to discuss the formation of a network of passenger trains for Ontario. Did the minister receive an invitation to this meeting and, if so, will he or senior officials of his department attend, and will he use his good offices to urge the CNR to participate with an open mind?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is in the form of a submission to the minister. He has to assume it will be taken into account.



NATIONAL PARKS


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In light of the fact that the National Parks Act prohibits the cutting of timber in a park save for dead and diseased timber for the protection of the forests in the park itself, has the minister taken note of the situation in Wood Buffalo Park and will he make a statement to this House shortly, when he gets the information, as to the number of timber licences which have been granted for operations there, the quantity of timber to be removed, and the extent to which the forest has already been stripped of timber as a result of the cutting which has gone on?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that timber is being cut in Wood Buffalo park. That is only in a very small portion of the park, and these operations
Inquiries of the Ministry
provide work for approximately 100 Indians from this area. Nevertheless, we are presently negotiating with the government of Alberta to establish new limits, as far as Wood Buffalo park is concerned, which would enable us to obtain in exchange the areas where dinosaurs are still to be found, in Alberta.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and I might say it is prompted by my deep concern for the hon. minister's image in my riding. Would he undertake to speak to his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to have the promise made by the Minister of Transport on July 6 last summer to the people of the Argentia area respecting the $2 million crash program implemented because at the present time not even a quarter of that amount has been spent there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for St. John's West is rising on a point of order.


Walter C. Carter: This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker, to the 30 per cent unemployed in that area, because last summer a crash program was announced but it has not been carried through. My question to the minister is, will he talk to his colleague to have this program implemented?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question was heard by the Chair and I feel it was in the form of a suggestion or a submission to the minister. The hon. member has to assume that it has been noted and will be taken into account.



DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. MARKETS FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES' PRODUCTS

['Mr. Speaker, the existence of quotas in Japan is well known. When I became the minister there were 120. They cut off 20 about a year ago. Last week the Ambassador of Japan wrote me that they were cutting off 10 more, including the quota on whiskey, about which we are pleased. The administration of quotas in Japan is not really my preoccupation. I assume it to be the exclusive responsibility of the Japanese government. However, as an exercise in academic intelligence I will look into the problem and report fully to my hon. friend.\nJanuary 15, 1971']
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainf John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the great speech of the Prime Minister in Saint John, New Brunswick, before Christmas about the glowing prospects for trade with United States, and particularly the relationship of the Atlantic provinces thereto, can he now indicate what the plans of his department are for the new year, such as increased staff or trade missions and the like, which will bring this about?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that unless the minister is prepared to reply very briefly-


An hon. Member:: He never is.

January 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The question is one that normally should be placed on the Order Paper, or the hon. member might ask the minister whether he proposes to make a statement.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to take a chance if the House agrees. I sent him notice of this question and hoped this would give him time to gather his thoughts about the great work they are doing in this regard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think I can be very brief on that subject. Very recently I wrote a colleague of the hon. member giving him an indication of the activity of my ..department in the Maritimes in terms of industrial research and development and trade promotion.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, would the minister make that letter public so that the people of the Maritimes can 4tnow a little bit about this? They are greatly concerned that the minister is not doing anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I asked him a few days ago about the Security Council's resolution condemning the Portuguese forces' invasion of Guinea. He said it was an important question and he would look into it. I wonder whether he is now in a position to answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can answer this reasonably briefly. It may be, however, that you would wish the question to be put on the Order Paper for answer in writing.


An hon. Member:: You are on your own, there is no help there.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government's opposition to the maintenance of Portuguese colonialism in Africa has been firmly declared and abundantly demonstrated. It has been reflected in our support for United Nations resolutions calling on Portugal to grant those territories self-determination. It was specifically enunciated in the government's paper on foreign policy.
Moreover, and this relates directly to a major clause of the December 8 Security Council resolution, Canada maintains a complete embargo on the sales of military equipment to the Portuguese territories, and we have long since ceased providing military assistance to Portugal under NATO mutual aid.
The resolution also asks Portugal's allies to influence the government of Portugal to comply with its terms.
[Mr. Speaker.!
The government of Portugal is in no doubt about the Canadian government's views on Portuguese policies in Africa.


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I attempted to ask it in the form of a supplementary to the question posed by the hon. member for St. John's West. Have studies been undertaken by his department in respect of the feasibility of free trade between the Atlantic provinces and the New England states in certain commodities, using the automobile pact as a model?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this sort of preoccupation is constant in my department.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Don Valley.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you have given me a substitute for the 5BX plan today. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What steps does the government propose to take to deal with the rapidly increasing amount of trafficking in Canadian import quotas which is taking place in Japan and other low cost exporting countries, creating a new class of millionaire Asian speculators at the expense of Canadian consumers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regretfully have to advise the hon. member, in spite of all the exercise he had completed prior to his asking the question, that his question is phrased in such a way that it would normally invite a statement that should be made on motions. Unless the hon. member is prepared to rephrase his question, I suggest it is not acceptable.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in that case I ask the minister whether the government has taken any steps to deal with this situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the existence of quotas in Japan is well known. When I became the minister there were 120. They cut off 20 about a year ago. Last week the Ambassador of Japan wrote me that they were cutting off 10 more, including the quota on whiskey, about which we are pleased. The administration of quotas in Japan is not really my preoccupation. I assume it to be the exclusive responsibility of the Japanese government. However, as an exercise in academic intelligence I will look into the problem and report fully to my hon. friend.
January 15, 1971



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the vast work that is being done by his department in the Atlantic provinces and the expertise that is allegedly being shown by his staff, and in view of the fact that another 200 employees have been laid off by General Instruments Corporation of Sydney, manufacturers of electronic components, what is he prepared to do in respect of the provision of his officers to this corporation and to the workers who have been laid off to assist them in getting back to work?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not familiar with that particular case. I presume that the services of different departments of the federal government have already been offered or used, but I will look into this immediately.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the diligent and conscientious Minister of Public Works. In light of his recent statement exalting the virtues of a permanent Northumberland causeway, can he advise whether he and his colleagues are now reconsidering the government's decision to repudiate its commitment to go ahead with that important project?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have some knowledge of an initiative being taken by the province of Prince Edward Island. I have indicated to my people that I would like them to find out for me what success Prince Edward Island is having in encouraging private enterprise in that area. We would like to know what they have in mind. It is our intention to enter into discussion with the province as soon as possible.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I might ask the minister whether he does not consider that the resources of the government of Canada are a little more ample than those of Prince Edward Island?



POLLUTION


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he in a position to answer a question I posed earlier this week regarding the slag dump fire at Springhill?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a question about the Springhill slag dump fire. I had an inquiry made into the matter and I find that the inquiry by the officials of my department is not yet complete. It is the intention at. the present time that this is not to be a public inquiry and that the results of the inquiry will not be made a public document but will be made known to the Nova Scotia government.



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to ask the Government House Leader, having in mind the statement made a few days ago by his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to the effect that consideration is being given to the introduction of legislation in the field of cigarette advertising and disease. Will such legislation be placed before us prior to the Easter recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definite assurance that such legislation will be before the House before Easter. It will depend on the progress made on present legislation and the priorities that have been established.



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Government House Leader. In view of his contribution before the recess in which he exercised good judgment and also protected the President of the Treasury Board by withdrawing the legislation concerning the Auditor General, I wonder whether he would exercise the same good judgment and protect the young Solicitor General by withdrawing the Young Offenders Bill?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Gordon Rifchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is a formal report being commissioned by the government on the use of the army and its role in civil riots and emergencies such as the emergency that occurred recently so as to have an assessment of its use in the future in similar situations?

January 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Not exactly a formal report, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned in the House several times, there has been an evaluation by mobile command and air transport command of their participation in the recent emergency. I would expect that the results might be included in discussions of the aid to the civil power aspect of the defence white paper.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the affable and somewhat overworked Minister of Transport. In view of the concern expressed over irregularities in the use by some airlines of enormous amounts of funds received from air charter flight groups, is the minister planning any regulations that would prevent a carrier defaulting before the trip or failing to show up to bring back passengers from a charter flight?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of air charters and the regulation of them is now under active consideration both within Canada and internationally. I might add as an aside that we are also engaged in bilateral negotiations with the United States on the question of protection of passengers. A few days ago I indicated in the House that we do have regulations under the Canadian Transport Commission requiring that protection be provided but these at the present time are the cause and source of some difficulties which were referred to in the House a few days ago.



PUBLIC WORKS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is really supplementary to a question asked a moment ago by the hon. member for Hillsborough. It will be directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the increased interest by the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island in the construction of the Northumberland Causeway, has either of these governments requested from the federal government assistance in the planning stage or possible financial assistance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally aware of this but will make inquiries.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I directed a question to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like to pose it now to the minister. Would he make a statement on motions on the natural gas blowout on King Christian Island which has now meant a loss of over four billion cubic feet of natural gas and is having a serious ecological effect on Canada's northlamd?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House immediately.
They have not yet succeeded in putting out the fire involved. It is hoped, I have been told, that the digging of the supplementary well undertaken in order to put out the fire will be completed shortly, and that the first efforts aimed at the definite control of the fire may be undertaken next week.



POST OFFICE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Post Office. Will the new program in respect of special mail boxes for first class mail guarantee delivery the next day of all early afternoon mailings, and how will this square with five days a week delivery?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I were not led to deliver today the whole speech I have to make in Toronto on Monday.
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-185, to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
January 15, 1971


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before we start detailed consideration of Bill C-185 and the amendments it is to make to the Crop Insurance Act, I feel it would be useful to briefly summarize the background of that act, emphasizing its objectives and its achievements to date.
The original Crop Insurance Act, enacted in 1959, provided for government financial assistance to provincial crop insurance programs, provided they met certain standards.
Initially, the criteria were that guaranteed protection remained below 60 per cent of the average long-term production for the crop insured, in the particular region, with total premiums adequate to justify the program from the actuarial point of view. In the case of programs conforming to such criteria, the federal government paid 50 per cent of the costs to the province of the administration of the premiums, plus an amount equal to 20 per cent of paid premiums. The act also enabled the federal government to make loans to the provinces for those years when benefits greatly exceeded premiums and reserves. A deduction of $200,000 was provided in this instance.
In 1964, the act was amended in order to enable the federal government to re-insure provincial plans, in addition to the loans to which I have just referred. In this connection, the province pays a premium to the federal government and, in return, the latter assumes 75 per cent of the losses incurred by the province.
Again, the act was amended in 1966. This time the purpose was to extend its application in order to insure perennial plants and fruit trees, and also summer-fallowed land which could not be seeded because of climatic conditions. But even more important probably was the better protection that provinces may provide, since it was increased from 60 per cent, as it was in the beginning, to 80 per cent, as well as the 5 per cent increase of the federal contribution, which was raised from 20 to 25 per cent of total premiums paid.
So, the act guarantees presently to the provinces offering a crop insurance program deemed sound by actuaries, and covering losses up to 80 per cent or less, federal assistance amounting to 50 per cent of the administration costs, plus a contribution equal to 25 per cent of total premiums paid. The expenditures of the Department of Agriculture for crop insurance now amount to five million dollars yearly. Estimates show that this figure will increase to approximately seven and a half million dollars within the next three years.

Let me turn for a moment to the current status of the program. How have the farmers of Canada received this program? How has it worked? At the present time, eight of the ten provinces have active programs covering crops such as potatoes, wheat, oats, barley, mixed grains, grain corn, forage, silage, tobacco, soya beans, white beans, flax, rapeseed, yellow mustard seed, sugar beets, apples,
Crop Insurance Act
peaches, pears, apricots, primes, plums, cherries, grapes, strawberries, raspberries, cranberries, logan berries, blue berries, strawberry plants, grape vines and fruit trees.
With the exception of last year when coverage was aected by the Lift program, the total numbers of farmers involved in the program across Canada and the amount of coverage provided has increased significantly each year. In 1968-69 some 64,376 farmers purchased crop insurance coverage totalling just under $175 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I must bring to the attention of hon. members who are obviously having interesting conversations that it is difficult for some of us to follow the Parliamentary Secretary's speech.


Marcel Lessard: Premiums paid that year amounted to over $13 million, and indemnities paid out were in excess of $15 million. The actuarial soundness of the program to date is probably best demonstrated by the fact that from the time the program commenced up until the end of last year, the loss ratio was .97; that is, for every dollar that was paid into the program, whether by farmers, by the federal government or in some cases by provincial governments, 97 cents was paid out to farmers in indemnities.
During the current year the program within the province of Prince Edward Island was used by 216 farmers who took out $602,000 coverage. In Nova Scotia some 340 farmers took out just over $800,000 coverage. In Quebec, 12,000 farmers took out $29 million coverage. In Ontario the figures were approximately 4,200 farmers with a coverage of just over $9 million. In Manitoba, which was the first province to introduce the program, some 14,200 farmers had $27 million worth of coverage. In Saskatchewan, 9,000 farmers had $16 million coverage. In Alberta, just under 13,000 farmers had $32 million coverage, and in British Columbia, 810 farmers had just under $8 million coverage. Since this program has been started, indemnities paid to farmers have totalled $47 million.

Mr. Speaker, in enacting this legislation, the federal government recognizes the importance of social and economic benefits deriving from farm income stability. Although it deals with only one aspect of farm revenues, it is likely the one that causes the most inequities between the operations and the damages in particular cases, namely heavy crop losses caused by meteorological conditions and other unfavourable circumstances such as, for example, damages caused by insects, wild animals or birds. Income stability is an economic advantage not only for the farmer himself but also for all those who deal with him and for his fellow-citizens. Even if farm research and progressive technology have largely contributed to the solution of problems occasioned by diseases and other factors that have a bearing on yields, inevitable and unforeseen disasters will continue to hit farm revenues with the same frequency as in the past. Therefore, an all-encompassing insurance program, easy to apply, is of increasing importance for the farmer

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
because he is more and more dependent upon it in respect of the costs involved in purchasing the items needed for implementation of his production program.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Crop Insurance Act to provide for contributions to insurance programs which will cover losses of preplanting costs. On occasion, due to wet weather or other similar conditions, farmers are unable to plant a crop which they intended to plant and in which they have already made investments, such as preparation of the land, the purchase of plants, and the application of fertilizer. As the crop insurance program is expanded to a greater variety of crops, this type of problem becomes more important. Such losses could include investments made both in the previous fall as well as prior to seeding in the spring.
Both Ontario and Manitoba have indicated that they would like to be able to offer insurance against this type of loss.

In the past, the losses mentioned previously were covered to some extent, for instance, in the case of fallows which remained unsown because of excessive rain. These special provisions with respect to fallows will be extended and integrated into the new sections of the act.
There naturally will be conditions to be met by the insured who will undertake to sign a permanent and valid insurance contract since the hazards to be covered are liable to occur beyond the growing period.
This provision is seen as a new step of ever increasing importance with regard to the protection of the capital invested by the farmer for crop purposes.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: At the outset, I should like very much indeed to compliment the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Les-sard), on his presentation this morning and the manner in which the detail of this legislation was given to us. 1 wish to compliment him because it is a tremendous responsibility that has been delegated to him by his minister. However, I feel that it is unfortunate indeed, on a measure of this importance dealing with the entire agricultural industry, that the minister himself was not able to be present in the House.
Crop insurance is becoming ever more serious and of ever greater interest to the farmers across this nation. Experiences in the past have proven that the reimbursement for the drastic losses suffered by farmers every year in various regions cannot be obtained through representation directly to their municipal, provincial or federal governments. In my own particular area in southwestern Ontario, we suffered a very severe hardship as a result of weather over a year ago. Although representatives of the various governments visited the area and saw at first hand the tremendous losses of crops and money suffered by the farmers in the area, some of whom have not yet recovered and will take years to recover, and although at that time assurances were given that financial aid would be immediately sent to reimburse them,
farmers have learned from bitter experience that when it comes to receiving cash for their losses it is almost impossible to obtain it by grants or loans. So, they are turning ever more to the sound business practice of insuring their crops in order to have a legal claim when they have suffered grievously in circumstances over which they have no control.
I am very delighted indeed to see that the government is proposing this amendment in Bill C-185 to the Crop Insurance Act because I think that had this particular provision been in it at the time, the farmers in our area and others who suffered grievous losses could have recouped at least their initial expenditures on the crops that were destroyed. This is what the government should be trying to do. It should make it possible for farmers, when such conditions arise, to recover their losses, and not be placed in a precarious economic position. However, there are some difficulties with legislation such as we have before us.
One of the difficulties is that it is a joint effort between provincial and federal administrations. We have different applications of the measure in each of the provinces. It is at the prerogative of the provinces whether they wish to participate in it or not. There is joint responsibility with the federal government. In such matters, it is always difficult to act immediately to change apparent weaknesses.
Another thing which complicates a measure such as this is the fact that Canada is made up of a series of regions whose crops and crop conditions vary greatly from coast to coast. Thus, it is difficult to get an all-encompassing piece of legislation which will provide insurance with respect to all the agricultural commodities involved. This is the reason there has been some delay in changing the act, and why there has been a rather go slow attitude in trying to bring other crops under the umbrella of protection that is provided.
We have specialized crops in my particular area of Ontario. The same is true in British Columbia, in the prairies, in the Maritimes and also in Quebec. There are local areas specializing in certain agribusiness, and means will have to be found to provide insurance for their crops. Even if such crops are now covered the producers find that the premiums they must pay are so high that it is almost impossible for them to take advantage of the legislation.
We should look at the measure in the light of the in-put expenses now faced by farmers, expenses which are ever increasing, and which are at a level never contemplated years ago. If many farmers ten years ago had any idea of the actual in-put costs with which they would be faced in the 1970's, they would have gone out of the agricultural business, retrieved as much of their capital as possible, and put it into investments that would give them a greater return on their money. The fact that only 64,000 farmers out of approximately 400,000 to 500,000 have taken advantage of crop insurance gives some idea of the magnitude of the problem, and of the necessity of making the legislation more encompassing.

January 15, 1971

There is another aspect to which more attention should be given. As was so ably explained by the Parliamentary Secretary, the basic principle of crop insurance is to return to farmers at least 65 per cent of their normal expected earnings in cases where disaster strikes. This is confined strictly to weather conditions, or things legally termed acts of God. However, there is another large field which must be examined. In my area during the last few years we have experienced situations where a crop was produced by a farmer in good faith, delivered to a food processor, and due to business malpractice on the part of the processor, or to bankruptcy, the farmer not only lost the value of the crop but all the expenses he had incurred in planting and harvesting it. Here, Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking of small amounts of money. Thousands of dollars were involved in the case of some farmers.
Farmers, farm organizations and parliamentary representatives have been very much aware of the serious nature of this problem. Many attempts have been made to see if something could be done about it. A prime example was the private bill introduced by our colleague from Essex, I believe in 1963, the purpose of which was to place the farmer in a preferred position whenever a canner or food processor became bankrupt. That was a good attempt to protect the primary producer. Although the bill's intent was sound, unfortunately it did not protect the farmer and it seems it could not protect him under certain circumstances. Now, we find once again that the farmer must seek legal redress, with little hope of reclaiming the grievous losses he has suffered.
I suggest that the government should give serious consideration to the possibility of extending crop insurance to cover losses suffered by farmers in such circumstances. Inasmuch as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out that the actual loss suffered by the government to date in the funding of crop insurance has been minimal, I suggest here is an opportunity for us to provide, through legislation, a more complete crop insurance service to farmers. What I am suggesting may be complicated, and there may be valid reasons why it cannot be put into operation at this time, but I do encourage hon. members, and especially those who support the government, to see when the bill goes to committee if it is feasible to propose yet another amendment making it possible for farmers to obtain redress when their crops are lost in this fashion.
There are other circumstances under which farmers can lose. Here, I am not dealing with mismanagement or malpractice, but with conditions over which they have no control, weather conditions and the actions of other sections of agribusiness which cause grievous loss. What I am suggesting is not out of line, because very definite steps have been taken by various governments to protect the agribusiness in this fashion. I am speaking now of bills that have been passed by the House to protect primary producers when there is loss of crop through government seizure because of the presence of residue chemicals which make the crop unfit for human consumption.
Crop Insurance Act
Another prime example is that of reimbursement by the government in cases where animals are destroyed as a result of contagious diseases. So, we have taken steps in this direction, and I propose that we continue taking them, because farmers today are faced with the necessity of making tremendous investments, not to expand their businesses necessarily, but just to keep them operating. Having read the history of farming in this great land, I have learned that, not too long ago, farmers paid for their implements and residences less than farmers of today pay in interest on their chemicals and seed. That shows how necessary it is to make available large sums of money for crop protection. Like others engaged in industry, farmers, if they so desire, may now obtain insurance protection which will compensate them against loss. Certainly, anyone engaged in the industry of agriculture is as much entitled to this protection as others who wish to protect their business investment.
So, I support wholeheartedly this measure as well as the amendment brought in by the government. If I have any criticism at all, it is that we are not moving fast enough in this direction. During the committee stage discussions, we ought to consider other means, which are similar to this measure, of helping farmers directly. I appreciate the opportunity I have had this morning of discussing briefly some of the ramifications of the bill. My colleagues will deal with it in more detail. May I take this opportunity of congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary and the minister upon this measure.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this measure may I say that I think the government is quite right in proposing the extensions in coverage proposed in this bill. I regret that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is not in the House to pilot the bill through and hear what is said. It is an important measure. I mean no disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard) who, as we all know from our experience in the standing committee, is a most competent and able man. I hope that the minister's absence does not in any way indicate the importance the minister may attach to crop insurance.
The particular changes with regard to the flooding of land are important for many areas of Canada. They are important for western Canada and, in particular, for Saskatchewan. Normally, Saskatchewan is considered a dry province; yet there have been years when significant areas of a farmer's land were under water, and stayed under water until it was too late for him to plant a crop. None the less, even in those cases, the farmer has had to cultivate that land when it has dried. He has had to control the weeds. In short, quite apart from the expense of seed and fertilizer, he has been saddled with the total expense of managing that land, because his capital costs continue, as do his cultivation costs. Indeed, in those cases they might be greater.
I must say that the part of the bill referring to the further protection of those engaged in fruit growing is

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
outside my scope. I hope that some of my colleagues who are closer to that kind of operation will comment on it. there is one thing that I should like to take the opportunity of saying about this bill and about the program now being considered by the House. This program will lack effectiveness in a major part of the wheat growing area of Saskatchewan and, indeed, throughout the prairie region. The figures published in the annual report of the Minister for the fiscal year 1968-69 under the Crop Insurance Act show this very clearly. I am surprised that the government has not given more consideration to improving the act, so that it might provide more effective coverage.
According to the report, the number of farmers covered in the relevant period in Saskatchewan was 12,343. Although I do not have exact figures, I think that that number represents about one sixth of the number of operating farmers in that province. We must surely ask ourselves, as must the government, why it is that a crop insurance program which has been in force as long as this one is only serving that small number of farmers in that province of western Canada which contains the largest agricultural area west of the Great Lakes. If the government does not know, then, perhaps in a general way, I can tell them. One of the major reasons stems from the basis on which crop yields are established. The basis on which a farmer must take out crop insurance is the basis of his previous yields. In going back over the period of previous yields, the yield average that is established is so low that it is of no advantage to the farmer to insure with respect to that level of yield. In other words, the program establishes a level of yield on which the insurance shall be based that is so low as to be tantamount to or very close to the yield in a crop failure. That is the real reason crop insurance has not been as effective as it might have been in the prairie regions, and in Saskatchewan in particular.
I have attended meetings held under the auspices of municipalities at which farmers examined very carefully this whole program on an actuarial basis and decided that they could not avail themselves of the program. Indeed, most of west central Saskatchewan is excluded from the plan. The provincial government has not brought a great deal of west central Saskatchewan into this program; neither has it taken steps to bringing that area. I do not particularly lay the blame at the door of the province alone; I lay it at the door of the provincial and federal governments, those who are administering the plan and those whose responsibility it is to make the plan an effective instrument for the farmers of western Canada and, indeed, of all Canada.
Again, if you look at the figures, you will see a large and continuing increase in coverage in some areas, but not in other areas. We must ask ourselves why that is so. We must assume that farmers in one area are as anxious to obtain crop insurance protection as farmers of another area. I therefore urge the minister, and I am saying this to his Parliamentary Secretary in his absence, to take the necessary steps to undertake an investigation in order that this may become an effective insurance program benefiting the majority of farmers.
[Mr. Gleave.l
I wish to now deal with the proposals of the task force on agriculture. Hopefully, the government will not accept these proposals. However, they deserve comment. In part, they provide some guidance. The task force recommends that an independent body be appointed by the National Agriculture Advisory Council, which does not as yet exist, to evaluate the actuarial structure of the crop insurance program in Canada and to make the results of such an evaluation known annually at the proposed national conference outlined elsewhere in this report.
I do not know whether there is a need for an annual review. Perhaps there is. The task force thought there was a need. There is certainly need for a review of this program by competent people. The majority of these people should be from farm organizations and provincial bodies. They should assess the total program as it is affecting farmers. The task force recommended:
In 1975 a Federal-provincial committee should appoint an independent body to make a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the crop insurance program and, in particular, to recommend on whether or not the current subsidy should be continued.
Apparently the task force was as concerned about the subsidy as anything else. It is significant that two of the recommendations of the task force placed emphasis on an evaluation of this program to determine how well it was working. I will not go into the body of the report because there is not time. However, this should indicate to the government that this program should be carefully evaluated. The task force also recommended:
The immediate discontinuance of the PFAA program.
I do not think that the PFAA program should be discontinued until there is an effective replacement. We should not seriously consider discontinuing the PFAA program because the crop insurance program is not an effective instrument to replace it. It is not workable in much of the area where crop insurance is required.
In Saskatchewan, crop insurance is used in the area with the highest yields and the best crop production record. It is not used in areas where the greatest crop variations occur from year to year. I do not believe it would be possible to discontinue the PFAA program at this time. I quote another recommendation of the task force:
The equivalent of the annual subsidy paid to the PFAA program by the Federal Government should be allocated to the financing of the Prairie Grain Price Stabilization Program.
In this recommendation, I feel that the task force is confusing apples with oranges. The PFAA program is a very rough and ready crop insurance program. The wheat stabilization program, as outlined by the minister responsible for the wheat board, is an income stabilization program, not a crop insurance program. Similarly, a crop insurance program is not a full income stabilization program. I mention this because these recommendations were made by the task force. I hope the government will ignore this particular recommendation. The PFAA pro-
January 15, 1971

gram should not be discontinued until we have an adequate crop insurance program. The government has no right to use that levy for any other purpose.
It has already been mentioned that those responsible for the crop insurance program should investigate the input costs and increased costs of production. When this program was introduced there was a much lower level of fertilizers, chemicals and other aids being used by farmers. This has caused increased costs and increased yields. If a crop insurance program is to be effective, it must take into account the rapidly changing technology in agriculture. If the costs and yields are affected, then the basis for a crop insurance program is affected. The program is based on yield return. In order to estimate the pay-out, we must consider the farmers cost of production. If this is to be an effective instrument in disaster areas, we must pay out enough money to cover the cost of production so that the farmer can carry on the next year. Surely, that is the purpose of the program. However, this aspect is not being given consideration.
Instead of considering the average yield for the past 10 years, we would get a better picture if we considered the actual yields in west central and central Saskatchewan. I suggest that those responsible should examine the studies made by Mr. Craddock recently with regard to cereal production in western Canada. I was surprised to read his conclusions with regard to yields compared with what we assumed were the yields in that area. This is fundamental to a crop insurance program.
These are the main points I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that the proposal to make the PFAA program part of the income stabilization program should be avoided. The income stabilization program, as outlined, has some serious shortcomings. I will not deal with the matter at great length because there will probably be an opportunity to do so in the future. My main reason for speaking was the task force report. Since the government is apparently implementing some major parts of the recommendations of the task force, I wish to issue a warning with regard to proposals of this report as they affect crop insurance. The problems that would occur with the stabilization program should not bring into disrepute the practice of a deduction opportunity in certain areas in order to facilitate a crop insurance program. Indeed, I have wondered why those who administer this program have not tried to integrate it with PFAA deductions and the acreage insurance program. Perhaps this has not been done because it is not possible, actuarially, to do so. I have no way of knowing. But I have wondered why no attempt has been made, particularly in grain-growing regions, to work these two programs together and make an effective program which would serve, say, 90 per cent of the farmers, or at least all those who want a viable crop insurance program, as many do.
It really does not make much sense in this region to pay out hundred of dollars a year for hail insurance, for example, when hail is only one of the risks to be faced.
Crop Insurance Act
The ordinary operating farmer really has no other crop insurance. It is true he is paying into PFAA which may come along with a maximum of $800 should he encounter trouble-a sum which is of no practical value at all to a man farming over 1,000 acres. Yet, we are limping along with a second rate approach of this kind. The farmer pays into PFAA at the rate of 1 per cent of the total value of the grain he sends to the elevator. Maybe he buys hail insurance. The cost of this would vary with the cover, but on 1,000 acres it would probably cost between 60 cents and a dollar an acre. PFAA will not pay enough money to be significant in the case of large operations such as we have in Saskatchewan. True, a farmer may carry hail insurance, but there are other risks such as frost, drought or a late harvest which can greatly reduce the value of a crop. So, farmers are paying out on two fronts, yet they do not have adequate crop insurance against the risks they ordinarily encounter. I have mentioned only a few of these risks. Where the crop is rape seed, insect pests can destroy it in whole or in part. Some of our crops can be substantially damaged by rust. Against all these major risks, we are protecting only some 12,000 farmers in the province of Saskatchewan.
The minister brings down a bill which is concerned about land coming under flood. Very fine. I do not know what proportion of our land comes under flood in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta, what fraction of one per cent it is. But it is proper to be concerned about it. I am saying to the minister that it is about time he got together with responsible people in the prairie provinces to work out an effective crop insurance program, put it in the form of a bill and bring it before the House so that it could be properly debated. Then, proper crop insurance could be made available to the majority of farmers in western Canada.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the bill now before us, an Act to amend the Crop Insurance Act.
I should perhaps at this stage quote a few passages from the bill, and in particular paragraph (b) of subsection (1):
(b) loss arising when the seeding or planting of a crop is prevented by excess ground moisture, weather or other agricultural hazards.
These changes would increase the extra coverage now offered under the Crop Insurance Act by extending it to the loss incurred when excess ground moisture, weather or other agricultural hazards prevent the seeding or planting of a crop.
I wish first to emphasize that the crop insurance plan is an excellent initiative from the federal government. I think that this insurance program has greatly helped and will continue to assist farmers who were victims of bad weather which can totally or partly ruin their crop. Perhaps this is not sure since this bill as it was and is today covers only 80 per cent of a potential or insured loss, of the independant factor of production and sales possibilities of the cultivated product.

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
In my view, the previous bill was not perfect and I would go as far as saying that it was merely a rather rough sketch of a measure intended to really help the Canadian farmer.
It was better than nothing, Mr. Speaker. The legislation we had in the past required the farmer to be the coinsurer of a portion of the loss of his crop. I think the principle involved is wrong.
The amendment it is sought to bring about through Bill C-185 specifically indicates that subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of section 5A is to be replaced by the following:
"(ii) in the case of a loss described in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), eighty per cent of the average cost of such of the following operations as have been carried out, namely:
(A) summer-fallowing of the land, (B) cultivating the land, (C) fertilizing the land, (D) purchasing plants for transplanting, and (E) other preparation for seeding or planting a crop;"
This joint insurance is tantamount to penalizing the farmer by a minimum of 20 per cent of his crop by way of payment due or accepted by the government. Furthermore, in view of the complexity of loss assessment, the farmer can even lose up to 40 or 50 per cent of potential reimbursements provided by the act under the crop insurance plan.
Mr. Speaker, when an inspector visits a potential plantation or a piece of land for potential crop seeding, that, I believe is when application of the whole act becomes complex. Whether or not the new bill covers excess ground moisture, will possible irrigation be taken into account? Will it take into consideration the state of the farmer in name only or that of the man who really works his land and expects a maximum yield?
I also suggest there are several important weaknesses in the bill as it is now stands concerning crop insurance.
For example, if a farmer gives his farm good care in order to get the maximum yield per acre, if he practices irrigation in a well planned and satisfactory manner, if he uses chemical fertilizers or other organic matter in sufficient quantities to increase his production per acre, all these factors should be covered by the legislation.
Unfortunately, I must say in support of the member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) that the former act was not precise enough with regard to these conditions. No mention was made, any more than in the present one, of the production of the land owned by the farmer and cultivated by him, in the last three, four or five years. Yet, that is decidedly the determining factor in establishing the possibility of a loss, or evaluating the loss the act should cover.
And so, that farmer will receive the same indemnity as his neighbor who has lost everything because he manages his farm haphazardly, who has a hard time getting even a meagre crop, compared to the other who manages for instance, to get two crops of hay a year, or even three.
I feel we should assess the amount of the loss, not according to what is seeded, but by evaluationg the annual profit per acre of the land insured, and this on the basis of the average for the last three, four or five years.
I also feel that Bill C-185, which is meant to be a forerunner of notable advances in the crop insurance plan, by paying indemnities to victims of crop losses before planting if the weather is not favourable and the soil not adequate for good production due to factors beyond the farmer's control, is not profitable to the latter because it places him in the position of co-insurer of his own crop.
I do not like to see the farmer penalized at the start by at least 20 per cent of his possible crop returns on account of bad weather which is beyond his control. I understand that in the case of automobile and public liability insurance or any other type of insurance, the insured becomes co-insurer in certain cases of his eventual loss because he has probably a share of responsibility and this is often due to negligence on his part or to factors which can generally be controlled by the insured.
The farmer is in no way responsible for the weather or the damage done to his crop. I think that is why section 5A(3) (b) (ii) of the present legislation reads as follows:
-eighty per cent of the average cost of summer-fallowing the land;
Besides, Section 5A(1) (b) states:
-loss arising when the seeding of summer-fallowed land intended to be used to grow an insured crop is prevented by excess ground moisture, weather or other agricultural hazards.
It is always 80 per cent to start.
To conclude, I must say that Bill C-185 is far from perfect for the reasons explained above, but I admit it is a step forward and an improvement for the Canadian farmer.
I therefore support the bill but with great reservations. [English]


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks about the amendment introduced in respect of crop insurance. This is not a contentious matter. The need for this amendment is apparent as a result of our experience earlier this spring when many areas of western Canada were flooded and it was doubtful that crops could be put in at various locations. As a result, the government initiated the Lift Program. There was some concern about the reduction of wheat acreage.
Much of this land which had been in summer fallow and normally would have been sown was under water. Because of the shortened season, it was unreasonable to expect farmers to put in crops. Had they done so they would have run the risk of not being able to harvest their crops before frost set in. The government was particularly concerned at that time with insurance coverage because of the knowledge that many farmers would not


January 15, 1971

be able to make a living or get any revenue from their land. I congratulate the government in this regard.
This crop insurance plan was initiated some 10 or 11 years ago. With the knowledge we have gained since then, we can take a closer look at the situation and perhaps come up with amendments which will make it possible for a greater number of farmers to participate. I was surprised when I first looked up the records to find that only 53,000 farmers in the whole of Canada participated in the crop insurance program.
I think everyone agrees with the principle of insurance in one form or another. Very few people would go without fire insurance and the like. Similarly, when it comes to a question of personal income, and where livelihood is derived from farming, an insurance program is extremely important. No one will argue against the need for crop insurance legislation. Promotion of this program has been lax. Not enough initiative has been taken by the federal or provincial governments. These governments should do a great deal more to sell this idea to the farmers.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair. The House will meet again at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, before we rose at one o'clock, I was trying to point out that even though the crop insurance legislation has been in effect for over ten years there have been relatively few farmers in Canada who have participated. I realize that in the initial stage it was necessary that one should gain some experience in this respect. At that time, some provincial governments were reluctant to enter a plan in respect of which they had no experience. I well remember some of the arguments that were raised. Some suggestion was made that perhaps a provincial government could become bankrupt if there should be a series of crop failures in a particular province. Since then, amendments have been introduced whereby loans could be provided to provinces. I believe this, to some extent, has eliminated that particular criticism.
Before I venture too far into some of the remarks I wish to make, I might raise a question with which either the Parliamentary Secretary or someone else speaking in reply might like to deal. I refer to the matter of whether this particular amendment would require that the same rules which had been in existence before would apply or whether the total amount of flooded land might be considered separately from other cultivated land in calculating any award to farmers who have crop insurance.
Crop Insurance Act
When the plan was first introduced, there was a fair amount of enthusiasm in many provinces. Perhaps this was enthusiasm from people who were willing to learn about schemes with which they were not too familiar. On looking back at some of the annual reports on the province of Saskatchewan for the year 1961, one finds there were around 118 municipalities which indicated that they wanted a study carried out in their municipalities to see whether a particular plan might not work in their area.
Of course, in its infancy the administration was not capable of coping with some of these problems because naturally the staff was inexperienced and inadequate. In addition, they only had a limited time during which to solve these problems. In subsequent years, such as in 1961, many farmers in western Canada would have gladly participated in the program because the awards that would have been made would have helped to stave off the slump in the economy of western Canada at that time and might have tided us over.
We have had similar experiences in other years. Three years ago we had a severe frost, particularly in the northern part of Saskatchewan. This was another time when I saw completely frozen crops. Following that year, the Saskatchewan pool invited representatives from all parties to attend their meetings. At that time members of all parties in the House had an opportunity to visit some of these areas which could have had a tremendous 40 million bushel crop. There was every appearance of a good crop; the stand was big, the heads appeared to be well formed, but when you shelled them out you found they were frozen in the flower stage. Insurance in this case would have proved of enormous benefit.
After 10 or 11 years we find that, despite all that can be said for crop insurance, only a small percentage of farmers in Canada have taken advantage of it. Either the Parliamentary Secretary or the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) indicated that some 12,000 farmers in Saskatchewan had participated. He based his comments on the report that is available. I checked the number of farmers who participated last year, and I find that there was a decrease of some 3,000 in Saskatchewan. I think that perhaps there may be a reason for this decline. Last year was a particularly critical year financially in western Canada. Many farmers were cutting down on expenses wherever they could. For example, they cut down on fertilizers or on insurance. Perhaps this was not wise, but it enabled them to carry on their farming operation. As a result of the lack of cash in western Canada last year, there was a drop from the
12.000	farmers who participated the previous year to
9.000	last year. If this is a continuing trend, I imagine we will be struggling hard to get them back.
In addition to the fact that there were fewer farmers participating-a decrease of 25 per cent from those who participated the previous year-another factor must be taken into consideration. Among the farmers who had participated in the scheme by making a payment of

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
approximately $1 or $1.25 per acre, many reduced their coverage to 50 cents an acre. This was done for several reasons. The first and foremost was to cut down on the premium, and perhaps this was the deciding factor. The second reason was that many of them would have liked to continue the insurance program but elected to stay in it only at the lowest possible rate in order to avoid paying into the PFAA program. As any farmer in western Canada knows, this was a deduction that might be levied as part of any future elevator charge. While many farmers are searching for a group insurance scheme, I think they would like to get out of the PFAA program.
As I look at the map indicating the areas in which Saskatchewan has participated, I am sorry to see that to this date Saskatchewan has been slow in promoting the idea of crop insurance. There may be several reasons for this with which I would like to deal briefly. On looking at the map, one finds that the eastern half of the province, outside of certain pockets that may be excluded, is by and large included in any kind of plan, but the number of participants in this particular area may be very small. This is a sad fact because out of a total of about 180,000 to 190,000 farmers in the three provinces only about
35,000	farmers are participating. This is a sad state of affairs, particularly in view of the fact that Manitoba has joined in the scheme quite substantially. There is another very valid reason for this low level of participation. Perhaps this is the fault of the provincial administration. On looking back, I see that the 1961 report indicates that at least 118 municipalities wished an analysis of some kind to be carried out regarding the need for crop insurance.
According to the latest available report, I find that only 60 agencies exist in the whole province of Saskatchewan. This is ridiculous because everybody knows that insurance is not usually bought without a push to sell it. Anyone who has had any experience in buying insurance knows full well that there have been times when he has been talked into buying insurance and been happy about it simply because somebody made the effort to sell it to him, perhaps for a reward or on a commission. However, the point is that the fine details have been explained. This is one of the reasons there was such limited participation in Saskatchewan.
If one looks at the map and draws a straight line down from Prince Albert to Moose Jaw, one sees that the eastern half of the province can be said to have participated in general, but the western half, outside of the Saskatchewan River area around Rosetown, is participating only in a very limited way. Although the area may be shaded on the map, this does not necessarily mean that there are very many farmers who participate. In fact there may be only half a dozen farmers participating. The reason is that there are not sufficient agents. The provincial government administration in our part of the country is at fault by not allowing many of the other areas to participate if they wish.
When I look at some areas, I find that one agent may have to cover six municipalities. Unless he does a lot of
travelling he cannot do a good job of selling crop insurance in the area. I realize what happens in these cases. Somebody applies for the job, and the usual kind of thing takes place. They pick out an applicant and see if he is the right political shade. But even though he may be the right political shade, if he is gainfully occupied in some other activity, in business or farming, this cuts down on the time he has available for selling crop insurance. Usually, the agent will select a particular day to try to sell crop insurance coverage. It may be the day when an auction sale is taking place, or a community picnic. Then, he will try to see how many farmers he can convince to take out crop insurance. That is a sorry attempt to sell coverage.
The minute disaster strikes, the provincial government is under the gun. The farmers are under financial pressure. They do not have the resources to fend for themselves. What is required is a full-time agent, although I do not suggest he should have no other source of income. However, Mr. Speaker, this is one area in which we are at fault.
As pointed out by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave), the rates of average yield established for many locations are away out of reason. All practising farmers know that the use of the long-term average is wrong, and after paying high premiums for several years they find that unless they have had a complete crop failure they do not qualify, so they stop thinking about participating in the plan. Generally speaking, the farmer who participates in the plan can be the best salesman for it. If it works to his advantage he will sell it to his neighbours. Farmers are willing to share their experiences with each other, and their experiences to date indicate that the method of calculation is all wrong. It is not advantageous to many farmers.
As I understand it, the Saskatchewan provincial scheme works on a 25 year average. Mr. Speaker, in 1945 we did not have some of the varieties of grain that we have today. How many farmers were using fertilizers in 1945? Some portions of my area were not even opened up in 1945. Consequently, there is no just way of basing accurate averages over 25 years. Take 1961 as a good example. Even in that year we did not have a total crop failure despite drought. We took off a crop because of the practices the farmers had followed, the fertilizers they had used, the new varieties of grain the had sown, and the modern machinery which was available. Thus, there is no reason for calculating the average on a 25 year basis. We would be better off if this were reduced to ten or 15 years, to something nearer reality.
Another reason many farmers do not participate in the crop insurance program is that they cannot raise enough money for the premium. If the premium is $200, a farmer may be hard pressed to raise the cash to take advantage of the program. Farmers realize the danger of being without crop insurance, but sometimes they do not see how they can spare $200 to participate. Thus, they will take a chance on doing without insurance rather than putting out money that they badly need for other things.
There is an element of compulsion in the 1 per cent deduction which is made at the elevators when a farmer

January 15, 1971

delivers his grain. Perhaps another method of premium payment could be worked out, with all the necessary deduction made at the elevators. If a farmer is willing to participate in crop insurance he could have 2 per cent, 3 per cent, or even 4 per cent and 5 per cent deducted at the elevators. It should be possible to work out such a schedule to cover his premium. I, myself, would be willing to allow a 5 per cent deduction at the elevator because it would be a small portion of the total amount that I would receive. This would avoid some administrative costs and red tape. Perhaps it could be operated in the same way as PFAA. To some extent, it is compulsory. Everybody participates.
Of course, the onus would be on the individual to select the type of coverage he wanted. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is true that the day of PFAA is coming to a close. I think it may have outlived its usefulness. In my region the area that was first willing to enter the plan was the northeastern part of Saskatchewan, but we always felt we might be contributing to the plan only to help some areas where the average yield was lower. For example, our yield has always been higher than that in the southwestern part of the province, and therefore PFAA has not worked to our advantage over a long period of years. It has worked to the advantage of the southwestern part of the province. Consequently, there may be reluctance on the part of the provincial government to move into that area. Crop insurance is gradually working its way west, although I find it difficult to accept the fact that it has taken 11 years to sell the plan. More flexibility in the method of paying premiums could bring about greater participation.
There is another reason for the lack of participation. The only three crops that can participate in crop insurance in the province of Saskatchewan are wheat, oats and barley. As everybody knows, there has been a diversification of farm products. Farmers have been growing rapeseed, yellow mustard, flax and other crops for which there is no coverage. There is no reason for that. If one crop can fail, so can another. If it can hail on wheat, it can also hail on rapeseed. I do not need to go outside my own experience to know that that is true. Yet, not only must farmers carry crop insurance, they must also carry hail insurance separately; I think that is stupid. Why should a farmer have to pay an additional premium for hail insurance? I imagine that many farmers do not bother with general crop insurance because in their area the incidence of hail is greater than in other areas. I am quite willing to have some percentage deducted from my deliveries to cover insurance; yet I ask, why should I need to take out two or three different kinds of insurance to cover my crop. If the idea of crop insurance is valid, and I think it is, then I say there is room for amendment in the present legislation.
I think we should do our best to urge the provinces to participate in this plan. According to the annual report of the Minister for the fiscal year 1968-69 under the Crop
Crop Insurance Act
Insurance Act, the only crops covered in Saskatchewan were wheat, oats, barley and mixed grains. Alberta provided insurance for wheat, oats, barley, mixed grains and peas grown for processing. I understand that there were plans in 1969 for the inclusion of rapeseed. In Saskatchewan, we have grown rapeseed over the years. Why has rapeseed not been included in that province, particularly in the north? I find this omission difficult to understand. In Manitoba the crops insured were wheat, oats, barley, mixed grains, flax, rapeseed, yellow mustard seed and sugar beets. Surely, the insurance program of that province is more in line with the sort of programs we ought to adopt everywhere. These figures pertain to 1969. I have not seen the figures for 1970. I also understand that in 1969 it was intended, in addition to grain and corn, to cover tomatoes for processing and potatoes. It seems to me that provincial governments bringing forward such programs were acting to meet the needs of their people.
For some reason or other we have been slow in Saskatchewan in moving to provide the type of protection which is needed, especially since we have been urged to diversify. I think governments could work out a plan that would to a large extent eliminate the operation of some of the hail insurance companies. Of course, individuals could still obtain individual coverage to meet their individual needs. I think that the exclusions in the bill render it unacceptable to many producers in the west. Hail comes down intermittently, a factor which farmers must consider. In addition, the growers of rapeseed must also consider that every 20 years some sort of blight settles on rapeseed. It follows a cycle of approximately 20 years; we cannot know the exact day when it will come. Nevertheless, I shall be unable to obtain coverage for my rapeseed. My hail insurance will not cover blight. Consequently, I must pay my premium for hail insurance and, if I want other crop insurance, I must pay an additional premium. As a result, I shall be forced to contribute to two or three insurance companies. They will collect premiums.
I shall also have to contribute to the government's insurance plan if I want protection. Nevertheless if my rapeseed crop is infested with beetles, or if some other disaster affects my yellow mustard or my flax crops, I will not be covered under this plan. That, to me, is reprehensible, and I do not think this should be so. That this can happen shows that there has been an oversight on the part of the government, and that there has been sheer negligence on the part of the relevant administration. I submit it is negligence, Mr. Speaker, because everyone knows that not only does the individual concerned in the disaster suffer agony but that the disaster affects not only that particular part of the country but the entire country.
I, therefore, welcome this amendment and wonder at the same time why the entire scheme should not be overhauled in conjunction with the provincial government. Surely, it would be of advantage if the federal government could talk to the provincial authorities and try to work out improvements to the act. After all, when disaster strikes, the first administration that you blame

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
or that you turn to is the federal administration. That is the administration that will provide the relief or welfare that may become necessary, in the event of a disaster, to tide the people concerned over their difficulties. I only hope that the administration in the province of Saskatchewan will take heed of the many comments which have been made here. Although we have not necessarily covered all the areas we ought to, nevertheless, as federal legislators-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words this afternoon on the crop insurance bill, which is a matter of great importance and concern to the people of Saskatchewan, my own province, as well as to all farmers across Canada. With respect to the amendments before the House this afternoon, I am sure that no hon. member can take objection to the provisions proposed in Bill C-185. Nevertheless, I think we have to examine some of these amendments within the framework of the performance and operation of this program to date, within the context of needs as they are developing within the agricultural and farming community at present, and in relation to new developments and new programs which may be considered either at present or some time in the future.
The Parliamentary Secretary in his remarks introducing this bill, outlined something of the history of the federal government's involvement and participation in crop insurance programs. That was a very useful background for the debate we have embarked on today and, of course, helped to set some matters in their context. Crop insurance has interested farmers across Canada and, particularly, in my province of Saskatchewan for a long time, partly because in my province there is a history of instability of production. That has been a characteristic of the agricultural industry in Saskatchewan. The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan pioneered crop insurance legislation. They started their crop insurance programs without complementary federal legislation or participation.
The province of Saskatchewan, for example, commenced its program in 1961. The program was started on a very limited scale that year. As a matter of fact, it turned out that farming and crop conditions that year were disastrous, and this helped to prove the need for a crop insurance program. When federal legislation was introduced, it was of some help. Yet it was also immediately recognized that there were serious limitations to the legislation. It took a number of years, as the Parliamentary Secretary outlined, before we saw legislation on a federal level which complemented and assisted provincial programs and which was in keeping with the requests made by the provincial governments. This afternoon, I should like to examine briefly three points which I think
are of concern and importance in dealing with this legislation.
First, why are more farmers not participating in this very important program? This point has already been raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski). They pointed out that for the last crop year for which reports are available, approximately 12,000 farmers in Saskatchewan participated in this program. Only
12.000	out of a total of 85,000 participated. That is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.
As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, there was a drop in the participation in the program last year. Only
9.000	farmers in Saskatchewan participated in the program. This was not because of a lack of interest on the part of the farmers. There are other causes which must be examined by both provincial and federal governments. The provincial and federal governments have a responsibility to examine this program to determine why farmers are not making greater use of it. Why is more use not being made of the program when there is such an obvious and great need?
In so far as my own province of Saskatchewan is concerned, a good deal of the blame can be laid at the doorstep of the provincial government of that province for not having pushed this program more in recent years. When the program was commenced in 1961 by the province of Saskatchewan, the province proceeded very cautiously. At that time, there was not the full participation that was required. As I already mentioned, the actions of the government of that day in proceeding very carefully in the initial stages of the program were well founded. They gained experience with the 1961 crop. If a widespread program had been in effect that year, the province would have been bankrupt.
At that time the program was new. Only the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan were involved in the program. They had to gain experience in the administration of the program. It was necessary for them to gather a body of actuarial data which was very vital to the development of the program. This experience and data was gathered over a period of several years. After five or six years operation, sufficient data was gathered. In the view of people with experience and competence in dealing with this program, it was possible to embark on a campaign to help bring about widespread participation by farmers. This was not done by the province of Saskatchewan. As a result, there has not been complete success. It certainly would have been possible to achieve much greater success than has been the case up to the present.
In addition to this particular defect in operations, it is necessary for both the provincial and federal governments to examine this program very carefully to try and determine what has to be done in order to bring about the degree of participation which is required if this pro-

January 15, 1971

gram is to be a success, and it it is to play a lull role in stabilizing the agricultural industry in Canada.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and the hon. member for Mackenzie have outlined the points which they feel should be taken into consideration in such an examination. I feel some of the points they have raised are valid for consideration and study. At this stage of the debate, I do not intend to deal with the specific points or to try and develop other points. I think they have done an adequate job. I simply wish to stress and underline the point that we do need a review and further study by the governments concerned.
Second, I wish to deal with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Some references have been made to the inadequacies of this program. Some suggestions have been made that it is time to eliminate this program. I have a great deal of sympathy with that suggestion. We should eliminate the PFAA program if it can be safely concluded that it is no longer playing a role which is essential within the framework of the agricultural industry. I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting scrapping this program without complementary action in terms of developing other programs such as the crop insurance program and the income stabilization program, which would ensure the degree of stability which we desire for the agricultural industry.
I recall when the PFAA program was introduced. I was only a boy at the time but I have heard a great deal of discussion about it. At that time, it was only a half-baked program and was very unsatisfactory. It was unacceptable to many farmers in western Canada at that time. Nevertheless, it was proceeded with by the Liberal government of the day. This program was pushed through under the leadership of the then Minister of Agriculture, the late Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner. I recall some of the statements made then with reference to the rules that should guide this program in its introduction. One of the points was that we needed to ensure that farmers were efficient. Inefficiency among farmers was not to be encouraged. That has a rather familiar ring in light of some discussions being carried on at the present time with reference to some new proposals which have been advanced by the government.
PFAA at that time had a very rigid framework for its operations. It was only a matter a matter of time until this was shown to be unsatisfactory. One by one, changes and amendments were made to the rules and methods of operation until there was a greater degree of flexibility introduced into the program. This was very essential. Great stress was placed on the need for encouraging efficiency among individual farmers by the manner in which the program was introduced. Many people who have studied this subject have concluded that the way in which PFAA operates today encourages a type of inefficiency within agriculture in western Canada. This is not demonstrated in terms of an individual farm operation, but in terms of the industry. It is very important that we consider this. The crop insurance program is to be a substitute. This, of course, has been recognized within PFAA, although I think it would be useful to dispense
Crop Insurance Act
with the program. It is no longer serving a useful purpose. This can only be done if it is complemented by other programs which would bring about a greater degree of stability within agriculture.
The third point I should like to examine with respect to the crop insurance program and the bill before us is in connection with the relationship between crop insurance programs and the grain stabilization proposals advanced by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who is also the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I wish to underline the term "grain stabilization program". In all official documents which have been released, the government has been very careful to say grain stabilization plan, program or proposal. They have avoided the term "income stabilization" in the official documents. As soon as the minister and others who have been advancing this proposal get into a discussion on the subject, they immediately use the term "income stabilization". I want to make it clear it is nothing of the sort; it is not income stabilization.
I think it is important to take into account all the relevant factors when examining this particular proposal by the government. The crop insurance program is, of course, related to physical production; this is the basis upon which the program is operated and upon which compensation is paid. The stabilization proposals were limited to western Canada and they deal with the situation from the standpoint of gross cash receipts to farmers. These, of course, are determined by the deliveries farmers are able to make to the grain handling and movement system. Without going into detail at this time, it seems to me the government should give consideration to the features of a crop insurance program in addition to any proposals it may bring forward in connection with the grain stabilization plan. It is important to avoid duplication of services and the proliferation of programs which prove a burden to the farmer in the long run. We need a commitment by the government to stabilization programs-to an adequate degree of stabilization.
Hon. members may recall our criticism of the grain stabilization program already announced by the government in this connection. My hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar has drawn attention to the difficulties which farmers face by reason of deductions for PFAA, hail insurance and so on. There is urgent need for the coordination of these programs, regardless of the fact that they approach the problem from different standpoints. I urge the government to take steps to ensure there are adequate public stabilization programs, an adequate degree of public involvement, and a commitment of public expenditure to those programs. On the other hand, the government should avoid any unnecessary duplication of programs and services.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-185, to amend the Crop Insurance Act.

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
Having listened this morning to the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I soon realized he was giving us a picture of all the accomplishments since the Crop Insurance Act came into effect and it seems to me the purpose sought is worthwhile and worthy of the attention of all members.
One must also recognize that many farmers have not yet been able to obtain the security they are entitled to. A guarantee of stability, such as the one enjoyed nowadays by union members, is certainly not shared by farmers and I believe that is all the more reason for considering carefully this amendment to the Crop Insurance Act.
The proposed changes seem good, but is that enough? They can never be too good as far as the producers are concerned, but they nevertheless seem commendable and advisable.
I deemed it my duty to explain briefly the difficulties the Quebec farmers met with in order to adjust themselves to this crop insurance program since it came into effect. I do not merely wish here to criticize this piece of legislation. On the contrary, considering the difficulties met by many producers in this province, I am wondering if the few minutes available to me will be enough to convince the federal government and the Quebec members to urge the Quebec government to be more responsive to this important piece of legislation on crop insurance.
It is our duty to inform the Quebec farmers about it. Some producers have often complained that the federal government failed to do this or that while perfectly aware that it was a provincial responsibility and that the federal government is only paying 50 per cent of the crop insurance.
The federal government is playing-and I mean "playing"-an excellent card by offering quite a valuable subsidy so that each province may use it without any hesitation. The Quebec government's hesitation in participating in this program or the lack of cohesion in its administration makes some producers feel uneasy because, so it seems, the program administration is too slow and unfortunately the claims are kept waiting. Once more, the blame is not on the Canadian Parliament but I dare hope that my contribution will urge Quebec federal members to inform Quebec farmers that this administration is, so to say, 100 per cent under the Quebec government's responsibility and that we are prepared as federal members to co-operate financially 'his program.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to call the attention of the minister responsible for this legislation, since he is now in the House, to the fact that in my constituency as in others of the province of Quebec, important potato growers, unfortunately, have not yet benefitted from this crop insurance program. I know that we cannot blame the Canadian government but, before such wavering and the Quebec government's lack of consideration towards potato growers, may I request the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to have his opposite number in Quebec invite the potato growers to take part in this crop insurance
program since they make up a rather significant economic force in the province of Quebec. Those potato growers deprived of the benefits of this program still feel concern about bad weather and frost. Still, rain is their greatest enemy, and they have suffered huge losses in bad years. Obviously, they are all the more unhappy other cultures are today covered by crop insurance.
e (3:00 p.m.)
I dare hope that members from Quebec in this House as well as the Minister of Agriculture will pay particular attention to this problem so that Quebec will finally understand that potato growers must enjoy the same coverage and benefits as others across the country. I am making these comments in the interest of these producers generally. There was also reference to a review of the estimates, taking into account, for instance, changes pertaining to soil preparation, etc. A review is required as in any other field since "technicalities" are changing and requirements force us to modify frequently our method of administration and operation.
Those estimates, which may have seemed sufficient a few years ago, are less and less so today because costs appear to be increasing. It is perhaps important that the government consider the problem and bring out some solutions in order that producers may obtain compensation more in keeping with their expenses.
I do not want to forget to ask the government to consider paying a premium to certain producers or rather to consider the difficulties in which these people find themselves when they have to pay their contribution to the plan. One of my colleagues stated a minute ago that this payment could perhaps be made at harvest time. I suggest that it should be possible to establish a plan allowing the producers to pay this insurance premium at harvest time.
Should there be crop failure, governments will not lose anything as they will be able to collect insurance premiums. Now, if the premium could be paid at harvest time, this would give a certain number of producers the feeling that they have protection since they deny themselves this kind of insurance because the original premium is too costly.
Protection is never too costly but, on the other hand, one has to be realistic and appreciate that for some people this is getting to be pretty hard. We might consider allowing the producers participation in this program by having them pay their insurance premium at crop selling time.
Now, I would not like to encroach upon the time allotted to the other hon. members, but let me repeat that this bill is positively most commendable and most acceptable. I do hope that the farmers, whether they live in Quebec or in any other province will avail themselves of these ever-increasing and ever-improving advantages. Canadian farmers must take advantage of this insurance to which they are entitled, in our society, just like any other class of workers.

January 15, 1971


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member for Joilette (Mr. La Salle) would further specify the nature of the problem concerning the potato crop in his area in Quebec. I have not completely understood the essential point of his argument. I would like to know if the provincial government is refusing to include the potato crop in his insurance plan or if on the contrary, the potato producers do not want that insurance.


Roch La Salle: No, it is the Quebec government which did not deem it advisable to make that insurance available to potato producers. I know for a fact that a great number of important potato producers in my area are demanding that insurance and since the provincial government is now refusing to take part in this plan, I have taken care not to blame the federal government but to invite it to make the Quebec government understand that its hesitation is disastrous for a certain number of potato producers. I hope that our appeals to the province of Quebec will enable our potato producers to take advantage of that insurance as other producers.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this amendment to the Crop Insurance Act dealing specifically with losses arising when the seeding or planting of a crop is prevented by excessive ground moisture, weather or other agricultural hazards, I can find no real issue with the measure and think it will be a useful addition to the crop insurance armoury. I assume that this will mean extended insurance coverage, and while it is a useful addition I think it may be somewhat difficult to administer. I note, also, that the term "agricultural hazards" is used. I would be interested to know what is meant by that term and under what circumstances the term "hazard" will be applicable.
Dealing with the situation in western Canada as applicable particularly to my own area, this program probably will have a limited application because I have only known of one or two years in which there has been an almost total failure or widespread loss of opportunity to plant crops. On the other hand, there have been numerous occasions when farmers have been unable to plant the crops they intended to sow because of excessive moisture. This has happened very often in respect of a piece of summerfallow a farmer intended to sow in wheat, but due to a wet spring he was forced to seed late and thought it would be better to put in another crop which was not as desirable, either because of the return per acre or because it did not fit in with his particular plans.
Another question I think might well be raised is this: When does a farmer apply to take out crop insurance? If he had the privilege of waiting for even part of the spring before applying for coverage, this could cause unusual losses. No doubt the minister and his departmental officials will have explanations and answers to these questions which will be raised during the committee's consideration of the bill.
Crop Insurance Act
I should like to speak briefly about the principle of crop insurance and how it effects western agriculture, particularly the farmers in my area. We are all aware that western farmers use two main vehicles to obtain compensation in respect of a disaster that has befallen them because of the elements. One is the PFAA and the other is crop insurance. Both these vehicles have been useful and have their proponents. Crop insurance seems to find favour with intensive farmers, those who perhaps may be credited with bringing considerable knowledge and acumen to their farming operations.
If the price of grain is fair and the grain is moving readily, there tends to be a larger acceptance of crop insurance. However, when farming profits are more tightly squeezed and the grain is not moving, crop insurance is not so attractive to the farmer because he may well be required to pay a premium on grain which will sit in the granaries for years before moving into the markets of the world. So this becomes a matter of value judgment of the farmer facing a grain situation such as has existed in western Canada for the past two years. A farmer may well be unable to market his grain and thus is faced with added expenses with no return. I think crop insurance should remain on a voluntary basis with as wide a range of options as possible, consistent with reasonable administrative costs. There has been a feeling that crop insurance should completely replace PFAA, but I am not in agreement with this concept.
In my opinion, the PFAA has been a great boon to western Canada. It has its faults and it is outdated in many ways, but it is a very useful tool to aid farmers in times of distress. Many farmers have told me that it was tailored for the time when a farmer had four horses and a gang-plow, and it has not kept up with modern needs. There is general agreement among the farmers to whom I have spoken that the PFAA could be a useful tool if it were upgraded. Although my riding is in an area where drought is a most infrequent cause of crop failure, and although the original PFAA was largely designed for widespread drought, I have been struck by how helpful it is to many recipients.
Crop insurance tends to be taken out by farmers who by virtue of their business ability would be able to survive in any case. Crop insurance, to them, is like life insurance or other forms of insurance to the prudent. There are a great many people involved in farming who have neither the ability nor the ingenuity to make such complete plans. Even the small PFAA payments have often been enough to turn what would be a disaster for many small and insecure farming operations into a situation with which the farmer can cope.
In my experience, most of these people would not have bought crop insurance in any event; they just never get around to it or ar perhaps unaware of it in spite of the publicity it has been given. Perhaps they felt they could not afford the premium. These are very often the people the Liberal party has suggested should leave the farm. I do not know what they would do in the cities, in view of the mass unemployment we have now, which no doubt will be a recurring feature in our fast-changing society.

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
The PFAA should be amended. On one or two occasions I have tried to bring this to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I cannot recall the exact details, but it seems to me that in its 30 years of existence it has cost the government substantial amounts on only one or two occasions. Nearly always the 1 per cent levy has represented as much as the cost, so the cost to the federal treasury has been very little. If I recall correctly, the cost of administering crop insurance- which is carried out by the provincial governments with the assistance of the federal government-has been in the neighbourhood of $5 million annually to the federal treasury.
PFAA seems to be reasonably easy and cheap to administer, but if the $5 million were allocated to increase payments to PFAA this could well increase by 50 per cent, in most years, the payments under PFAA. I do not say that PFAA should replace crop insurance, and I do not think that PFAA should supplant or diminish the scope of crop insurance, nor would I wish to have a significant proportion of farmers opt out of crop insurance in favour of PFAA. I believe, however, that governments should involve themselves in preventing the worst results of a disaster, particularly a climatic disaster, to farmers.
Consideration should be given to upgrading the PFAA in a more modern setting and with a more realistic payment to farmers. Money spent here, in my opinion, is extremely valuable from a social point of view, if nothing else, and we should consider it in that light. It is perhaps difficult to reach a perfect balance between social spending and pure crop insurance, but I believe PFAA goes some distance in this regard. I believe that a study of this problem should be carried out, and I am sure that the PFAA should be retained with useful modifications which would not detract from the crop insurance principle.
I have one other grievance to raise which affects particularly my own constituency of Dauphin and that of my colleague the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart). This point concerns the damage done to crops of farmers all around the edges of Riding Mountain National Park. I believe other parks are in this category and that provincial parks also are involved. A great deal of attention has been given to conservation and preservation of wildlife. It is to our credit-and I am very happy about this-that we have been successful to a considerable degree, but the supply of game has increased at least in relation to the wildlife habitat that can support it. Increasingly there is damage to the crops of farmers who live in these areas. It does not matter that the number of farms involved is relatively small in number; it is a problem that the farmers are powerless to do anything about.
In Riding Mountain National Park there is a large herd of elk variously estimated at 7,000 to 11,000. Periodically, as happens in respect of all animal populations and even, unfortunately, in respect of humans, population explosion takes place. At the present time there seems to be a very excessive population of deer, mainly elk, in the Riding
Mountain National Park. The term "game management" is increasingly being used to define the keeping of game within reasonable limits in a given area so that it may cause the least possible damage to other interests. Unfortunately, the people who administer our national parks never seem to have heard of this concept. I believe that in Riding Mountain National Park the game people will have to decide to manage deer population so that depredation of surrounding farmlands can be kept at a minimum.
The national parks administration has been singularly unresponsive to complaints and attempts to see that reason is exercised in respect of this problem. I think this is one more example of the national parks being administered as if they were a fiefdom, with complete disregard for the surrounding communities. It is very much like the days of the old feudal lords. No matter what game management is carried on, there will always be damage from wildlife. It seems very necessary that the federal government and provincial governments take a hand in compensating those who sustain severe losses which in a few cases are disastrous. Up until now, both levels of government have largely closed their eyes to this problem. With increasing hunting licences and higher fees, more money should now be available for this purpose. As more and more people move into the cities, there is a greater demand for hunting recreation and more money must be allocated for compensation for crop damage.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about the grain situation that crop insurance is designed to correct. There is no doubt that the next 12 months will be critical. We have completed the Lift program. So far as the western grain producers are concerned, this program has left them in despair. They know not where to go from here. There is an enormous summerfallow from last year, of 38 million acres-the largest in Canadian history. This could produce an enormous crop, but this land will have to be seeded because it cannot be re-summerf allowed.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been credited with saying that exports of what could reach 550 million bushels in the crop year, but recent indications are that with Russia likely to refuse the 53 million bushels left over from the 1966 deal, there is no likelihood that Canadian export sales will reach this figure. A figure of 360 million bushels to 450 million bushels seems much more likely. It is estimated that there will be a carryover of at least 650 million bushels on hand at the end of July, 1971, although I think no one really knows what is on hand in the farmers' bins. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics method of estimating does not seem very accurate and many competent people doubt that there is as much grain on Canadian farms as indicated. Nevertheless, there still is a large amount of wheat in storage.
Although grain has been moving out of western Canada, so far as wheat is concerned, most of it has been coming from stocks that have been held in storage by the Wheat Board. The decision of the government to do away with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act means that $70 million allocated for this will be used, presumably, for

January 15, 1971

the crop stabilization program and will cover a good portion of the estimated $100 million for this program. Because there will almost certainly have to be an increase of probably 50 per cent in grain handling charges, this may mean farmers will not be much better off than they were last year.
The cash flow of the farmers of western Canada was down considerably in 1969 over previous years, and as the price of meat, particularly hogs, has dropped significantly it seems to me that this is a significant factor. The cash position of the western farmer will become increasingly severe before next fall, and serious cash shortages may develop. I believe that the farm cash situation in respect of the west is not good, and the remedial action taken by this government so far does not seem to be the answer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the proposals of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board for a production and grains receipts policy for the western grains industry. Almost all farmers whom I have queried about this matter have complained of the lack of detail and information necessary to carry out a value judgment, particularly as it relates to their own situation. Most farmers have good reason to be wary of too much enthusiasm by those who initiate policy and who sometimes have been led astray in their planning. One farmer pointed out that although the barley market was moving and barley is in strong demand, if other governments should increase their subsidy there would be a limit to what Canada could use and at what price barley could be grown. The idea that if there were a loss in a pool in a certain year, to be made up the following year, could present problems and inequalities which could easily upset plans for a more uniform production plan for any type of grain.
The cash stabilization plan may have a place in producers' plans, but until it is known what the premiums will be it is difficult to know whether it will be acceptable or not. Here again, the government intends to sit it out until all the producers' premiums have been exhausted. It makes good headlines to say that the fund will be supported by government, but it would appear that in most cases this support would be in the proportion of one horse and one rabbit. All farmers with whom I have spoken agree that the suggested 3 per cent levy on all crops is too heavy a price and one which would make the plan unacceptable. The pay-out under the proposed stabilization plan would seem to be too global to be practical. It would not be regional or even provincial. The program would not be selective enough, as far as recipients are concerned, to ensure that good value was received for the money spent.
Farmers are worried and concerned. They are uneasy. As individuals, they may find themselves left out in view of all the changes in the rules and regulations that have been made. The resolution passed by the Manitoba pool elevators, that the grain stabilization plan should not be instituted before a thorough study is made, could be prophetic and should be heeded.
Crop Insurance Act


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on Bill C-185. First I would say that I approve of the bill, but I want to take this opportunity to make further comments on the crop insurance plan in general. I have commented on crop insurance and suggested several improvements to it in the last three sessions of Parliament. It seems to me that the federal government could very well pick up more than 25 per cent of the premium cost of this plan, which is presently the case. It should also be remembered, of course, that the federal government and provincial governments share equally the administration costs of this plan.
The report of the task force on agriculture gives a resume of what has taken place under the Crop Insurance Act since it came into effect in 1960, and it is broken down by provinces. It is interesting to note some of the figures. For instance, at page 392 of the report it is stated that in Prince Edward Island, for every $1 that the farmers have paid into crop insurance by way of premium in the last nine or ten years-this report was in 1968-69-farmers have collected $2.28. In Quebec, farmers have collected $2.34; in Ontario, $1.41; in Manitoba, 58 cents; in Saskatchewan, the lowest figure of the provinces quoted, 44 cents for every $1 that they paid in; and in Alberta, 83 cents. Because the federal government pays 25 per cent of the premium cost, farmers should really get back $1.33 in the long run for every premium dollar they pay. Therefore, the plan in the Prairie provinces is not what it should be, particularly in Saskatchewan.
I have been saying at many of the meetings I have attended in my constituency in the last three or four weeks that crop insurance needs overhauling so that it will become more acceptable to the farmers and will be made available to all farmers in all parts of the Prairies. Instead of becoming more acceptable, farmers are dropping out of crop insurance in Saskatchewan. According to reports, in Canada in 1968 there were 64,376 contracts taken out by farmers under the crop insurance plan. In 1969 this figure dropped to 62,359. In Saskatchewan, during the same period, there were 12,343 contracts in 1968 and in 1969 this figure dropped to 11,637.
With regard to PFAA, I think the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) should look at the latest report on the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which gives all the figures with regard to pay in and pay out over the 30 years since it was first established in 1939. These figures show that the total levies paid by farmers in that 30-year period were in the neighbourhood of $207 million, while the total pay-out to all farmers in the same period was $383,516,518-almost two to one. This does not mean that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is satisfactory. It is the opinion of farmers to whom I have talked, and I think this also, that we could very well phase out PFAA and there would be little regret.
I shall point out some of the things that are wrong with PFAA. First of all, the ceiling is $800 per farm, which is not very much for an average grain farm; it is hardly worth while. Second, it is not done on an individual basis. Under the PFAA regulations, some

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
farmers who should not be paid are paid, and in other cases farmers who should be paid are left out because of the block basis upon which claims are adjusted.
Mention was made of the stabilization plan and how crop insurance might fit into it. In my discussions of the grain income stabilization proposal in recent weeks, I have found a great deal of concern about the involvement of crop insurance with this proposal. Suggestions have been made, and I think they are valid, that crop insurance receipts should be treated as grain income for purposes of this plan if it becomes effective, because that is really what crop insurance payments are, a substitute for grain income. Of course, they would have to be not only eligible for the benefits but also subject to whatever deductions there might be, hopefully, less than 3 per cent, which may eventually be applied in this proposal.
However, before this can be done equitably, crop insurance has to be made available to farmers in all parts of the Prairies as well as in all parts of Canada, and it must be made available on terms at which the farmers will buy it. At present, they cannot afford to buy it because the premiums are too high for the coverage that is given. That is so in Saskatchewan, at least, as indicated by the figures in the task force report. Therefore, I suggest to the minister that he should contact people in the various provinces, especially in those where there is not complete coverage, negotiate with them and try to persuade them to provide, as quickly as possible, full coverage for all areas in their provinces so that all farmers may have an opportunity to participate. This is a very real concern.
In recent days I have been talking about the stabilization plan because I believe there should be subsidies, including crop insurance benefits, as grain income for purposes of a stabilization plan, otherwise farmers in many parts of the Prairies who are subject to recurrent crop failure could very well find themselves, after two or three crop years, with little or no basis upon which to collect stabilization payments. I say again that I support this bill, and I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the government will ensure that crop insurance is improved in all parts of Canada, particularly in the Prairies. I hope the minister will hold consultations with his provincial counterparts in order to attain this goal.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Would he not agree that the pay-out of PFAA, the very excessive intake over output, has in the past 30 years been confined to the last two or three years, and that had there not been PFAA another method of government support would have been necessary?


Albert B. Douglas: In reply to that question, I would suggest that in the last 30 years the pay-out has been greater than the take-in. The figures are to be found in the last two pages of the annual report. If the hon. member had read the annual report he would not have to ask me this question.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, a number of members of this House have contributed

adequately to the debate on this bill, but I want to add a few ideas based on my experience with various forms of crop insurance as a practical farmer in the province of Saskatchewan and, more particularly, in the west central part of that province where for some time grain growing has been the principal industry.
I believe that in our area of Saskatchewan the PFAA has in the past served a beneficial purpose, but at present there is a considerable feeling among farmers that this act is out of date and we should have a different approach to crop insurance. I was in a farmers' study group a few years ago which discussed crop insurance, what it would cost us and how it would benefit us as individual producers. We considered the 1 per cent which we contributed to PFAA, and what we paid out in hail insurance. Then we considered what we received in the way of income from these various sources, and decided there should be a more adequate form of crop insurance to cover additional emergency situations.
It would be of advantage to us if there were insurance covering such situations. I am thinking specifically of hazards such as frost and grasshopper damage. We discovered that we were already paying a great deal of money to hail insurance companies but that we did not get a dime back unless our farms were hailed, and we could go a number of years without that happening. But, Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that a hailstorm can wipe out a crop in 15 minutes and we cannot afford to be without some form of protection in this respect. In effect, I am suggesting a comprehensive plan adequate to cover all forms of crop disaster, which would be cheaper than the plan we have at the moment. At that time we wanted to go into crop insurance but found that the Saskatchewan government was dragging its feet. It did not want to expand crop insurance to western Saskatchewan. At that time it did not have its maps ready and it did not seem to be in a big hurry to get them ready so that we could participate. I am sure we would look at this matter again if we had a chance.
There is another problem with regard to PFAA in some parts of Saskatchewan. I am thinking more of the Melfort-Tisdale area which produces big crops, where the farmers contribute the 1 per cent levy but when harvest comes they may lose a 40-bushel crop because of wetness, snow, etc. Consequently, they are more interested in a complete form of coverage.
I would like to talk just briefly about changes in farming methods which have increased crop yields in many parts of the country, changes in better cropping procedures, in better grains, in the use of fertilizer, as a result of which the old maxima allowed under PFAA are no longer valid. I think the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) and others have already made this point. I want to emphasize it because it is certainly true. It is now quite easy, even in a dry year, to get a 12-bushel crop. But we have to remember that our costs have risen considerably and that the $800 maximum payment does not have much relevance to the costs of production and cropping. At one time it did have relevance. As a recipi-
January 15, 1971

ent of PFAA payments in the past, I know they were a help to me, but I think we should now take a new look at what we need in crop insurance.
Insurance is a cost, whether it be crop insurance or income insurance, as the minister from Saskatoon is suggesting in his income stabilization plan. Mr. Speaker, I believe that our farmers over the last two years have not been in a position to afford additional costs. The bulk of the farmers in Saskatchewan have lost money over the past two years and do not want any further costs of operation. At the same time, they need protection against crop failure. Some of them took a chance in not taking out insurance, and paid painfully. We should consider insurance as a cost, and to cover it obviously we need a more adequate income. The difference between the cost of insurance and complete crop failure could be the difference between bankruptcy or ruin and a profitable operation, if the crop failure occurs at an awkward time in a farmer's career. I am thinking of young farmers who might owe a lot of money, and of older farmers who would not have time to recoup.
An insurance scheme for farm production is somewhat similar to unemployment insurance for labour and to other forms of income protection for other groups in society. In Saskatchewan, if the farmers have no money, the merchants have no money; and if the merchants have no money there will be a considerable amount of unemployment. We see this happening at the moment on the Prairies. It is essential that we look after the main industry there and stop some of the crazy fluctuations in farm income. I believe that an adequate form of crop insurance would help do this.
As a final comment, Mr. Speaker, I feel that some change in crop insurance must be considered, some change in stabilization of income, some change in PFAA or, if you will, some change in subsidies to agriculture. I would be quite willing to consider changes, but I am not anxious that we do away with PFAA or any other subsidy until we see how a new form of income protection will work. I do not believe the purpose of the debate on this bill is to discuss all these things, but while I had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that things are not as satisfactory as they could be and that we should be taking a more extended look at the problem in connection with crop insurance and income insurance. We in this party support the principle involved in the bill and hope its passage will make farming more profitable.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is quite important that I take part in this discussion. I compliment the government for introducing this amendment; I think it is necessary. Undoubtedly, a number of other amendments must be introduced before crop insurance becomes a good, sound, working vehicle, although I doubt we will ever get it to that level throughout Canada. I realize that areas with different crops and different conditions means that crop insurance applies in different ways. Although I compliment the government for making an effort to come up with a workable plan, I can see that a lot of study still needs to be undertaken.
Crop Insurance Act
When I first started studying crop insurance when it was introduced in Saskatchewan back in 1961, I found out how difficult it would be to work in the area with which I was concerned. It was hard to get the support of the ratepayers behind it. The trouble was largely due to the existence of a great deal of submarginal land. Farmers on that land could not afford crop insurance. To prove my point I invite hon. members to consider the number of crop insurance participants in the northern part of Saskatchewan over the last few years. Their number has been so few that it has meant they have had difficulty paying the premiums. For this reason I do not believe we should scrap PFAA. I realize it is outdated, but fail to see any scheme that would replace it.
Of course, the maximum payment of $800, considering the present-day cost of operating a farm, is too low. That amount would have to be rectified. I realize that the collection method envisaged is far superior to one under which you have to collect premiums before the farmer puts in his crop. That, of course, would be utterly impossible. These days, $8 per acre does not go very far toward meeting the operating costs of a farm. Yet before scrapping the PFAA I think the scheme should be examined by the provincial governments and municipalities.
What happened to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is more or less what happened to the Lift program. Far too much of the money was used in administration. A previous speaker noted that many people obtained assistance under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act who were not entitled to that assistance. Yet, if one looks back at the improvements introduced in respect of the PFAA, one will see that the legislation was made effective almost down to the level of the individual farmer. It was effective at the level of the township and was made effective almost at the level of the individual farmer. I think that more could have been done along that line. I believe a great deal more could be done, through co-operation among provincial governments and municipalities, to improve the concept of crop insurance. I am the last one to throw cold water on the idea. I realize that in many parts of Canada this program will work satisfactorily, especially when it covers root crops and similar crops. It will benefit many farmers of western Canada especially.
Much money is paid out in hail insurance premiums alone, yet hail is only one of the hazards farmers face. There are many other hazards. Besides hail, a farmer might face frost difficulties, drought, flooding, insect damage and many other hazards. This concept began with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and so far I do not think we have come up with anything that looks better in the part of the country that concerns me.
I realize that the PFAA provisions are obsolete. We ought to brush up the legislation and give our farmers a better form of insurance coverage. This holds true especially for the farmers in the northern part of Saskatchewan. Let us look at the method of collection. I submit that premiums cannot be collected as cheaply as they can under PFAA. If farmers do not object to the 1 per cent

January 15, 1971
Crop Insurance Act
increase, perhaps there will be available to them better insurance coverage and better compensation in the event of crop failure. I think the government should not hesitate to consider these matters.
I realize that of necessity many amendments must be introduced to the crop insurance plan in order to make it a workable program throughout Canada. Nevertheless, I hope the government will take a good look at the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and make it a more workable vehicle. I believe that is possible. That also would give the fanner insurance against many forms of pests. The compensation paid in the event of total crop failure should be much larger than the present maximum of $800 under the act. Despite its shortcomings, we should not condemn it too hastily. It has served a great and useful purpose down through the years. In these days of skyrocketing farm costs, perhaps it is not quite so useful. The maximum amount of compensation a farmer can receive should be revised. I am all for taking a good look at the PFAA before throwing it completely out of the window.
I do not wish to throw cold water on the idea of crop insurance, because I think that in many parts of Canada it will work. Having looked at some statistics, I have noted that the cost of administration in Saskatchewan in the period 1968-69 was $172,015, while premiums paid were only $559,837. If one looks at these figures, one will realize that crop insurance is not the only vehicle that will work in my part of the country.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate and say that the party I represent supports the extention of coverage outlined in this bill. Not many farmers of the province of British Columbia participate in the crop insurance program. I notice that we are distinguished by having almost the smallest number of contracts, 876 to be exact, and by being burdened by far the highest administrative costs. That factor is probably inversely related to the small percentage of farmers who take out contracts in British Columbia. We must, therefore, look for the reasons why more people are not taking advantage of the program.
I am sure that anyone who has lived, as I have, in two principal agricultural areas of British Columbia, the Okanagan and the riding I represent, Fraser Valley, knows full well that there have been very difficult periods for farmers during the past 25 years. Despite these difficult years during the past quarter century, it seems odd that so few farmers-only 876-in British Columbia have taken advantage of this scheme. Something must lurk behind that small figure. Perhaps we should examine some of these factors. It is not because there have been no agricultural disasters during that time. There was, of course, the 1948 flood which inundated the Fraser Valley. In the Okanagan a freeze of the fruit crop occurred in 1949, 1950, 1955, 1965 and 1969. Three years ago in my riding we saw a particularly severe kill in the strawberry fields and plantations.
We therefore support the extended kind of coverage which the two clauses central to this amending legislation provide. Crop insurance is a device, as is marketing legislation, on the part of legislators to take some of the risk out of that particularly risky business known as
[Mr. Cadleu.l
agriculture. Those who have sat in this House for the past three years have heard members who represent farming communities emphasize how hazardous and often unrewarding that business really is. I should, therefore, like to note, as set out in the 1969-70 annual report which relates to the Crop Insurance Act and is submitted by the minister, that 1969 was a particularly hazardous year in British Columbia. I read that the indemnities for
1968,	expressed as a percentage of the coverage, were 13.22 per cent, while the figure for 1969 reached the whopping level of 42.61 per cent.
This increase in pay-out is due largely to problems in the grain industries in British Columbia's Peace River area and the Okanagan fruit crop damage of that year. We can see that such large pay-outs make substantial inroads into the stabilization fund which, incidentally, was established in British Columbia in 1967 with the sum of $5 million. Because of a pay-out of almost $500,000 in
1969,	the fund contains approximately $4.75 million today. Therefore, the fund is down somewhat. That is not unusual. The report emphasizes that this has been the case in most areas. It is more pronounced, however, in some other parts of Canada.
In my constituency the strawberry crop suffers the greatest hazard. Strawberries have suffered some severe years, depending on the nature of the winter. It is notable that the large growers are the ones most likely to take advantage of crop insurance. The smaller growers, in contrast, those who need the crop insurance most, do not have this coverage. They are not able to take advantage of the protection that this legislation provides, perhaps because they are operating on marginal financial levels. The premium cost of roughly 7 per cent of their coverage is perhaps close to their normal profit margin. While they vitally need protection, they cannot afford the premiums. I think the hon. member for Battleford-Kin-dersley (Mr. Thomson) referred to this situation in connection with the grain industry. A similar anomaly prevails in my constituency.
Commodities such as strawberries and other small, soft fruits and vegetables are not planted in large enough acreages in various parts of Canada and they are grown in widely separated regions. Some can only be grown, in the temperate parts of Canada such as the Niagara Peninsula, the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia and portions of British Columbia. As the act is administered by individual provinces, the acreages provide too small a base if each commodity is considered separately province by province.
The British Columbia Federation of Agriculture recommended to the task force on agriculture that certain commodities should be considered nationally for the purpose of crop insurance. A larger base would thus be provided. There would be lower administrative costs, and greater stability in the industry would result, because disasters do not usually occur in all regions of Canada in one year. As a result, the premiums could be lower. Those people who need it most might then be encouraged to buy the crop insurance at lower premiums. I hope the minister will consider and accept this suggestion.
January 15, 1971

There may be some problems of administration that I have not visualized, and I am not the originator of the suggestion. However, it seems reasonable in view of the fact that those who really need this coverage are not able to take advantage of it. There is not much use having legislation which provides protection, if the protection is inaccessible.
Another point I wish to make concerns the five-year averaging for maximum coverage limits for tree fruits. This applies mainly to the Okanagan Valley where I lived for a number of years. The years 1965 and 1969 were extremely difficult in the tree fruit industry in the Okanagan. The maximum limits for coverage are based on a percentage of the five-year production average. If 1965 and 1969 were included in the five-year average, the maximum limit on the amount of protection that a farmer could purchase under this legislation would be necessarily limited. It does not take a genius to see how including two poor years in five works against the kind of insurance protection needed by the orchardists. I ask the minister to review this policy so that five more normal years could be used to determine a maximum coverage limit. The present policy makes it particularly difficult, also for those people starting production with new orchards. When a new enterprise is commenced, it is expected that there will be low yields for a great many years because the orchard needs years to mature.
The strawberry farmers in my constituency have suffered some severe years. A number of them have applied to the processors asking for an agreement with the processors to buy all the production for the lifetime of a particular patch. We can understand why the farmers want this agreement. They want this assurance because it provides stability. The processors are not very sympathetic to this proposal. The processors are faced with a glut. This is not because there is no demand for their production, whether it is canned, jam or frozen. The state of our economy is in such a disastrous condition that there is no purchasing power to fulfil the demand. It is not caused by any lack of demand. People are not in an economic position to purchase the products of the producer. Everyone is being hurt by present economic policies.
I hope the minister will use his great weight and influence on other members of the cabinet to initiate policies to help the economy and get us out of our self-induced economic slump. In this way there will be greater purchasing power. The production of the farm, forest and other industries will then have a better chance of being marketed.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker the legislation before us is very important. Normally I am very brief in my remarks in the House. However, under the circumstances I wonder whether I might have the privilege of calling it four o'clock and contributing to the debate at a later time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions.
23786-15i
Environmental Pollution



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS

Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions through what are described as usual channels. I think there might be a disposition on the part of hon. members to proceed to motion No. 23 which stands on the Order Paper. The preceding ones will stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And retain their position.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: And retain their position, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that all motions preceding No. 23 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider setting up, in co-operation with the provinces, an institute of human environmental studies to determine among other matters (a) the degree of air, soil, water and noise pollution the human species can tolerate without serious effects on physical and mental health (b) the type of environment which stimulates the most desirable qualities of physical and mental health in the human species (c) the type of national development which would give satisfactory environment to the greatest possible number of Canadians, and (d) the minimum of modifications to the present-day indiscriminate and largely unplanned growth of our metropolitan areas necessary to put within reach of the inhabitants of these areas a quality of environment which would provide (i) adequate housing (li) adequate recreational facilities, including parkland, and (iii) adequate social infrastructure such as transportation, education, hospital and recreational facilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to initiate this one-hour debate on a very important general subject. I do so because I believe the general subject is of immense importance with regard to the type of environment in which future generations of Canadians will live. This is a subject which has application not only to Canada but to other parts of the world.
I am one who believes that a representative of the people at any level of government has the heavy responsibility of doing his share to ensure that the inheritance this generation hands on to future generations of Canadians is the best possible, not only in terms of material things but in terms of spiritual, moral and cultural values. It is well to ask what kind of heritage this generation is about to pass on to future generations of Canadians. I think I can do no better than quote briefly from the opening remarks made at the opening of the federal-provincial conference on housing and urban

needs across the country; to suggest priorities of need and plans to meet them.
The federal government is prepared to participate at once in the establishment and maintenance of such a continuing council.
As I envisage it, the council would comprise members drawn from a broad range of skills and experience in this field and appointed in a manner agreed to by the provincial and federal governments.
As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, nothing came of that suggestion, although I think it is one of the few good ideas the previous Prime Minister had. I think it deserved a better fate than it has had. We might, perhaps, turn for guidance to things that are being done in other countries. In France, for example, just recently their Prime Minister issued, in the official bulletin, a decree establishing an environmental committee. This committee will be dealing with problems of improvement of living space, crowding, pollution and nuisances of all kinds, management of the landscape and, in general, all the positive and negative elements involved with man and his environment.
I read also that the University of Quebec has set up the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique. The University of Quebec has announced the establishment of the Centre de Recherches Urbaines et Regionales. The centre will focus on the problems of spatial, economic, social and political reorganizations caused by increasing urbanization, and on the search for solutions. The creation of this is very close to the basic idea contained in my resolution. I commend the University of Quebec for setting this up and suggest that the government should carefully study the possibility of giving a grant to that institution to help in its research.
Certainly we have to find out many presently unknown facts. What is the best environment and how can it be achieved, if it is within our means! What is the best design for an environment which will minimize pollution and minimize the tremendous wasted effort that Canadians put forth every day of the problem of getting to their jobs from their homes in our urban centres? What are the effects of stress? How can we provide most efficiently, and at the most reasonable cost, the social infrastructure that is needed for the good life-schools, parks, churches and everything that goes to make a well-rounded and balanced life? How do we provide recreation and even solitude for millions of Canadians? There are forces that cause crowding. People seem to crowd into our large cities in droves. The larger the city, the more they crowd in, like lemmings going over the cliff. They do not know why they do this. I do not believe they do this by choice but because of economic forces.
I believe in free enterprise and I am a free enterpriser, but I do not believe in unrestricted and perhaps unwarranted licence to free enterprise to haphazardly and unthinkingly determine by accident the structure of our country's future. I believe that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I do not think it is good enough for business to determine where it is to be located, creating primary jobs and also creating additional jobs by the multiplier effect of service employment in an area simply
Environmental Pollution
on the basis of a balance-sheet of that particular company as related to where the greatest market will be.
I believe that a method must be found to relate the location of primary employment to where it would serve the best general interest of the country. I do not think it is good enough for business to locate in certain places without having any requirement to give consideration to the problems that location creates in the way of pollution of air, water and soil, or any consideration to where workers will live, the cost of the land where they will live, how they are to be transported from their jobs to their homes, what level of government, at what cost, will provide new schools, churches, parks, roads, sewage disposal, and so on.
Business should not be allowed to locate without any consideration to the tax burden involved. I believe a tax structure could be adjusted to reflect the total burden of governments at all levels which the presence of any business which provides employment would create. If this were done, and if this relationship between the problems were created and the location reflected in the tax structure, I think the population increase would be attracted to areas of our country where its presence would be an asset and not a liability in the over-all sense. This would help us create a country which we can hand on with pride to future generations.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say that I rise not to kill the motion but to praise it and the hon. member who brought it to the attention of the House this afternoon. On first reading the motion now before us one may be led to believe that this is a wonderful new proposition the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) has put before the House. As he carefully pointed out, such a proposition was made years ago.
I think all hon. members will recognize that the various components of a proposed institute of human environmental studies already exists, but in a somewhat disorganized way at this stage. By that I mean we already have a hard core of expertise, research facilities and probably enough accumulated data to launch such an institute to incorporate these various elements under one roof, so to speak. What has been wrong up to now is the lack of organization and orientation of policies, standards, aims and the confusion over the sometimes abundance of methods to attain our goals. We have the talent and the potential. What has been lacking until very recently has been a sense of direction. Finally, we seem to know what we want and seem to be prepared to pay the price.
I am pleased to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Malpeque. Once again I should like to congratulate him very sincerely for his excellent presentation. Among matters contained in the hon. member's motion which are of particular concern to me, and I am sure to other hon. members, is that of the government considering setting up, in co-operation with the provinces, an institute of

January 15, 1971
Environmental Pollution
human environmental studies. The proposed activities of this institute would relate to tolerance levels and the effect on the general well-being of the human species. I take this to refer to all humans, but to Canadians in particular, and to air, soil, water and noise pollution in our environment.
First, I should like to deal briefly with the subject of pollution control agencies and the responsibilities and efforts of my government in the all-out fight against pollution of our environment. The hon. member for Mal-peque will recall that the need for urgent, assertive federal action was outlined in the Speech from the Throne on October 9, 1970. It proposed the establishment of a new department of the environment which would be responsible for the principal government activities relation to environmental quality in general and pollution in particular.
I might add that legislation was introduced in this House before Christmas to provide for the establishment of this new department which would have the principal tools with which to lead the fight against pollution of all kinds and to help co-ordinate the efforts of others. At or about the same time, the Science Council of Canada presented its ninth report which it aptly entitled "This Land is Their Land". In the introduction of the report we find this passage:
Fish and wildlife are important in Canada's future. As resources of economic value, they will contribute significantly to the national income of Canada. As vertebrate animals, they are man's closest biological relatives, which brings a feeling of kinship and alTection for them. As barometers of environment, they will reflect the virtues and evils of good and bad management of air, land and water resources. The interdependence of human and animal populations and the mutual need for appropriately rewarding places to carry on their daily lives require consideration of fish and wildlife populations in the context of the environment aspired to by mankind. Thus, for economic, social and aesthetic reasons, the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife are synonymous with the development of our environment.
In this spirit, a stable and healthy environment of high ecological quality, maintained over the long term, should be defined as a new national goal.
Co-operation with our provincial governments is essential to effectively carry out the fight against pollution of our environment under the responsibility of the new department and for the enhancement of our quality of life in general. This fight against pollution is far beyond the capacity of one minister and his department. It cannot even be effectively waged by the federal government alone, by provinces individually or even just by Canada: the fight must be waged by all departments of all governments and all people of all nations. In setting up this new department the government is determined to seek and obtain the present and future co-operation of all provincial departments and agencies concerned with pollution and the quality of life in general. There are actually too many pollution control agencies working independently of each other at the present time. Sometimes their individual goals and standards vary too much.
The necessity of dealing with many independent agencies can lead to conflict and confusion. The setting up of an institute of human environmental studies, therefore, would add to the confusion involved in dealing with
more agencies. In addition, one must remember that the responsibility in respect of the enhancement of the quality of our environment is a responsibility of the government and not of a separate institute. However, in coordinating the efforts of government in pollution control there may be a need for a national environmental council which would look at the international as well as the national scene. Such a council could anticipate problems of a technical nature and warn us against unnecessary trade-offs between cost-cutting industry on the one hand and the protection of all kinds of life on the other.
This government already has the National Economic Council which tells us what the economic trends are. It suggests broad policies to deal with these trends. A national environmental council, looking with particular concern at our living resources, could do likewise. Furthermore, the following was specifically recommended by the Science Council of Canada in its October Report:
The achievement of specific goals in fisheries and wildlife is completely dependent on the existence of national goals which reflect a strong component of environmental awareness. In large measure, all other aspects of fisheries and wildlife science are subordinate to this central theme. In consequence, a major step in planning for the future would be the creation of a non-political organization sponsored by the government which would have, as its basic role, the provision to the public of facts about their environment, upon which they may base adequate value judgments.
The cost of sacrificing even immediate material welfare for a quality environment may not be high, but if it is, Canadians deserve to have the facts and the chance to make their choice.
The structure of the organization is a prerogative of the government; however, an independent Crown corporation, with a directorate representative of environmental interests and a small professional staff, is suggested. A suitable name for such an organization might be the Environmental Council of Canada.
At the constitutional conference held on September 14 and 15 of 1970, the subject of environmental management was considered and the problem of pollution of our environment was identified as one of the most pressing and serious issues facing the people and governments of Canada today, and one that will assume increasing dimensions in the future. It was made clear by the first ministers during these constitutional discussions on the problems of environmental management that the federal and provincial governments would continue to act co-operatively and to implement co-ordinated programs of environmental management under the present constitutional arrangements.
In addition, the Canadian Council of Resource Ministers agreed that the development of common approaches to environmental management depends on good communication and a substantial body of common ground understanding. It is important that in addition to an intergovernmental forum there should be an interchange of ideas among senior personnel of all governments. It was recommended that the council make arrangements for a working conference for the purpose of obtaining a full-scale exploration of problems of the environment, to determine the components, the alternatives available and their implications. With all the federal activity in human environmental studies and the pollution control of our
[Mr. Corbin.j
January 15, 1971

environment, in co-operation with provincial activity, the picture seems promising. The tolerance levels o f pollution and its effects on the general well-being of humans is naturally included in this activity.
I would like now to speak briefly on the various types of pollution in our environment and outline government activities in dealing with them. These activities are indirectly aimed at detecting human tolerance levels of pollution that will not seriously affect their physical and mental health and, at the same time, obtaining the type of environment to stimulate physical as well as mental health. Hon. members know that the government has been active and will continue to be active in investigating air pollution. The government is already drafting legislation for a clean air bill that Parliament will be asked to consider in the current session. My minister will again consult with provincial authorities on this very matter next week. Discussions have been and will continue to be held with the provinces on the matter of air pollution, and our technical experts are working on regulations related to the control of atmospheric pollution. The question of air pollution will be one of my minister's major concerns in his responsibilities for the environment. Much research and monitoring is being done by our Department of Agriculture, our Department of National Health and Welfare and other government agencies on soil pollution, that is, the determination of pesticide residues, and so on, in soils.
The government, as well, is doing much in the field of water pollution abatement. National effluent standards are being developed at the present time which will deal in specific terms with pollutants in the effluent of any industry. These standards will be part of the amended Fisheries Act which was passed by Parliament during the last session. Development of these strict national standards that all industry, both new and existing plants, will have to meet will result in a cleaner and better environment.
Under the provision of the Canada Water Act, and in agreement with the province in question, an area could be designated as a water quality management area. Pollution of waters in such a designated area would be punishable by a fine up to $5,000 for each offence. Each day this pollution continued, it would be regarded as a separate offence. Under the provisions, no industry, new or old, could afford not to have pollution abatement facilities that are the most up-to-date that modern tecn-nology can provide.
The problem of noise pollution, which is also referred to in the hon. member's motion, as it affects the physical and mental health of humans as well as other species is receiving much more attention as each day passes. The federal Department of Transport has much to do with the control of noise abatement regulations with regard to commercial transportation, that is, noise abatement regulations at commercial airports, for example. Many municipalities, cities and towns in our provinces have strict regulations concerning excessive noise pollution. In addition, research is being carried out to determine the degree of noise that the human eardrum can withstand without damage.
Environmental Pollution
In the all-out fight against pollution in order to preserve and enhance the quality of our environment, we must clearly identify the various pollutants to be able to develop the expertise to deal with them effectively. I would like to refer once more to the 1970 report of the Science Council of Canada. The conclusion of that report has some sense of urgency. It reads as follows:
High priority should be given to the formation of an environmental council of Canada. It would give immediate tangible evidence that a growing public concern was being recognized in government. It would ensure an early start on assessment of environmental problems before they become a major national backache.
In conclusion, I would like to remind all hon. members of the government's awareness of and concern for the necessity of providing the best possible environment for all the men, women and children of Canada. I know that my minister believes that shaping our environment is the biggest challenge we face in the seventies. I am sure that all hon. members share his concern.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the interesting motion which the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) has placed before the House. I say at the outset that I endorse the idea of setting up an institute of human environmental studies. I think such a body is vitally needed in this day and age in our fight against the over-all pollution problem facing not only this nation but every nation in the world. I certainly endorse the principle of this motion.
I feel there is urgent need today for adequate research into the effects of environmental pollution on the health and well-being of the human species. Studies along the lines suggested by the motion are preventive in nature. They would be of tremendous value both in the treatment of those who suffer ill-health through avoidable environmental problems and also in the setting of standards in every field so that our citizens would not be subject to health hazards from these avoidable environmental problems.
To date, environmental problems have been caused primarily because this type of pollution has been almost totally ignored in the planning and exploitation of our resources and in the industrial development which has sprung up without adequate controls being placed upon it. Today, despite the urgency of the pollution problems in the world environment, we still find that most countries, including our own, are ignoring many of the basic pollution problems facing them.
Only yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) tabled a report dealing with the grave pollution problem of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. We find that these pollution problems have been caused because for the past 60 or 70 years pollution has been ignored by the nation, not because we have not had regulations in our laws and treaties but because the regulations have not been observed. Only yesterday we talked about Lake Erie, which comes under the boundary waters treaty of 1909, in which it is clearly set out that

January 15, 1971
Environmental Pollution
neither Canada nor the U.S. are to pollute the Great Lakes' system. It is a rather sad commentary on the present and past governments that legislation affecting our environment has been allowed to lie dormant on the statute books, with no action being taken by the United States or Canada to try to end pollution problems. I wish to point out to hon. members that we have a host of legislation on our statute books-as does our neighbour across the forty-ninth parallel-under which, if action had been taken, we would not be facing the pollution problems we are talking about this afternoon.
The motion is extremely wide in scope, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to deal only with one or two aspects of it. I do not intend to talk it out. I hope we will be able to have a vote on it this afternoon and that it will pass, so we may set up an institute of human environmental studies. I believe that one of the keys to the solution of pollution problems has to do with population growth. This is something that should be rather simple for nations to understand, yet we have ignored population growth control because it is a question which might upset groups of people politically. If over the next 30 years we are able to cut pollution in half, but the population of the world doubles, we will end up having just as much pollution in the world as we have now. It seems to me that governments are not paying attention to this matter, outside the efforts of the United Nations.
We must sit down, study, determine and chart the paths that we feel this and other countries should travel. There is another aspect to this population growth matter. If the population of the world doubles within the next 30 years, the need for resources will also double. Then we get down to the basic problem of resource planning. Mr. Speaker, what has been done by the government of Canada and by the governments of other countries in the field of resource planning?
We have done precious little planning in Canada. People who have spent much time studying the problem have indicated that if all the resources of the world could be dug up and used within the next few years, the present population of the world would never reach the living standards that we Canadians presently enjoy. That is a disturbing aspect of the over-all picture so far as resources and pollution are concerned.
Dealing with the question of raw materials, we have not yet made a survey to determine how much iron ore Canada will need in the year 2000, and how much of the various other types of minerals we will require for domestic use. Government departments have not yet determined how much of the raw material we have already taken from the earth and turned into manufactured goods can be re-used and recycled. All this is part of the pollution problem. The recycling of minerals and other materials which we have used once, and which can be used again, is something that would help combat pollution. Governments, industries and individuals should examine this matter. I suggest it will only be a matter of time before we are forced to undertake a tremendous amount of re-use and recycling of our resources, resources which the nations of the world are presently wasting. I have been told that we would not need another

pulp mill in Canada for a number of years if we re-used the paper and paper products which we currently waste. We should be researching and taking action along these lines in order to find out just what we can do to cut down pollution which arises, for example, when we get rid of paper by burning it.
There are two or three more points I should like to speak about briefly before sitting down. We are talking about the pollution difficulties facing Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary has just spoken, and I enjoyed his speech very much. He is to be involved with a new department relating to the environment. Although that will be a step forward, I do not think it goes far enough; I do not think the responsibilities of the department will be wide enough to handle all the pollution problems of Canada. He indicated the steps the government was taking, but here we are in January, 1971, and land use regulations have not been introduced. Half of our country consists of the northern part of Canada where a great deal of oil and mineral exploration is going on. Today there are no land use regulations laid down by the government for the direction and control of development in this vast area. Is that modern thinking? No. This is stupidity of the worst kind.
Indications have come from the minister that we are to see such land use regulations next month. Nevertheless, for years this type of development has been going on unregulated and we now find that vast areas of our great north are being destroyed. The people of Canada for hundreds of years to come will pay the penalty because governments of the 1970s did not have the vision to lay down these regulations and make certain that industries and organizations developing and exploiting our resources did so under conditions which are considered safe. Great disasters have occurred in the north. Recently a most disastrous fire broke out which is still burning. Over 4 billion cubic feet of gas have been destroyed. In the drilling of the well concerned, the regulations were broken. We need land use regulations and we need many of them.
Other members have mentioned noise pollution. I have spoken briefly on the need for research into the sonic boom from supersonic transport aircraft. The minister has indicated that such research projects are under way. This is all to the good. As this motion very ably points out, noise as well as other types of air pollution produces a detrimental effect on the quality of the lives of Canadian citizens and the citizens of other countries. The motion asks the government to set up the new department already mentioned.
I urge members of this House to vote in favour of the motion this afternoon and, if necessary, to refer it to the appropriate committee in order to define the type of environmental agency which should be set up. Our constituents have entrusted us with the task of coming to this House of Commons and dealing with pollution. Not only must we try to save the lives of the people of our own country but we must help in the fight against pollution which threatens the existence of mankind. I urge hon. members to vote for the motion we are debating.
January 15, 1971


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker,
unhappily, because of the manner in which members are recognized in this House, it is not always possible for one to speak until it is almost time to adjourn. The hon. member who preceded me made much of the fact that he did not want to talk this motion out, and then talked for 17 minutes. Other members who wish to speak, therefore have only two or three minutes left in which to put their point of view forward.


Mr. Skoberg:: Why not refer the subject matter of this motion to a committee?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I feel that not only is this motion interesting, as the previous speaker said, but that it is too all-encompassing. I congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) for introducing the motion. It is the particular responsibility of Members of Parliament and those members who sit here in a governing capacity to keep the spotlight of publicity on this problem which pervades every area of Canada, whether it be on the land, the sea, our inland waters or our air. When there are no opportunities for members to speak about pollution, I think they are under an obligation to do what is obvious and bootleg their comments, so to speak, wherever it is possible for them to do so, into other speeches they might make, in order to keep this area of concern very much before the public and the press.
I am not certain that we need an environmental study at this time. My reason for being somewhat loth to support the motion at this time is that governments and industries may use such study as one more excuse for failing to take action. There is no point in a study being made unless we can convince governments, industry and the Canadian citizen that this is simply a study, that everyone has a responsibility in this matter, that the point of a study of the environment is really to suggest standards and that, once set, we should try to meet those standards. Frankly, I wonder whether we need one more study or whether we need more action.
The federal government has long since recognized its responsibility in the field of pollution, and now there are five ministries responsible for dealing with the matter. I wish we could have a special minister whose responsibility would be the control of pollution. I would hope that polluters in Canada would look upon that minister as the sinister minister. I hope they would be afraid of such a
Business of the House
minister. I hope that they would know that the minister and his officials were looking over their shoulders.
The minister and his officials, as I say, will be responsible for the control of the environment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At present the cabinet is full of sinister ministers.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If I may be parochial for a moment, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the Sarnia-Lambton area we have the Lambton Industrial Society, an organization set up by industries to look into the pollution problems of the area and to try to work with industry in the solution of pollution difficulties. In the area we have pollution alerts. The society presents films to the general public to make people aware of where the problems lie. Those films show what industry is doing. Our concern has reached the stage that valuable advertising time, either during or immediately after "Hockey Night in Canada", is used by one industry to point out what steps it is taking to control pollution in its area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The horn: set aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if any member on the government side can tell the House whether we will be considering the budget on Monday as well as on Tuesday, so that those of us who wish to make speeches can go to our retreats during the weekend and prepare them. If the government will not listen to that reasonable request, perhaps we might be told what we are to consider on Tuesday.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that there is a definite agreement for the budget to be considered on Monday. It is also my understanding that there will be discussions with the representatives of the various parties on Monday as to whether that debate is to be continued on Tuesday. Following the budget discussion, I understand there will be a resumption of the order of business previously indicated.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
2477

Monday, January 18, 1971