1971-05-04

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
mr. Macdonald (egmont)-answer to question concerning SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE DIVISION OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights of every member of the House. Yesterday an answer was tabled by the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) in response to a written question that I had submitted on March 25. In this written question I asked for information as to the budgeted amounts for the security and intelligence division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, for a statement on the cost of security and intelligence operations within the RCMP, and also for a description of the operations of the security and intelligence division.
In response to these questions the minister replied in the following terms, as reported at page 5423 of Hansard: The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the main federal operational and investigative body in the field of security. Such authority-there is no explicit statutory authority-as does exist is derived from certain sections of the R.C.M. Police Act. It would not be in the public interest to divulge any further information in this connection.
When I first received this answer today-I should explain that I was not here yesterday because I was attending to public business in Prince Edward Island-I was shocked to see the way in which the Solicitor General had seemingly set aside the traditional rights of members of this House to know the disposition of public funds and the public policy that is in effect in regard to such an important operation of government as that of security and intelligence. The reason this question was placed on the order paper in the first instance was that in the annual report tabled some time ago by the Department of the Solicitor General there was absolutely no statement and no information in respect of the cost or the policy of the security operations of the RCMP. I believe this to be a basic contravention and denial of the rights of Members of Parliament. Citation 113 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition states in part:
Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to Parliament and interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of the members.
Mr. Speaker, I point specifically to the latter part of that sentence which states that an interference of any kind with their official duties constitutes a breach of privilege. Surely it is an obvious infringement upon the rights of all members of the House when the minister does not reply to a direct and specific question put with regard to the disposition of public funds and the amounts of expenditures which take place as a result of the
exercise of well-known responsibilities of that department. This affects the right of all members of the House and the people to know what the government is doing with the public funds it has at its command.
I would not have raised this question at this time had it not been for the fact that over the past few weeks oral questions along this same line have been asked by hon. members and the minister has been almost completely reluctant to provide the House with the information necessary in order that members can properly exercise their duties and responsibilities. Members of this House must be increasingly alarmed, as I think the general public is, about knowing whether in fact as a result of our security procedures there is security in this country.
I would be prepared to move, if you view this question as a prima facie case of privilege, as I do, that this whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did give notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege, but it might be better if the Chair had an opportunity to look into the matter and make a ruling in due course, perhaps tomorrow. At this time it was my thought that hon. members would want me to bring to their attention the presence of visitors in the Speaker's gallery.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARIANS FROM FINLAND

Mr. Speaker:: In the Speaker's gallery there is a very distinguished group of fellow parliamentarians from Finland led by the President of that Parliament, Mr. Rafael Paasio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Paasio and his colleagues have come to Canada as fellow parliamentarians; but they are welcome here also as friends. I am sure it is the hope of all hon. members that their stay with us will be pleasant, interesting and fruitful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HONOURABLE JOHN ROBARTS

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention and the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Leader of the Opposition of a very distinguished Canadian, the Honourable John Robarts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

May 4, 1971
Privilege



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
For three years, I have believed that I could, at the same time, serve a political party and the interests of the province of Quebec. Today, I must bow to the facts and recognize that it is impossible to carry out those two objectives simultaneously.
As I am still interested in finding a viable formula for Quebec within the Canadian Confederation, I have decided to continue to work in co-operation with the other hon. members, and I reiterate my intention to sit, from the time the Chair recognizes my right to do so, under the label of an "independent".
Finally, I wish to thank the Chair for its many kindnesses to me and to express the hope that it will deem it reasonable to let me take the floor as often as it has done so previously.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a correction to yesterday's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This correction should be made on motions.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the Official Languages Act I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2) the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board Report, the recommendations of which will be given careful consideration by the government.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the report in the press, attributed to the leader of the delegation of Canadian officials to Washington, that the officials have been unable to ascertain how much oil would be moved from Alaska or where it will be moved, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister where the government of Canada
intends to go from here with regard to that question and whether there is any plan to determine the extent of the possible danger or damage to west coast areas, particularly the area inside the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have a report I would be prepared to give the House on the discussions that took place yesterday which would help answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I would be prepared to revert to motions if that is the wish of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that we return to motions to allow the minister to make a statement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the consultations in Washington yesterday enabled officials of the two countries to examine risks of pollution which would be entailed by the movement of large volumes of oil from Valdez, Alaska to the Pacific northwest. The Canadian delegation made clear the very serious concern of the Canadian government regarding the substantial damages which would result from a major oil spill. The Canadian delegation also raised questions regarding compensation and damages in the event of a massive spill, basing its position on the Trail Smelter decision which provides a firm legal precedent for compensation in the event of damages in Canada resulting from an oil spill in United States or international waters. The principal Canadian concern, however, is not for compensation after the event but to see that oil spills shall not take place. The Canadian delegation pressed the point that, whatever precautions might be taken, oil accidents are likely to occur as was recently shown in the spill of diesel fuel in Puget Sound and in the collision of two tankers in San Francisco Bay.
The Canadian delegation stressed the high cost of cleaning beaches, fishing gear, pleasure craft and the loss entailed from oil-fouled timber and pulpwood. They also pointed to the long-term damage to the growth prospects of the tourist industry which would obviously result from a change in the environmental quality of the waters off the west coast.
The United States side accepted that further information was required in a number of areas before the risk of damage could be adequately assessed. More research, for example, is required on the effects of an oil spill on the spawning of herring and the migration of salmon.

May 4, 1971

It is the Canadian view that it would be irresponsible to take a decision which would result in the mass movement of oil by tanker until all areas of potential risk have been fully assessed. It is time to ensure that the protection of our natural heritage becomes a major priority of public policy. Large, new engineering projects should not be undertaken before adequate information is available on the environmental risks which would be entailed.
For our part, we will wish to hold further talks with the United States in regard to areas where more information is required on the damages which could result from oil spills off the Pacific coast.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves now in the position where a group of Canadian officials have met with a group of United States officials for the purpose of holding certain discussions and seeking certain information. I would like to emphasize to you, Sir, that although the question of approving the TAPS route has been before the U.S. authorities for some time, this discussion is the first, I believe, that has taken place between representatives of the two countries with regard to the problem, and this only at the official level.
The Acting Prime Minister pointed out that the officials discussed the dangers and the question of compensation and apparently secured the admission that further information is required before the dangers can be fully assessed. I would like to know, and I am sure the people concerned on the west coast of Canada particularly would like to know, whether the Canadian officials secured any assurance from the United States that in fact a decision will not be taken by the United States authorities to approve the TAPS route until this information has been obtained. The Acting Prime Minister did not tell the House today that the officials had received any such assurance. Therefore, I think I am perfectly correct in assuming that the Canadian officials have not received any such assurance that in fact the United States decision will be held up until all the information has been gathered which would enable a full assessment to be made of the dangers involved in this project. I think the House is entitled to know where the government intends to go from here.
The Acting Prime Minister spoke generally about further conversations with people in the United States. I certainly hope they will be at the ministerial level so that our American friends will know that we are at least taking this matter seriously and are not content simply to discuss it at the official level.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hear some gentleman opposite calling for a question. As I understand it, we are on motions. I will not keep the House too long, but there are one or two things I want to say.
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
I think it is fair to say that, as far as we could tell from the Acting Prime Minister's statement, the officials reported nothing new. We are now in a position where we do not know, the Acting Prime Minister not having told us, what the government of Canada proposes to do, if anything, in these circumstances. We have not been told what the government of Canada proposes to do to bring this home to the government of the United States.
We do not know whether the government of Canada intends to seek an assurance from the government of the United States that in fact a decision will not be made until these dangers have been fully assessed. We do not even know whether the government of Canada is actively pushing the Canadian pipeline as an alternative. In other words, Sir, I suggest it is time that the Acting Prime Minister and his colleagues stopped fooling around with this question and told the House and the Canadian people exactly where they stand and what they intend to do.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the government has shown an amazing timidity in protesting against the proposed transportation of crude oil by sea from Valdez, Alaska, to the west coast of the United States.
For many months people on the Pacific coast have been perturbed and disturbed about the prospect of huge tankers transporting oil down the Pacific coast, and particularly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. It was only after months of prodding that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) finally agreed to get in touch with the United States government and ask for discussions.
I think most of us took it for granted that these discussions would take place at the ministerial level, and that the Acting Prime Minister himself would make representations to the government of the United States protesting against what could be a very serious pollution hazard to the people who live on the coast of British Columbia. Instead, we now have discussions going on in Washington between officials of the Canadian government and officials of the United States government. From the report the minister has given today it is perfectly clear the discussions were mainly about how to reduce the risks of pollution, what kind of navigational aids would be required, what standards of ship construction, what emergency and contingency plans would be ready in the event of an oil spill, and who should be held responsible in the event of a disaster. Mr. Speaker, discussions of this kind presuppose an acceptance of the TAPS program. We ought not to be discussing how we are going to reduce the risk of pollution in the event of crude oil being brought down the Pacific coast. We should be making strong representations and presenting data to show that the program should be abandoned.
The Canadian officials who have been attending the meeting in Washington have not been able to secure the information they want, if one may judge by the statements of Mr. George Wardroper, Director General of Science and Environment in the Department of External Affairs. He says they have not been able to receive from the American authorities any information as to how
5472

May 4, 1971
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System much oil will be transported daily down the Pacific coast, nor have they been able to receive any information as to what the destination of the oil tankers will be.
Mr. Speaker, one would have to be very naive to think that this type of information is not available. Those who have stockpiled the pipe in Alaska know the dimensions of that pipe. They have an estimate of how much oil they will be putting through that pipeline. They know how much oil will have to be transported by tanker. For them to say they cannot tell the Canadian officials how much oil they will be shipping is sheer evasion.
The time has come for the government to take this matter seriously and to have direct talks between Canadian cabinet ministers and representatives of the United States cabinet. The government should be presenting the kind of data which will convince the American authorities that a tanker route down the Pacific coast of the magnitude envisaged will be a menace not only to the Canadian fishing industry but to the American fishing industry, not only to Canadian coastal waters but to American coastal waters.
I remind the minister that twice in the last 12 months members of this party have presented amendments to the Canada Shipping Act asking that the Canadian government establish a 100-mile pollution control zone on the Pacific coast in the same manner that Parliament did over a year ago with respect to the Arctic. The time has come to talk to the American authorities in fairly blunt and specific language, to say to them that we want this TAPS program stopped and that if it is not stopped we propose to take the necessary measures to protect the coastal waters of Canada.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised is currently of the highest interest. I have just returned from a trip to British Columbia and the question of the movement of oil from Alaska to the United States is creating presently a state of anxiety among the people of British Columbia.
I happened to meet representatives of fishermen associations and companies as well as fishermen and, everywhere, people seemed very anxious about the movement of oil. We do note also that the government is in no hurry to assure the people of British Columbia that it is possible to sign an agreement with the United States in order to eliminate any danger of pollution to Pacific waters. In fact, should these waters become polluted one day, it would be the end of British Columbia fisheries.
I said, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbia was concerned with this situation and I believe that the U.S. should have the decency to think twice before launching activities which would contribute to further pollution of Pacific waters. As I said previously, this government has showed no haste in publicizing the results of its discussions with the U.S. In my view, it is urgent that we, as parliamentarians, should know what the score is.
In addition, it is important that the people of British Columbia, as a Canadian province, be assured that our

neighbours will respect our territorial waters and be held responsible for any pollution of our waters caused by oil shipments from Alaska.
I urge the government to act expeditiously and assure British Columbia and Parliament that our rights will be preserved when agreements are signed between the U.S. and Canadian governments.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will now return to the question period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might return to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him whether the government of Canada intends to seek from the United States authorities an assurance that a decision with regard to approval of the TAPS route will not be made until the dangers involved have been fully assessed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that has been the intent of all the representations we have made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a straightforward question in the hope of receiving a straightforward answer. Is the government of Canada directly asking the United States government not to make a decision with regard to the TAPS route until the dangers have been assessed? Has that request been made and, if so, what answer has been received? If the request has not been made, will it be made and, if so, at what level?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this is one question or a number of questions, but I would suggest to the minister that he might reply as briefly as possible. We have to go on to another question.


Mitchell William Sharp: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, hearings are going on about the building of the TAPS line and the United States government has not yet received advice from the advisory body that will be advising it. That is one of the reasons I have felt it most desirable that the full scale of the dangers involved in building this line should be known before any decisions are made by the United States government. That is why I said in answer to the first question that this has been the intent of all our representations. On the question of whether we should seek an undertaking from the United States that it will not make a decision until we are satisfied, I would hope that would be the situation but of course I could give no guarantees.
May 4, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has any machinery been established for a joint assessment and joint examination of the dangers by representatives of the two countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in a sense that was what was going on yesterday and I hope will be continuing today. Our officials, who carry the full authority of the Canadian government in all these negotiations, have been making known to the United States government our concerns about the ecological dangers. So far we have not been satisfied with the replies we have received, and I do believe we have pointed out to the United States government some of the inadequacies in the consideration they have given to this project.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-WASHINGTON MEETING-USE OE ECOLOGICAL STUDIES IN CANADIAN PRESENTATION TO UNITED STATES OFFICIALS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I asked the Minister of Transport if ecological studies had been made by his department regarding the danger of the pollution of the coastal waters of British Columbia and he indicated that such studies were going on. I now want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the results of these studies, and any others that were carried on by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, were part of the presentation made yesterday by the Canadian officials in their meeting with the government representatives of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman may not have listened very carefully to the presentation I made. If he will read it in Hansard he will see that it is precisely these points that our officials brought to the attention of the United States authorities.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT OR CABINET MEMBERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the statement made by Mr. George Lincoln, chairman of the president's oil policy committee, to the effect that the Canadian government had not been very enthusiastic about supporting an alternate route and that the American government would welcome direct contacts with the Canadian government regarding the whole question of transporting oil from Alaska to the United States, does the government intend to have direct discussions? Does the minister himself intend to meet with Mr. Rogers, or does the Prime Minister intend to have direct negotiations with the President of the United States regarding this whole question of moving oil from Alaska to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no application for building a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. I am quite sure the hon. gentleman would be the first in this House to rise in his place and say that he hopes the Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry
government is protecting the environment of the north of Canada as well as the Pacific coast before any plans are undertaken to build a pipeline. I am quite sure that this is the position he would want us to be in. Therefore I would suggest that he, no more than the government, is saying, "a pipeline at any cost down the Mackenzie Valley".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries, including the hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I think in fairness to all hon. members I should at this point recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue and return to the hon. members in a moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister is seeking to direct my remarks in an entirely erroneous direction. At no time did I suggest that the choice was between the TAPS program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that what he is raising now is not a point of order. Perhaps he will have an opportunity in a moment to clarify matters by a supplementary question, but I think the time has come to give an opportunity to the hon. member for Temiscamingue to ask a question also.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Real  Caoue@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
I wonder whether he is awake or sleeping. Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister. He seemed to be resting so well.
My question is as follows: Does the minister intend to delay the consideration of the motion for third reading of Bill C-176 pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on that question?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker. There is new law contained in Bill C-176 that is not before the Supreme Court at the present time.


Mr. Baldwin:: Bad law.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-SUGGESTION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE BY CANADIAN OFFICIALS AT WASHINGTON MEETING

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker in light of what the Secretary of State for External
5474

May 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Affairs has said about the meeting in Washington between Canadian and United States officials, may I ask if the Canadian delegation in its official capacity suggested any alternative route or method for transporting this crude petroleum? If they did, on what study did they base their recommendations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no, the Canadian government did not suggest an alternative route. The delegation that went with the authority of the Canadian government went to discuss the ecological dangers of building the TAPS line, which I think is the correct procedure at the present time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. What knowledge and studies did the Canadian officials use in discussing this question with the United States officials? What study did Canadians use? Did they use an American study or one of their own?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has had considerable experience in cleaning up oil spills on the ocean.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. We have been deep in oil for the last 40 minutes and perhaps we should then go to another subject.



INVITATION BY MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT TO UNITED STATES TO BUILD PIPELINE THROUGH NORTHERN CANADA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was speaking for the government of Canada when he apparently invited the Americans to come in and build a pipeline through Northern Canada? Was this the expression of a government invitation? If so, has the government had second thoughts about it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check what my colleague said before I could answer that question.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT OR CABINET MEMBERS

['Order, please.']
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, while all members would agree with the Acting Prime Minister that Canada should not build a pipeline through the north as an alternative to TAPS without very wide discussion and investigation, since Mr. George Lincoln's statement would appear to be a refined form of blackmail I return to the question I asked the Acting Prime Minister: Has the time not come for direct ministerial discussions on this very important matter instead of leaving it to officials until such time as the American government has made a decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada enacted the National Energy Board Act which gives that board authority to deal with applications for the building of pipelines. I am quite sure the hon. member would not wish the Canadian government to intervene before the National Energy Board has had the opportunity of looking at any application for the building of a pipeline, because the National Energy Board can take into account all relevant factors.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has he now had conversations with representatives of the governments of India and Pakistan and can he advise about the situation in East Pakistan, particularly with reference to the acceptance by the authorities there of relief supplies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had extensive conversations in recent days at several levels about the situation in Pakistan. The Canadian High Commissioner has been for some days now in East Pakistan and he will be submitting a report shortly. We have also been in touch with other governments which have been co-operating in the economic development of Pakistan and with international organizations like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The World Bank has a senior representative in Islamabad. The Canadian government is trying to obtain a balanced assessment of the situation quickly. I have said many times that we are ready to contribute relief assistance and what we need to do now is to determine how to make this aid effective.
If you will permit me just a moment, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say that the League of Red Cross Societies over the weekend appealed for relief assistance for refugees from East Pakistan who are now in India. The government is making an immediate initial contribution through the Canadian Red Cross in response to this appeal. This particular contribution is expected to be spent largely on medicines, in addition to any contributions already made by the Canadian Red Cross. We have been in touch with the world food program and we hope that we can provide help in that way.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the Pakistan authorities are now accepting the aid of these relief agencies and allowing them into East Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had no requests whatsoever from the Pakistan government as such. The announcement that I was making was about the relief of refugees from Pakistan who are now in India.

May 4, 1971


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Malane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is he in a position to tell the House whether the Canadian government has made known to the government of Pakistan its vigorous and unequivocal censure of the atrocities perpetrated in East Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House, we have made it known that we favour a political settlement of this situation and not bloodshed, some of which unfortunately has already taken place.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the government consider sending independent observers from this parliament to the scene, as other countries of the Commonwealth have done, possibly a member of the opposition and one of those parliamentary secretaries who are lying around and not doing anything?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I would refer him to the concept advanced by the Prime Minister of using net social benefit as a better indicator of economic progress in this country than gross national product. Can he tell us whether the Dominion Bureau of Statistics or Statistics Canada, for which he is responsible to the House, has undertaken a study of its efficacy as a measure of economic progress? Also, has this been referred to the Economic Council of Canada as a useful tool, or is this idea merely some speech writer's pipedream?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is a new concept. Since the Bureau of Statistics is interested in moving with the times, I presume they will study it and try to find out how it can be defined in statistical terms.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to inform himself whether this is a concrete fact and whether Statistics Canada is actually considering net social benefit as a tool in measuring economic progress, or is this merely some speech writer's pipedream?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will try to satisfy my curiosity and that of my hon. friend too.



WHEAT-DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS TO COMPENSATE FARMERS FOR LOSS IN NET INCOME-TWO-PRICE SYSTEM

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since the government of which the hon. gentleman is a member took office in 1968 there has been a drop in net farm income of over $500 million.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly ask his question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since the proposed $100 million acreage payments will be mostly, if not all, made with money which the government has saved on grain storage and losses in grain pools, can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether the government will now consider supplementary or deficiency payments particularly to the grain industry in western Canada to make up some of the $500 million loss in net income?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very complicated question. My short answer is that the payments that are going to be made exceed anything that has been done in the past.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the drop in net farm income in Manitoba of over 100 per cent, and of nearly 100 per cent in Saskatchewan, will the minister now advise whether the government of Canada will agree to a two-price system for grain?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HARBOURS


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I want to direct to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell this House whether he intends to announce significant changes to the operating chart of the Canadian harbour administration at the seminar on transportation to be held May 13 next at the Sheraton-Mount Royal Hotel, or whether these changes will be announced in the House of Commons?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question is now being examined. I had not up to now given any thought to just where the announcement might be made. If a new policy is involved I shall show what I hope hon. members will agree is my usual respect for the House and make it here.

May 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry AIRPORTS



TORONTO-EXPEDITING OF DECISION ON SITE AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FACILITY

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the delays at Ste. Scholastique, is the government prepared to speed up the decision on and construction of the new international airport for the Toronto area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am
happy to say that the delays at Ste. Scholastique have now been eliminated. The work stoppage is at an end, and if the weather co-operates we shall move ahead very quickly at that site. I do not think it has any relationship to the Toronto question. I am happy to say that I met yesterday with Mr. MacNaughton, the representative of the province of Ontario, and I can say progress is being made.


Mr. Scoit:: Is the government close to a consensus with the provincial and municipal parties on the question of the Toronto airport site and, if so, will an announcement be made this month?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Sometimes I may display a large amount of confidence but I would not dare say how close one government ever gets to consensus with another.



TORONTO-CONSULTATION ON SUITABLE AREA FOR HOUSING NEAR NEW FACILITY

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waierloo):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the hon. gentleman's expressed interest in satellite cities, has he held discussions with the Minister of Transport in order to provide an area for the housing of the 50,000 to 100,000 people who will be involved in this project so that the problems which have arisen at Malton will not arise in this case?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: The whole question of the pattern of urban growth and development and the effect on that of the placement of such major transportation facilities as airports is the subject of ongoing consultation and co-operation between myself and my officials and the Minister of Transport and his officials. Such consultation is constant now. We are part of that discussion.



TORONTO-ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEW SITE IN HOUSE

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to ask the
Minister of Transport whether the announcement of the location of the New Ontario site will be made by him in the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I would assume that if the negotiations with the province of Ontario proceed satisfactorily the announcement might even be made simultaneously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oxford with a last supplementary question on this subject.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of housing. Did the minister consult with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State who is in charge of the youth program for the summer with respect to the new northern city which is to be constructed overnight by 100,000 young people, or whatever it was, and can he give us more details?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a supplementary.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. It arises out of his answer to a question regarding the airport in Quebec vis-a-vis the proposed Toronto airport. I would ask the Minister of Transport whether in referring to this question he would check out the statement made by the Prime Minister, as reported at page 5391 of Hansard on Friday last, in which the inference is left that they had to go ahead with the Quebec airport in order to take business away from the proposed Toronto airport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. While the minister is doing all this checking, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Joliette.



FINANCE


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if the government has received an official request from the Union of Canadian Municipalities in order that special funds be earmarked for the development of specific municipal projects? If so, I should like to know the position of the government in this regard.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of continuing concern on the Prairies about the high cost of farm machinery, can the minister now tell us when he expects to table the final report of the Barber Commission on the price of farm machinery?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have been advised that the report will be available in both official languages by about May 17. I should also advise the House that no decision has been taken by the government whether it will be tabled on that particular date.

May 4, 1971


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is the hon. gentleman's department preparing legislation to implement some of the recommendations of this commission as soon as possible?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are taking the findings and recommendations of the commissioner very seriously.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: In a previous report the Barber Commission recommended that an investigation into farm machinery prices be undertaken under the Combines Investigation Act. Will the minister initiate such an investigation now without waiting for the final report?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I would think that question should be directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If my memory serves me correctly, the minister indicated that he was considering that course several months ago.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: In view of the fact that this report was anticipated several years ago and that since then inflation has thrown an entirely different light on the value of any final report which may be presented, is the minister prepared to set up another commission to determine the extent to which the situation has changed?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AIRPORTS


Hon. Mariial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
I learned during the weekend that in view of a new policy of the Department of Transport which is no longer willing to make up deficits of local airports, the Murray Bay airport would be closed next summer thus causing considerable loss to the tourist industry in the Charlevoix constituency.
Does the minister intend by such a procedure to express a new policy of the Department of Transport under which municipal airport deficits would no longer be made up?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, there has not been a major change of policy yet with regard to assistance in the establishment of the type of airport to which the hon. member refers. We are working on one with the objective of making a greater amount of assistance available. If the hon. member would care to give me the details of this particular case I would be glad to look into the matter and report.
* *

* *
*



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to inform the House concerning any negotiations between Air Canada and Eastern Provincial Airways regarding air routes between Montreal and the Atlantic provinces and within the Atlantic provinces in consequence of which present Air Canada routes would be transferred to EPA?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
not in a specific sense, although, of course, as I have reported to the House on previous occasions, Air Canada is carrying on discussions with a number of regional carriers throughout the country with a view to the rationalization of the route structure. I do not know of any specific plans or talks at the present time, but I shall be glad to make inquiries.


Robert Carman Coates: Has the minister examined the recent Air Canada schedule relating to these routes, a schedule which sets back many years the type of service which has been available within the Atlantic provinces, and will he endeavour to secure the reinstatement of the type of service which was available up to April 24?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of a representation and he has to assume it has been noted.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Acting Prime Minister in a position today to answer the question I raised with him yesterday concerning the state of negotiations between the federal government and the provinces on the subject of offshore mineral rights? I would also ask the minister whether legislation on this important matter will be laid before the House before the end of this session?


Mitchell William Sharp: I regret I am not in a position to answer today. I will see whether an answer can be got for tomorrow.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the latest position is with regard to the possibility of a conference on the law of the sea being held within a reasonable period. Is there still a possibility of this conference being held in 1973 as was indicated some weeks ago?

May 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is still the intention.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that indications now, contrary to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just said, are that the Law of the Sea Conference may not take place until 1975, can the minister indicate whether his department or the government has any plans to take any new Canadian initiatives in the area of marine resource development and conservation?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's response should be as brief as possible. It seems to me this question covers a very wide area and should normally be answered by way of a general statement on motions, but the minister might reply briefly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you that it would take a long time to answer this question adequately.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I raised the question several months ago with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries. I ask the minister whether he can enlighten the House and the Canadian people by making a statement on motions giving us the clear, definitive position of the Canadian government on the conservation of our marine resources, preliminary to any international discussions which will take place several years from now.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this may be worth doing. I should say by way of preliminary answer that no country in the world has been more progressive in the position it has taken with regard to the law of the sea and the conservation of marine resources than has Canada.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: This question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the possible moving of the estate and gift tax section of the Department of National Revenue from Saskatoon and Regina to Calgary and Winnipeg, would the minister reconsider this decision to remove these services from the taxpayers of Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is in the form of a request or submission to the minister and he has to assume it will be considered.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can the minister say whether his department's policy on support price for wool of acceptable categories is re-established every year? If so, do the support price and supplementary payments vary each year, when is this announced to the people concerned and what is the price for the year 1971-72?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we made an announcement on February 8 substantially moving up support prices for skim milk powder and cheese. I indicated before the dairy year started on April 1 that those prices would be maintained.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I think that the hon. minister did not understand my question correctly; it was related to the support price for wool, and not for cheese and butter. I asked what was the policy of the department as to adjustment payments, and what support price had been established for 1971-72?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, here again I either tabled in the House or issued a press release respecting the wool support price for last year's clip, which was 45 cents a pound.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Is the minister in a position to advise the House whether the federal government has received recently any representations from NORAD regarding building or property requirements at Churchill or Fort Churchill, Manitoba?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have made an agreement with the government of the province of Manitoba with regard to Churchill, and two or three aspects of that agreement are coming along fine. Contracts will be called shortly.


Robert Simpson: Is the minister in a position to say whether any representations have been received from NORAD in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should indicate to hon. members that we will be running out of time shortly and that we might limit the number of supplementaries from this point on.

May 4, 1971



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
I wish to ask him whether the agenda for the constitutional conference to be held in June has been formally announced and whether the government intends to make it public in the near future.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the general nature of the subjects that will be discussed at the conference is pretty well known as a result of the preparations that were made at the last meeting. When the Prime Minister returns I will ask him when the agreed agenda can be published.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the discussion will deal only with the amendment or also with the sharing of taxing powers between the provincial and federal governments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the agenda for such meetings is, of course, a matter of agreement between the federal government and the provinces. I cannot give a precise answer to the question, but I do know that the principal subject of discussion will be the continuation of the discussion that took place a few months ago.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might direct a question to the Solicitor General. Inasmuch as it seems to be general practice and policy within the penitentiaries service not to permit inmates to write letters of criticism either of the institution or its administration, and that such letters are returned to the inmates for rephrasing, would the minister see to it that this imposition of censorship is removed so that inmates may freely communicate their criticisms to people, especially to Members of Parliament?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have already received a similar suggestion during consideration of departmental estimates by the standing committee and I answered that we would study it. Today I give the same answer. I do not know enough about it to give a specific answer, but I am rather inclined to think that the inmates should be allowed to communicate as freely as possible with the members.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Solicitor General which relates to surveillance of university campuses. Has the government taken a decision to change the policy enunciated by the Right Hon. Lester Pearson in 1963 about police surveillance of universities in this country? If so, will the minister discuss the matter with the Association of Universities and Colleges and the Canadian Association of University Teachers, with a view to preserving academic freedom?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been under careful consideration. We must remember what the right hon. Prime Minister said, I think, in January.
It is now a matter of deciding whether students and professors are ordinary citizens and whether university campuses must be treated as sanctuaries impregnable to routine police work. That is the way in which we are considering the matter.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether there has been any consideration given to changing the policy regarding surveillance procedures on university campuses?


Mr. Fairwealher:: Which is the question I asked. [Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the question has just been asked and I have answered it.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Waller C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. On March 30, in reply to a question put to him, the minister indicated that the government of Canada had requested from the provincial government of Newfoundland a guarantee to cover the amount of the government's involvement in the wharf and docking facility project at Come-By-Chance. Can the minister indicate whether the guarantee has been received? If not, is it the intention of the government to continue to press for the guarantee?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to work toward negotiations with the Provincial Building Company Limited and the Provincial Refining Company Limited but so far have not
5480
May 4, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
concluded an agreement. In order to secure the kind of undertaking we desire and insist upon, we shall see to it that we leave nothing to chance.


Walter C. Carter: Was the request made directly to the government of Newfoundland, to one of its Crown agencies, or to the company involved?


Arthur Laing: To the Crown agencies, Mr. Speaker, but I assume that it reverberated to the government of Newfoundland.



STRAWBERRIES-EFFECT OF FOREIGN IMPORTS ON FRASER VALLEY GROWERS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have so many questions to ask that I do not know where to start, but I will raise a local matter with the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that the minister has received a number of representations from strawberry growers concerning the threat posed to their industry by foreign imports. Can he tell the House when he will be in a position to give a decision on this particular matter so the people in my riding and in nearby ridings who are engaged in this industry will know where they are going in the future?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Very soon, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member will realize that it is very difficult to prove injury before injury has occurred.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's reply let me say the difficulty facing the growers is that the processors who buy their product are not willing to purchase for markets east of Winnipeg because of this threat, and that seems to be proof enough of injury.



RAPESEED-AVAILABILITY OF SEED FREE OF ERUCIC ACID

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can assure the land of rape and honey that there is sufficient production of rapeseed, in spite of the recent storm, free of erucic acid in the California valley so that those who have requested this seed will have a sufficient supply this spring?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I
cannot, Mr. Speaker. All I can assure the hon. member is that all the seed produced will be distributed.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Is he aware of the SOS sent out by the workers of the footwear industry, who blame the government for the closing down of 190 plants in Canada since 1961, of which 34 in Quebec, as a result of the legalized dumping allowed by the federal government and the resulting unfair competititon of foreign exporters? Does the minister have solutions to that problem? Does he intend to adopt programs to help the industry and its workers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I expect the minister heard the SOS of the hon. member. As for the question, it should normally be dealt with through a statement on motions. The minister could perhaps consider that possibility.
* *
*



HOUSING


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for housing. Can he inform the House of the nature of the 14 recommendations made by a group of experts on water pollution and sewage treatment under George Seaton, commissioned by his department at a cost of $150,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust it is not suggested that the minister make this known to the House at this time. The minister might want to indicate whether this can be done on another occasion.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. gentleman referred to the other day did not register with me under the description he gave, and for that I apologize. There is a report we commissioned under the direction of Mr. Seaton. It is one, as I indicated generally the other day, of half a dozen or a dozen different policy examinations we are conducting in respect of housing and urban policy through both CMHC and the new urban secretariat designate. At an appropriate time when we are able to deal with and make decisions in respect of all of these, we will put them together in a package and probably make them public.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Since the minister has stated the government's policy on university surveillance is no longer firm, will he consider putting the issue before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and appear before the committee so that it can consider the matter thoroughly before any action is taken by the government?

May 4, 1971


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I did mention that we are seriously considering the possibility of reviewing this policy. Should the hon. member wish to make comments in this regard they will certainly be welcome. At all events, this is not my first intimation of that possibility. I mentioned it on different occasions and I must admit that so far I have not received many comments from hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us proceed with orders of the day.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Charlevoix rising on a question of privilege?


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The question period came to an end some three or four minutes ago and I believe supplementary questions could be put tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved: that Bill C-241, to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill requires little explanation. It proposes the maintenance by the Crown of the three residences described therein for the Prime Minister of Canada the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Speaker of the House of Commons on a rent-free basis.
The provisions of the proposed act would be effective as of January 1, 1970, but the present financial outlay to be payable on the Prime Minister's residence will continue at the present rate until the day following the next general election.
The government's decision to seek legislative authority to provide and maintain residences for the holders of these parliamentary offices is in keeping with the report of the Beaupre advisory committee on salaries and expenses which recommended that neither the Prime Minister nor the Leader of the Opposition should be required to pay rent for publicly owned residences provided for their official use.
In accepting this particular recommendation, the government also felt that the bill should include provison of rent-free accommodation for the Speaker, and that the application of the principle should be contained in a
Prime Minister's Residence Act single piece of legislation. Since existing legislation provides for the operation and maintenance of the Prime Minister's residence at 24 Sussex Drive and at Harrington Lake, I think I might confine my remarks largely to the subjects of the residences for the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker. I am sure hon. members will be interested in the background to the acquisition of the two properties by the government of Canada and the proposal to make them part of the official residences act.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) occupies a property called Stornoway located in the village of Rock-liffe Park. To a Scot that is a very good name. The title to this property has been held since 1950 by the Royal Trust Company in trust to provide, and I quote from the agreement between that company and the trustees of the property, "a suitable residence for the use and occupation of the leader of the Conservative party or of the Liberal party, whichever shall be in opposition."


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No rent is paid for the occupancy of Stornoway. In addition, the trustees have paid for the maintenance of the property, including the property taxes, and have provided about 60 per cent of the furnishings.
In 1969, the Hon. Grattan O'Leary, chairman of the board of trustees of Stornoway, approached the government with the proposal that the property be transferred to the government at no cost and maintained in the future by the government as an official residence for the Leader of the official Opposition. At that time Senator O'Leary explained that the purchase of Stornoway was made possible by a group of citizens representing all parties and residents in all of the provinces, who felt that the holder of the office of the Leader of the Opposition, an integral part of our parliamentary structure, should be provided with a residence consistent with the meaning and dignity of his position. These citizens, with others who were added over the years, have continued their contributions to maintain the property in a fitting manner. Senator O'Leary pointed out that Stornoway had been occupied successively by the Hon. G.eorge Drew, Right Hon. Lester Pearson, Right Hon. John Diefenbaker and, of course, by the present Leader of the Opposition. It was also made available to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent for the short time he was Leader of the Opposition in this House.
Having carried the cost and care of the administration of Stornoway for some 20 years, it was the trustees' conclusion that the ownership and administration of the property should justly pass into the hands of the government and, as Senator O'Leary put it, become a part of the parliamentary structure. Negotiations have been completed by the government for the transfer of Stornoway to Her Majesty in right of Canada subject, of course, to the enactment by Parliament of legislation enabling the government to maintain the property as a residence for the Leader of the Opposition.
Hon. members are aware, I am sure, that the Speaker of the House occupies a residence called The Farm in
5482

May 4, 1971
Prime Minister's Residence Act Kingsmere Park which is part of certain properties in the Gatineau Park bequeathed to the government of Canada by the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King as a public park in trust for the citizens of Canada. In May, 1961, Parliament enacted the Kingsmere Park Act to provide for the administration of this property in accordance with the will. The Act made provision whereby the Governor in Council may, by order, set aside any part of Kingsmere Park for use as a country home for the Prime Minister.
It has been the custom for a number of years for the Speaker of the House to occupy the building and the associated grounds known as The Farm on a rent-free basis. The government proposes, by this act, to give statutory recognition to a custom which, I am sure, reflects the high esteem in which all of us hold the office of the Speaker of the House. It is fitting that provision should be made in this legislation for this residence, along with those for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.
Hon. members will observe that, in addition to providing for the rent-free occupancy of the residences concerned, the bill stipulates that the benefits thereby received by the occupants shall be considered as a living expense allowance and, as such, exempted from income tax.
The present provisions affecting the Prime Minister's residence, as I mentioned, will continue in force until the next Parliament. What will happen now, if this bill is enacted, is that there will be an Official Residences Act providing for the arrangements I have mentioned relating to the residence of the Speaker of the House known as the Farm at Kingsmere, the residence of the Leader of the Opposition, Stornoway, and the residences of the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive and Harrington Lake.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be the spokesman for my party on this very important measure. I believe I was selected because I was considered to be the least likely person ever to occupy any of the residences under discussion at the present time. For that nomination, I return the thanks which are due from a modest man.
I am very happy that this is being done. There are other Beaupre report recommendations which I would have greeted with some pleasure as well. I think it is important that all public men be accorded such dignity. I believe it is important that the nation show some respect in a permanent, and indeed practical way, for those who by the choice of their fellow countrymen or fellow parliamentarians in one case are elevated to positions of authority, respect and leadership.
It was an atrocious thing that this country for so many years had its Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition renting quarters or taking suites in hotels or what have you. The British have had No. 10 Downing Street and Chequers for as long as many of us can remember, and perhaps our parents before that. The United States has had its White House from the days of Jefferson, the first occupant. This is a demonstration that the office is
indeed transcendent to the occupant. We never make a mistake, I think, in a country to emphasize the continuity of those institutions which make the country rim and to which we pay allegiance. So, the democratically chosen chieftains of our land deserve the honour and respect which goes with the setting aside for them of official residences.
I would hope that as the years go by tradition will build into these residences and that they will become an essential part of the warp and woof of Canadian history as well as its greatness, its variety, its political structure and its variability mingled with its permanence.
The details set out by the minister have been set out well. He has been Gallic and sparse in his words, but I think adequate in his explanations. I do believe provision should be made for an official residence for the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry that the original statement excluded any party but the Liberals and the Conservatives, but the realism was not unborne-out by the facts. However, it was a public spirited move on the part of those private citizens in Canada who acquired the fine residence, Stornoway, and although I might prefer the name ULVA House to Stornoway I agree with the minister that Stornoway is a pretty good name.
So, it is a very fine move which is being made. As a result, this matter will rest not with a group of public spirited citizens who from their own means provided a house for the Leader of the Opposition but with the state which recognizes the role of the Leader of the Opposition. In some ways this provision is one of the most important because it underlines the importance of the man who is the number one critic of those in power, and the number one contender for succession when the people's will is expressed in another way. Of all the variations of the democratic parliamentary system, I think the one whereby the Leader of the Opposition is made, in fact, an official part of the system is a fine move.
The changes involving the Prime Minister's residence are long overdue. We should have had them a long time ago. There are certain anomalies in reference thereto which have been discussed in this House before, such as the nonsensical requirement or tradition that the Prime Minister remit a certain amount of rent. This was based on the particular wish of a former occupant. It was a ridiculous thing which ought not to have recurred.
I think it would have been better had those charged with the responsibilities of discussing the fate of Stornoway given thought to the acquisition of other residences. I believe it would have been better had they been a little more historically minded. I advised the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) months and months ago that the beautiful residence of the former Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, was to be destroyed by some development group. It was mentioned time and time again, and I have a feeling that at the same time discussions were being held about Stornaway the wreckers hammer was being poised to destroy the beautiful home, Glensmere, in which Sir Robert Borden lived for a third of a century. He was a great Canadian, the architect of Canadian independence, our first and

May 4, 1971

greatest nationalist. What a magnificent home that would have made for the Leader of the Opposition!
While I am talking about the historic value of historic residences and the propriety of their being utilized to the full, I still believe that the Prime Minister of Canada should be living in Earnscliffe, the home of Sir John A. Macdonald who was the father of this country in every real sense in so far as our political institutions are concerned. I am sure, and I know this to be the case, that it could very easily have been arranged, because the British are very amenable and understanding about this.
So my suggestion would be that the Prime Minister should be in Earnscliffe, the Leader of the Opposition should have been in Glensmere, and Mr. Speaker in Stornoway. What has been done in reference to The Farm, a beautiful place, very well presided over with great charm and hospitality by our present Mr. Speaker and by preceding speakers, is fine, but I do believe that it is not enough. I believe that the Speaker of this House, the first commoner, the great defender of our traditions, the most important man on the hill, the Speaker, should have a residence right here in the city of Ottawa. I think the government should make moves to provide him with one. Kingsmere, The Farm, is a delightful place. We all love to go out there in the summer, and Mr. Speaker is very generous with his hospitality. Someone mentioned booze, there. I do not know what he means by that word, but perhaps he means the lovely band which is often there to charm us with the spirited airs of some of the great waltz kings of the past!
As I said at the beginning, Sir, I was chosen to speak because I have no personal interest in this, but perhaps I do have a personal interest once removed. I am looking forward to the day when my leader will be in the Prime Minister's residence, and I expect him to invite me there once in a while. The pleasure that should come to the long suffering people of Canada will be many times greater even than mine when I go there as his guest. So, that is my only personal involvement.
I do not propose to discuss this measure overlong. I have a feeling it is one on which there is a good deal of unanimity, or at least consensus in the House. I grasp the rare opportunity to congratulate the government without much qualification, and I say that we should move forward. I think we should not be satisfied with the provisions which we have made for Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the government for moving as it has in reference to the residence for the Leader of the Opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in one sense a companion piece to the bill we discussed the last two or three days. At least it is before us in the name of the same minister, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), and it is going for detailed study to the same committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. But it is quite a different bill so far as the response of the House to it is concerned. Indeed, it is already clear from what has been said by the sponsor of the bill and by the hon. member
Prime Minister's Residence Act
for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), that this bill will receive the general support of the House.
It was interesting, as it always is, to listen to a bit of history about some of these things that we take for granted. I think the item in the history that the President of the Privy Council gave us which was not interesting was the fact that when certain private individuals established Stornoway as an official residence it was to be limited to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party or the leader of the Liberal party. As hon. members are aware, we called order at that point, but we were soon corrected by a later stage of history which was recited to us, namely, that when the property was taken over by the government, or at least when government money was put into it, it was made clear that it was to be the residence for the leader of the official opposition. It would have been most unfortunate in historical terms if it worked out that our leader, while he was leader of the official opposition, would have to find a residence somewhere else but nevertheless would move into 24 Sussex Drive when he became prime minister. Now, it is clear that during that interim period when he would be leader of the opposition he would be an occupant of Stornoway.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does he not plan to go directly to 24 Sussex Drive?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a matter of fact I accept the rebuke that the Leader of the Opposition has just given to me. If I heard him correctly he asked if the leader of this party does not plan to go directly to 24 Sussex Drive. Perhaps if he were here he would make the same comment. I remember, in fact, that once upon a time a leader of the opposition refused to go into Stornoway saying he was not going to waste any time there, he was headed for 24 Sussex Drive. Believe it or not, he made it, so maybe history will repeat itself.


David Réal Caouette: Not with the same party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not hearing all the interjections that are being made, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they should be on the record. There was one which I heard a moment ago when I rose. One hon. member from across the way-at least he was across the way, but now he has moved into the Prime Minister's seat-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The only way he will get it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -in any case, I heard him say "Stanley will want a house for everyone in this country". Well, that is right. Now we have that clear, may I move on to the bill itself.
Actually, the bill does not make any real changes except for one that will come into effect on the day of the next election. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is already a resident of 24 Sussex Drive; the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is already a resident of Stornoway; and the Speaker of the House already has the privileges and the occupancy of the residence up in Kingsmere which we know as The Farm. I believe it is clear

May 4, 1971
Prime Minister's Residence Act that what this bill does is simply to legalize certain things that are already taking place. It makes it legal, proper and constitutional that public moneys be put into the maintenance of these residences and that their occupants be entitled to any benefits that they enjoy because they are living in them. I think that it is good that any doubt there might have been as to their right to enjoy the benefit of living in these residences has been cleared up or will be cleared up when this bill passes. That is the main purpose of this legislation, and we approve this being done.
I said there was one specific change that is made by this bill. It has to do with the $5,000 per year that the Prime Minister is required to pay for board and lodging at 24 Sussex Drive. The hon. member for Hillsborough is quite correct that this provision was put into the bill because when 24 Sussex Drive was purchased during the time when Mr. St. Laurent was prime minister it was his own, personal insistence that he be required to make a payment to cover his family's board and lodging in that residence, and at his insistence it was put into the legislation. A case can certainly be made for our not requiring that, for if we are going to provide the Prime Minister with a residence in which he can live and in which he must do a fair amount of entertaining, in which he must be one of the nation's hosts, it does seem proper that we take care of the cost of it.
However, I am interested in the fact that the proposal to discontinue the requirement that this $5,000 a year be paid by the Prime Minister does not come into effect until the end of this parliament. It comes into effect on the day of the general election following the dissolution of the 28th Parliament. No one knows who will be the occupant of that house at that point, but at any rate here is a clear case of deciding that a certain monetary benefit to one of the members of this House shall not accrue to him until after the next election.
It is very interesting that this bill will be going to the same committee to which Bill C-242 was sent yesterday. Perhaps in that committee we might try to do a little harmonizing between the two bills. If it is proper to say in this bill that a monetary benefit to one member of the House shall not accrue to him until after the next election, then maybe we should say the same thing in the bill that raises the salaries of all members. Mr. Speaker, I see you are looking at me and wondering if I am out of order, and therefore I will desist. We will deal with that matter when we get into the committee.
We are not surprised that, His Honour, the Speaker has asked one of his able assistants to take the Chair while we are debating this measure, and the main thing I want to say in this debate is that I wish the bill did something more for the office and the person of the Speaker than is being done by it. Actually, it does not do anything at all for him. He has had the privilege of living in the residence of The Farm for a long time. He has had the privilege of using it to entertain us, and so on, and when this bill is passed and becomes law the situation will still

be the same, except that things will be legalized. But it really does not add anything to the perquisites and privileges of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Like the hon. member for Hillsborough, who spoke just a few minutes ago, I think we ought to be providing an official residence for the Speaker here in the city of Ottawa, within easy reach of the House of Commons. I would be most happy to support the suggested moves that he proposed, the musical chairs that he suggested. I think Stornoway would be a delightful place for the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The reason I press this is not for any financial benefit that might accrue to His Honour to have a proper and permanent residence fully paid for in this way, but rather because I think we should show the fullest respect that we can for the office of Speaker. And I also think we should say in very clear terms, and mince no words about it, that we like the Speaker we now have, that we like the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux; that we think he has done an excellent job as the Speaker of this House in two parliaments, and that there should be a clear indication to him on the part of this House that we want him to continue as Speaker of the House of Commons. That gets us over into another bill that I have on the order paper that would provide the basis for a continuing Speakership. It also gets us over into a matter that was under discussion between the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and me on a late show a while ago, which ended rather inconclusively. And that is what bothers me about this now, that it is being left in an inconclusive state. All sorts of tributes are paid to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and he deserves all of them and more, but tributes that are not backed up by some real gesture, that are not backed up by an effort to take those steps that will make it possible for him to continue as Speaker, are subject to the charge of being a bit empty.
This is not the first time that the question of an official residence in Ottawa for the Speaker has been raised. The government has had reason to look at it for a few years. The proposal was made in very concrete terms by some of us in the House of Commons, and so it is not a new idea. In fact, when I first heard there was to be a piece of legislation regarding official residences, including an official residence for Mr. Speaker, for a moment I was delighted. I thought we had won. I thought that what we were going to get was an official residence in Ottawa for Mr. Speaker. But no, we are not getting that. Let us not pat ourselves on the back and say we are doing anything by passing this bill because we are not doing anything for Mr. Speaker at all. All he will have is the right to continue to make use of the Farm, several miles from here, at Kingsmere.
I hope the House will take this and other opportunities to make clear to the government that we think there should be an official residence here in Ottawa for the Speaker. Further, we think a move in that direction should be made while the present incumbent is in the Chair, so that he will know the House wants him to continue. And I think we should match this with other
May 4, 1971

changes, or with discussions amongst the party leaders or house leaders, so that steps can be taken to make sure that the gentleman we have had as Speaker, who has done such a tremendously impartial job, will not be faced with the dilemma either of dropping out of the life of the House of Commons or of going back into a partisan contest when the next election is called.
He has graced this chamber in a manner that does pride to this institution of Parliament. I think that members in all parts of the House want him to continue. This bill does not say that. We could say it if we were establishing a residence for him and his successors here in Ottawa, and we could say it by taking the necessary legislative or constitutional steps so that a continuing Speaker of this institution would become one of our traditions. In my view the time to start that tradition is now while we have the present Speaker, who is such an outstanding occupant of the Chair of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, we now have before us Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act. To make a long argument short, what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is trying to put across in this four-page bill is merely that he does not want to keep paying rent.
Although the number of people who can settle their rent problem in such a way across Canada is quite limited, hon. members will agree that it does not take a genius to come up with such an idea. I even thought about it myself, since apart from the rent I pay for a room here in Ottawa, I have still some outstanding payments on my own home. As most Canadians are in a similar situation, sometimes I think how nice it would be to stop paying rent and frankly, there are months when I would be better off if I did. But in order not to sleep in the open air in Ottawa, I pay the rent for my room, and to avoid having my house taken away from me, in my riding, I make my payments.
I do not say that that provision of Bill C-241 could not be applied, for instance, in the case of a prime minister without any means. But it is known that such is not the case of the present Prime Minister, for besides having a personal fortune, his name appears on the payroll of the Canadian Treasury. I will no doubt be allowed to quote page 34 of the Beaupre report on the matter:
From 1867 to 1873, the salary of the Prime Minister was equivalent to that of other Ministers of the Crown, namely $5,000 per year. In 1873, legislation provided for a salary of $8,000 per annum for the office. This amount was increased in 1905 to $12,000 and in 1920 to $15,000 per annum. The current salary of $25,000 per annum was authorized in 1954. An amount of $2,000 as a tax-free motor car allowance was first authorized in 1931 under an appropriation act and this same amount was incorporated into the 1963 amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act. Since 1950, the law has provided for the opera-
Prime Minister's Residence Act
tion and maintenance of a residence in Ottawa for the Prime Minister for which he pays an annual rental of $5,000. The Prime Minister is also provided with a summer residence and motor car. In summary, the current salary and allowances of the
Prime Minister are as follows:
Sessional Indemnity as a Member of Parliament

Sessional Allowance as a Member of Parliament		6,000
Salary as Prime Minister	 25,000
Motor Car Allowance	 2,000
All that amounted to $45,000 under the old law. And should Bill C-241 be passed, then the Prime Minister would receive $53,000 a year. This means a little more than $1,000 a week. I think that it is not so bad.
As it may be noted if we read clause 5 of the bill, to all
these advantages, others are added, and I quote:
4. (1) The Governor in Council may appoint a steward or housekeeper and such other employees as he deems necessary for the management of the Prime Minister's residence, and may fix their rate of remuneration and conditions of employment.
Mr. Speaker, paying the rent of a man who earns $53,000 to be at the head of a government that asks people to tighten their belts, this is somewhat ridiculous. While he has a motor car at his disposal, for which gasoline is provided, and the use of a summer residence, we should have to pay for his rent on top of that!
To pay the rent of a Prime Minister who can also use government aircraft to travel across the world, appears rather surprising. To pay the rent of a Prime Minister who has an allowance of $53,000 in addition to his capital gains, when all Canadians who want to own their homes continue to pay the 11 per cent tax on building materials, when 70 per cent of Canadian families must do with an annual income of less than $4,000, that, in my view, could be called disgusting.
To ask the less affluent to pay the rent of the most affluent, when inflation is rampant, to ask them to pay the rent of the Prime Minister when factories are closing down and people are thrown out of work in Canada, to pay the rent of the Prime Minister in order to solve his housing problem when close to one million Canadians are looking for jobs, to pay the rent of the Prime Minister when pensioners aged 65 and over, who have lead an honest life, must be satisfied with an increase of 42 cents per month, is that really, Mr. Speaker, the just society that we have been promised?
I have here a summary of the Prime Minister's life as reported in part in the Canadian Intelligence Service of September-October 1969. It is in bulletin No. 36. It says about the Prime Minister, and I quote:
1940-He is expelled from the Canadian Training Officers' Corps for insubordination;
I have also an account of the life of another member of the Armed Forces, a guy discharged for health reasons after 23 years of service. In October 1970, he bought a small 26 x 40 bungalow for $16,000. Having made a down payment of $1,900, he will have to pay a monthly rent of $118 until the year 2000, for a total of $44,000.

May 4, 1971
Prime Minister's Residence Act
The rent of a soldier discharged for insubordination is paid, but a model soldier must pay three times the price of his house. Frankly, this is a bit too much! If this is what we are coming to, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we will not be able to brag of having beaten the world record for hypocrisy.
We are paying the Prime Minister's rent while unemployed couples must manage with $133 a month and the disabled must do with a monthly $75 allowance to live and pay their rent.
At this stage, I would like to quote from a letter sent to me by the Quebec Department of Social Affairs, directly from the office of the Minister of Health. Everybody knows that in Quebec, the Liberals are in power. Here in Ottawa, the party in power is also the Liberal party. If hardship exists, the federal government is also a bit responsible, since it agrees to pay 50 per cent of the cost of all pensions paid out in Quebec: disability pensions, needy mothers' pensions, unwed mothers' pensions and social welfare pensions. As far as the pensions for the blind are concerned, the federal government pays as much as 75 per cent of their cost in Quebec. Then to show you just what the situation is in Quebec where the federal government is concerned, I will quote from a letter I received from Mr. Richard Rivest, private secretary to the provincial Minister of Health. Here is what it says:
Dear Sir:
Further to your telegram of April 2nd instant, with respect to the above mentioned subject, I am forwarding under cover, for your information, a copy of a letter I am sending this very day to Mr. Larose.
I hope the enclosed information will prove helpful to you.
Yours truly,
There comes a time after two or three months of unanswered correspondance when I send telegrams. That is what I did in this case on April 2. I received a reply on the 23rd of April. You will admit with me that in Quebec, even under a Liberal administration, people are in no hurry to reply. Then the man concerned received the following answer:
Following the representations made on your behalf by Mr. Roland Godin, member for Portneuf, I am in a position to convey the following information in regard to your request.
According to the standards and regulations of the social assistance legislation, here is the detail of your financial situation.
Requirements: $101
For a married couple
Income: $133
You will therefore note that you are not eligible for the requested assistance since your income exceeds your requirements.
I regret that I cannot be of any more help to you.
Yours truly,
Richard Rivest, Assistant Private Secretary
Mr. Speaker, that is what happened. That family was just about to lose its small home-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are considering Bill C-241, "An Act to amend the Prime Minister's Residence Act". I realize indeed that one may state some facts to support an argument, as did the hon. member for Portneuf at the beginning of his remarks. However, since the hon. member is talking about a particular case of an individual who is trying to assert his rights to welfare, it seems to me that his remarks could be much briefer concerning this case.


Roland Godin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, we would pay the rent of a prime minister who grants interest-free loans throughout the world to build sewage systems, While Canadians must borrow from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at 8J per cent to build their own house. It is preposterous.
We can read in the bill and I quote:
Recommendation
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Prime Minister's Residences Act to change the name to the Official Residences Act; to provide that certain lands and buildings shall be maintained as residences for the person holding the recognized position of Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and for the Speaker of the House of Commons respectively; to provide for the furnishing, maintenance, heat and keeping in repair of the buildings and for the maintenance and improvement of the lands; to provide that the Governor in Council may appoint staff for the management of the Prime Minister's residence and fix their rate of remuneration; to provide that any benefit received or enjoyed by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the Speaker of the House of Commons under or by virtue of this Act shall be deemed to be received by him as a living allowance expressly fixed by this Act; and to provide for consequential and related matters.
That is what the Governor General recommended. Again I think this is wonderful but I claim it is simply a gesture of generosity on the part of the Governor General. He is almost obliged to do that since he simply recommends for the Prime Minister the allowance he himself gets.
In the case of the Governor General, we tolerate that since he is the representative of Her Majesty the Queen. Moreover, we know that Her Majesty has financial difficulties at the present. And if we provide for the maintenance of the Governor General's residence, it is a favour on our part-


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Ah, dispense!


Roland Godin: -since Canada pays all the expenses of our representatives throughout the world.
Another point I should like to touch lightly concerns the Leader of the Opposition that we find in and is referred to in clause 3 of the bill. Here again, it is easy to

May 4, 1971

see that the proposal is interesting enough for him. Now, I will quote from issue No. 39 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the special joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on consumer credit which had been appointed to inquire into poverty in Canada. This was recorded during its meeting of Tuesday March 21,
1967.	I quote from page 3137 which states:
BRIEF SUBMITTED TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE AND OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON CONSUMERS CREDIT (PRICES) BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC COURSES OF SAINT-FRAN^OIS-XAVIER UNIVERSITY SYDNEY, N.S.


Mr.   Chairman@: My name is Duncan MacIntyre and I represent the Department of Public Courses of the Saint-Frangois-Xavier University of Sydney, N.S.
I have the honour of submitting this brief on behalf of the Department of Public Courses of the Saint-Franqois-Xavier University and in the name of low income families of the eastern counties of this province.
The problem of housing in Nova Scotia
Generally speaking, Nova Scotia is confronted with the same problem as the other Canadian provinces. Statistics show that:
One fifth of our houses accommodate an excessive number of people and are without running water, bath and shower;
More than one fifth of our houses are deprived of water-flushed lavatories and we have twice as many dilapidated houses as the national average.
Finally, the author of the brief has this to say:
We have endeavoured to show that neither the private sector nor the governments, whether through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Nova Scotia Housing Commission, can meet adequately the needs of our many poor families. We have also endeavoured to show that the dwellings subsidized by the federal and provincial governments cannot solve the problem once and for all, especially at the financial level.
In the light of this brief that was prepared by a representative of the University of Nova Scotia, one can realize what the housing situation is in Nova Scotia.
Those accepting to live in such conditions must really be peace-loving people. And I am sincere when I say that in the province of Quebec, people would not have tolerated a similar situation for so long. In the province of Quebec, given such circumstances, everything would have blown up long ago. However, the people of Nova Scotia are peace-loving. To wit, they put up for fifteen years with the Leader of the Opposition as prime minister. While for people to be peace-loving is a commendable trait, nevertheless I believe that a political leader should behave in a rather energetic manner. This one left his province half built and still dilapidated after fifteen years of administration. Thereby he simply proved that he was retreating and had misgivings about the results of his proposed reforms.
Should he accept that his rent be paid by this country, the Leader of the Opposition will but deserve the additional name of "deserter" besides those already applied to him.
The Standing Orders stipulate that an opposition member does not have the privilege of introducing a measure involving the expense of public funds. In this case, I did not find any provision that would prevent the
Prime Minister's Residence Act
hon. leader of the opposition from asking that the bill before us be withdrawn.
On the other hand, if the leader of the opposition persists in seeking cover from the inconvenients of the capitalist system-that is scarce and high-priced living accommodation-and taking advantage of the proposals contained in the bill, I shall be obliged to move an amendment at the committee stage.
In fact, if the country is financially capable of paying the rent of its Prime Minister, who will be making $53,000 a year, and capable of paying the rent of the leader of the official opposition, I feel that same country, with all the wealth we know it has, should pay the school and municipal taxes of all Canadian family heads who own a small house and earn less than $5,000 a year.
If we can spare the Prime Minister his rent when he earns $1,000 a week, the government should see to it that a system is set up whereby help could be given, where municipal and school taxes are concerned, to all those Canadians who already own a small house and make less than $5,000 annually.
I also believe it would be in order to take advantage of the generosity offered by the bill to claim reimbursement by the government of the annual rent of all heads of Canadian families earning less than $5,000.
I want to join the previous speaker in commending the Speaker of the House, whom I hold to be a perfect individual who carries out his duties very well. I know the Speaker's job is unrewarding and so demanding as to require the incumbent's fulltime attention. Whether this is realized or not, I am sure the Speaker does not have the time required to look after his constituents. I therefore propose that the office of Speaker become permanent as it is second in importance to no other in the country, in my opinion.
As a Creditiste, and in favour of security for all Canadians, I feel it to be in order also to point out that the present bill, dealing only with the welfare of leaders, is inadequate. As I have mentioned before, I intend coming back to that matter at another stage of the bill. That is all I have to say at this time Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Roland Godin: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Carried, on
division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
[Stage Direction]
May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
April 29, 1971-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture of Bill C-244, An Act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes.-The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board.
Mr. Gleave:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention the fact that this bill actually carries within it two separate proposals. For that reason, those two proposals ought to be separated and two bills ought to be prepared accordingly.
In support of my request, may I draw to your attention that clause 32 of this bill deals with the payment that will be made directly out of treasury funds. It will be a payment made for one year, on an emergency basis, to meet the situation which the government recognizes as existing, whereas the rest of the bill deals with the long term proposal for prairie grain farmers. The long term proposal will be reviewed in 1976 and at that time we shall determine whether the amounts, deductions and so forth are adequate for the program. It is, therefore, an ongoing program which will last not for five years but for a number of years thereafter. I, therefore, submit to Mr. Speaker that this House should have the opportunity to examine carefully that long-term, ongoing program in the light of its implications for the future of the farmers of western Canada. In view of the urgency of the farming and economic situation on the Prairies, the short-term program should receive the immediate consideration of this House so that the distribution of moneys involved in clause 32 can be undertaken without delay. I say that because we are very close to and, indeed, into the costly planting period in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and that part of British Columbia which is affected by this bill. I, therefore, ask Your Honour to give this matter urgent consideration and permit us to deal with this bill in the manner suggested.


Mr. Lang:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Points of order urging the separation of bills have been argued from time to time before Your Honour, but rarely, I would think, on a ground more tenuous, less substantial, than in this particular case. The total content of this bill has been before producers for discussion for some six months, now. The transitional feature to which the hon. member referred is tied into this legislation and is totally based upon the stabilization provisions contained in the body of the bill as well as the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, which is likewise provided for in the measure. The contents are tied completely together, as I had occasion to indicate to the hon. member when he raised this matter in the House earlier. It would be a great disservice, and most misleading in some ways, to separate these issues, to indicate that the payment was separate and distinct rather than part of a total plan, a total package, as it is.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]


Stanley James Korchinski: In support of the argument presented by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, may I say that though I cannot quote the particular reference in Hansard, I did on one occasion ask the minister whether the amount of money involved here was tied into any particular plan or program. He replied that it was simply a figure which had been accepted and that it was no way contingent upon anything else; it was simply a transitional payment. This being the case, the operation of the bill before us is not, as a whole, contingent on the existence of clause 32 at all. The clause serves no useful purpose, though it did so on one particular occasion. An item in the estimates would have served the same purpose. It is true a vote would have been necessary in the House. But it would not have been necessary for the House to accept all the other clauses of the bill, subject to the modification of certain clauses to which hon. members might for one reason or another take objection. The difficulty here is that one has to accept the measure as a whole, together with one clause which is not necessarily related in any way to the operation of the legislation.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you take time to consider whether this particular clause is in any way related to the operation of the stabilization provisions, or whether the stabilization bill might not stand without the inclusion of that clause.


Mr. Horner:: I, too should like to support the point of order raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Basically, this bill is a long-range income stabilization program for farmers in the Prairie provinces. The transitional or temporary payment with which clause 32 deals is intended merely to meet a situation of short-range need. I urge Your Honour to consider the separation of those provisions, particularly in view of the desperate situation Prairie farmers face and the seeding expenses which will need to be met early this spring.
The bill before us has just begun its long progress through the House and the committees. If clause 32 is contingent upon this bill passing, as I understand to be the case, payments could not go out to farmers until July 31 at the earliest when the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act expires. I see the minister shaking his head in a negative manner. I am pleased to note this response. I hope I am right in reading his negative shake correctly. In my judgment, the transitional payment dealt with in Clause 32 would be readily accepted by the farmers as a means of bridging the short-term gap. But if it is tied in with the other long-range proposals, it would appear to be a bribe, an inducement for farmers to accept the long-range proposals as a price for obtaining the benefits of temporary financial assistance. I do not believe this is the proper way in which legislation should be submitted. It should stand on its own feet, and in these circumstances I believe the Chair should seriously consider separating the two aspects of legislation before us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the point of order raised by my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar is, as the minister pointed out, not a new problem for the Chair. It has arisen repeatedly over the years. I suppose the most recent case which did create a
May 4, 1971

dilemma for the Chair was that of Bill C-207, a bill which was obviously an omnibus bill.
I recognize that, having given the matter due consideration, the Chair took the position on that occasion that it could not direct the government to divide the bill. However, I believe there was a suggestion from the Chair that this kind of thing would need to be looked at more closely in the future. The same issue has been raised in connection with other bills this session. Though the position is not completely on all fours, I might perhaps mention the dollar items in the supplementary estimates a short while ago, because there is a certain parallelism. In that case, the Chair did rule that these items could not properly be embodied in the particular bill and they had to be taken out and covered by separate bills.
The last thing I would claim would be to assert, I am an expert on the bill before us. I suppose, Sir, you would join with me in a similar pretension of modesty. But it seems to me that the essence of the bill is to be found in the first 31 clauses, and perhaps in one or two clauses at the end. These relate to a clear proposition, namely the establishment of a stabilization fund, stabilization levies, a stabilization account and so on. Without going into the substance of the measure, I note it all hangs together: farmers are required to make certain payments, certain rules are laid down about the levying of those payments, and benefits are received under certain conditions.
Clause 32, on the other hand, does not involve the principle of payments on the basis of which one receives benefits. It refers rather to payments to be made in one specific year out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I submit it is a totally different proposition, and that it is quite improper to have these two totally different propositions combined in what we have to call one omnibus bill. So far as members are concerned, what bothers them most of all about this kind of thing-this is a complaint that we have made about most omnibus bills-is that they are called upon to vote for the bad because they want to vote for the good. I make no apology for complaining about that sort of situation. We had it last year with a bill that did something about pensions of retired civil servants and something about pensions of Members of Parliament as well. We were put on the spot, having to vote on "apples and carrots" at the same time.
Here again, we have two separate proposals. I heard no objection to my attempt to describe them. I repeat that the long term one is a kind of insurance scheme. You are required to make certain payments to establish certain benefit rights, and you get those benefit rights on the basis of what you have paid in. But tucked into the same bill is the special provision for one year which does not follow the rules of the general stabilization plan. I detect, certainly among members from western Canada, a keen desire to support the special transitional payments clause of this bill and to get it made law first.


Stanley James Korchinski: Thatcher, bill 16.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone makes reference to Thatcher, whoever he is, but that is beside the point.


Otto Emil Lang: It is a variety of wheat, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good humour aside, these two propositions are completely different. I also have the feeling that the omnibus character of this bill goes a step further. Clause 33 calls for the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. My special assistant on agriculture, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), tells me that it has nothing to do with what is in the bill, that it has to do with storage and that sort of thing. Then, I look at clause 34 which seeks to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. In that clause there is a kind of cross reference to the prairie farm emergency fund; but any proposal that alters or repeals parts of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, which is a long term piece of legislation, should surely also stand on its own feet.
It may be that somebody can establish a relationship among these three or four provisions, but I submit their only real relationship is that they all deal with agriculture. This is the kind of problem that has arisen with other measures. For example, all the clauses of Bill C-207 had something to do with the government or aspects of government, but it was obviously a bag of many things, and that bill has not gone through yet simply because of the difficulty of dealing with an omnibus measure.
I have pressed my point in procedural terms. I have tried to reveal enough awareness of the substance of the bill to be able to talk about it; but as I say it strikes me it is quite unfair to face the House with a bill that has in it provisions that are totally different, particularly when we may be desirous of passing one of its provisions as it stands and the House may want to examine very carefully the other or long term provisions.
I think the Chair should consider giving the direction that this is another omnibus bill that ought not to be before us in this form but should be withdrawn and presented again as at least two bills, possibly as three.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the contentions made by hon. members on the point of order. I confess immediately that I am not an expert on the rules. I fully agree that up to clause 32, plus clauses 35, 36 and 37, the provisions are properly an item of legislation. In addition to the comments made on clause 32 I should like to add, in as reasoned and concise a manner as I can, that special transitional payments bear not the slightest resemblance of relation to what is envisaged in the main portion of the bill in regard to a Prairie grain stabilization fund.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has drawn into the discussion clause 32, and I defy anyone to tell me how the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act relate in any way, shape or form to the prairie grain stabilization proposals in the main portion of the bill. That Act has to do with storage paid on grain

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
to elevator companies. It has an indirect relationship to grain producers in the sense that it would save them some grain storage costs, but it is a completely separate item.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act might have some vague relationship with levies, and if the minister were bringing in some amendments to our crop insurance law then it would be proper for him to couple with those amendments some amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, or a provision to repeal the act. But again it bears not the slightest resemblance to or has not the slightest relationship with the Prairie grain stabilization fund.
I submit that we have here a bag of tricks. I think this bill plays fast and loose with the rules. Further, it plays fast and loose with the ability of Members of Parliament to judge each of these separate items on its own merit, and to vote either for or against. Placing all of these into the one package inhibits, and I suspect will prevent, many members of this House from dealing adequately with the bill. I respectfully suggest, request and urge the Chair to curtail this practice by ruling that it be not allowed to continue any further. I submit, with all respect, that this practice has been followed too many times during the life of this Parliament. Being a new member, my impression is that it has been followed much more frequently in this Parliament than in any other, though I stand to be corrected on that.
The three clauses of the bill, clauses 32, 33 and 34, are in fact separate from each other and different pieces of legislation. They are put in this bill as a package, and I submit that this procedure is completely unjustified. These clauses should be separated from each other so they can be dealt with on their own merit as separate items of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I regret to inform the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar that since he has already spoken he cannot take the floor again.
I have heard the very lengthy and interesting arguments presented both by the minister and hon. members. The point that has been raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is not entirely a novel one. As one who has been in this House for quite a few years, it is a point which I have been expecting to crop up again and again, since the bills presented during the past few years are somewhat different in form from those which some of us have debated in the past.
On the other hand, I quite realize that within our rules there is very little authority for the Chair, at this stage of the proceedings, to divide a bill or ask that it be withdrawn. As one who likes some finality but also likes to avoid making hasty decisions, I suggest that the subject matter be referred to the Speaker for consideration and for a ruling which might affect similar bills in the future.
This is a suggestion only, but the minister might consider the suggestion that this matter should be left in abeyance and another matter proceeded with until such a decision has been presented by the official Speaker of this House.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which
has been raised, and I appreciate what you have just said in respect of this matter, I wonder if I might have a moment to draw to your attention, for consideration while this matter is being reviewed, a statement made by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board which has a very substantial bearing on the point raised by my colleagues.
I should like to briefly draw attention to one paragraph of the statement made by the minister on March 15. I am sure it will be recognized that this does have a bearing on the point. When the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board presented his revised proposals on March 15, which form the basis for the legislation now being considered, he said in part, "there are very many substantial social and economic questions to be answered before appropriate government action to deal with total returns to grain and oil seed producers can be determined. The special payment of $100 million this year, combined with improved sales, will assist grain farmers markedly this year and permit time for the careful consideration and discussion required." Of course, the latter part of this statement refers to the permanent features of the plan contained in Bill C-244.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise essentially on a question of privilege in order to clarify the comments of the last speaker. I should like to indicate that his suggestion that the last statement had anything to do with this bill is erroneous. Rather, it was a reference to the total question of the income position of farmers, without specific relation to the bill itself. As has been made very clear on many occasions, the bill is a totality, and the urging of hon. members to drop the transitional feature would, in effect, practically eliminate it. The totality of the stabilization fund and the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act are basically essential to the total position taken in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it agreed that consideration of the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar be deferred and that we proceed with the next order of business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
[Mr. Benjamin.)
May 4, 1971

He said: The bill before the House to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is a further step in attempting to rationalize and improve the situation of the grains industry of this country. Over a period of recent months, we did a significant number of things to allow the farmer to put his remarkable efficiency to better use by improving the system which faced him and over which he had no control. Perhaps the most notable thing done which is related to this bill was the alteration in the quota system announced for next year by the Wheat Board, which was in part also in effect this year.
As a result of that change in the quota system, the ancient special bias toward wheat compared with other grains has been removed in order that the farmers' decisions about which grains to grow might be more directly related to market conditions and the conditions of their own farms rather than to special incentives, disincentives or other biases which might be put into the system by the government or agencies under its direction.
The amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act are designed in part to do the same thing in relation to grain; that is to say, they are designed to remove the bias in favour of wheat which clearly existed in the cash advance system up to this time. That is done in the bill by changing from a fixed bushel amount, that is an equal bushel number for wheat, barley and oats, to numbers of bushels which will vary from grain to grain, reflecting as accurately as possible the likely delivery of those grains during an ensuring crop year.
The amount of advance on any particular grain will, therefore, be related to the delivery opportunities and the likely delivery value of the grain for that year. Under the existing law, the farmer is basically faced with a $6 maximum per acre if he is obtaining his advance based on wheat, $4.20 if he is taking his advance on barley, and even less for oats. Under the proposed formula, the amount per bushel which he may obtain by way of an advance will be related from year to year to the initial price for the various grains, so that the amount per bushel will vary as between wheat, barley and oats. However, the number of bushels will also vary. In the ordinary course of events, the delivery prospect for barley is significantly higher in bushels than wheat, and the number may in turn be significantly higher for oats.
The general provisions in terms of requirements of grain on hand and delivery will be maintained. The other main proposal by way of change relates to the assurance that in any normal year advances will be repaid in the year in which they are taken. The repayment amount for each of the grains will be set at a per bushel rate in the same amount as the advance, so that as delivery occurs during the course of the year the advance will be repaid. This will restore the cash advance system to its originally intended purpose. It will be available to farmers during those periods of time when delivery opportunities are limited or slow, in order that they may obtain cash, interest-free, when they require it by way of advances on delivery of grain later in the crop year.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
The change which was made in the last set of amendments to the cash advance legislation was of notable importance to the prairie producer over this last difficult period. It did, in the course of the very worst year in a series of years, allow the prairie grain farmer to obtain by way of advance a very significant amount of cash, many millions of dollars. I believe the maximum figure reached in the course of the advances of a year ago was $272 million, and this at a time when delivery opportunities were very limited because of total world marketing conditions. The farmer's position, therefore, at that time in terms of cash from grain sales was at its very worst.
That accumulating cash advance situation, of course, could not be allowed to go on very long. Indeed, I believe it is fair to say farmers themselves were wary of the growing total of advances in their hands and recognized the need to bring the amount back down into repayable ranges. In the course of this year, because of the very significantly increased exports of grain, cash advances are being reduced significantly so that at the present time something between $90 million and $95 million is outstanding in advances compared to a much higher figure a year ago.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In the hands of how many farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not have the figure in front of me, although I am sure I can turn to it in a moment. The cash advances, therefore, with the rate at present at $1 for wheat with repayment at half the initial price, did serve a purpose in that period when no other stabilization system existed and when therefore there was really only this alternative within the system for attempting to even out the very low points in a producer's grain income. It was the rather undesirable means of bringing more grain into the system, more than was required for any commercial reason, which therefore would be in the system at the expense of the total income of the grain industry. The cash advance system at least was a far more sensible system of getting cash into the farmer's hands, although it was there in their hands in the form of a loan. The loan aspect, of course, was of some concern to the farmers.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked how many farmers held advances. As of April 23, the last report I have in front of me, a total of 51,285 advances had been issued in the 1970-71 crop year for a total of $90,605,350 for that year. At that point of time, on April 23, the total of the advances outstanding for that year and the previous year was $95,845,992. In the approximately comparable period of April 24, 1970, a similar report would have shown 121,092 advances having been made for the crop year 1969-70 for a total of advances of $270,754,372. The total amount of advances outstanding on that date, April 24, 1970, was $228,291,024, a difference of $130 odd million in the two years. It is true that repayment had to come out of this year's income that is one of the very important cash factors facing the grain

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act farmer at this time. But this does demonstrate, in the absence of any other stabilization program, why the cash advance system as it then existed was available to provide farmers on an interest free basis to tide the mover at least to a little extent in some of the very worst periods of 1969-70, which would have been infinitely worse if the advances had not been available.
Now, with a different form of stabilization, such as an outright payment to farmers in the difficult years when the amount of cash flowing is lower than the previous average, or the use of cash advances, which was never really intended at the beginning, will no longer be necessary. The bill, therefore, in my view brings the cash advance system in these respects back to the original intention of relating the advance in the initial period to a proportion of the income which the farmer expects to obtain from the sale of grain during the course of the year. These amounts will be set from year to year according to the best information available as we enter a crop year.
Another significant change being proposed in these amendments which, likewise in an important respect, brings the bill back to its original intention is one which indicates the requirement of interest to be paid by those farmers who use the cash advance legislation not as an advance on money for grain they will deliver later in the year but rather simply as a way to obtain an interest free advance because they are permit holders. The bill provides, therefore, by way of amendment that interest will be payable on only those cash advances taken by farmers who, instead of delivering grain as would have been expected because they had grain as security for their advance, pay the advance off in cash at some point in the year.
Two other changes in the bill deal with situations which have arisen in the past where farmers have been in special difficulty, and where the cash advance system can be used to avoid the difficulty of the moment. I refer to the clauses which would permit the extension of cash advances in the exceptional circumstances of the requirement of money for the drying of damp grain, as well as when there are climatic conditions over which no one has control and when the grain cannot be harvested as we go into the winter but remains on the farms under the snow in fairly harvestable position but not yet in the farmer's bins. In both cases, where required by the circumstances, it will be possible to extend the cash advance system to farmers along the lines of the extensions which have been legislated by the House in those circumstances in the past without going back to the House for such legislation. This will mean we may be able to act more expeditiously in such circumstances to meet the needs which themselves are frequently very significant and a burden when time is clearly of the essence. I, therefore, am pleased for these purposes to move that the bill be read a second time and referred to the committee.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question before he resumes his seat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The minister has time remaining and may answer a question if he is prepared to do so.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister a question concerning his reference to the charging of interest on cash advances where farmers simply repaid the extended cash advance in cash rather than by way of deductions from grain delivered. Has the minister taken into account the situation of farmers in various circumstances, such as that of a farmer who may attempt to grow registered or certified seed but who may not know until sometime after he has taken the grain off whether or not that grain will be acceptable as registered seed grain. Thus, the farmer may deliver his grain as straight commercial grain or he may eventually sell it as registered seed. In the meantime, however, he takes a cash advance. Is there any way in which the circumstances of such a farmer can be taken into account, and would such a measure not fall into conflict with the proposed subclause (2) of clause 5?


Otto Emil Lang: We certainly did give consideration to the sort of situation to which the hon. member and others referred, where the farmer may quite properly change his intentions in the course of the year in regard to the use of his grain, although he originally intended to deliver it. These situations are relatively rare, especially in circumstances when the farmer is left without deliverable grain on hand. I will be very glad to discuss with hon. members in the committee the detailed problems that arise in trying to cope with the specific situation, which ideally we should like to do.
The real balance to be drawn here is between ruling out any special treatment for those very special cases because of the difficulty of dealing with them in order not to create tremendous difficulties for the administrators, the Wheat Board, and the agents of the Wheat Board who have to administer the cash advances. I will be very glad to discuss possible solutions to that problem with hon. members in the committee, and to go over with them in detail the problems we see in the administration. I agree with the hon. member that in principle, if the administrative difficulties were not there, it would be useful to have a device for separating those who are in this legitimate position as compared with those who are really using the advance as an interest free loan without any intention of delivering the grain later. Intention is a difficult thing to determine, however, and that is part of our problem.


Stanley James Korchinski: I think that this legislation has perhaps been brought about by the changes in the quota system to some extent. I think also that the changes that have been proposed were a result of the government having reflected upon some of the changes that they had made in previous years, and realizing that they had been in error in the first instance. They realized that cash advance legislation was not functioning as it had been intended to function. I remember the debate on that particular occasion very well. It was pointed out at the time that the government was going to run into a snag in that no farmer could repay his loan in one year in view of the amount he could draw and the amount of grain that he could deliver. The original inten-
May 4, 1971

tion of the government was to bring in legislation which would provide immediately, and under pressing circumstances, $6,000 to producers who might require it. Perhaps that saved the government the embarrassment of having to provide some other funds to tide the producer over the difficult situation. In the absence of any other idea, they hit upon the cash advance legislation, but rather than make it functional they simply doubled the amount of the advance. As a result, they ran into a snag. However, the doubled amount which was made available was not recoverable in one year, which simply meant that in the subsequent years the amount of income available to producers was reduced by the amount that had to be recovered. That compounded the problem. Now, after several years of toying with the idea, the government finds itself in the position of having to recover the funds which were made available to the producers.
I do not find much objection to the principle of the legislation. After all, it was our party that introduced it. I can well recall the days when it was said that the Wheat Board would have to resign because they would not be able to recover these sums. This is an old story which is well remembered by many producers. I was very concerned about the reports that people had made submissions to the task force, which accepted the idea to some extent, that eventually the practice of cash advances should be eliminated. I would hate to see the day when this might happen simply to satisfy a few bureaucrats who think that farmers are toying with this money. This is not the case, and I think the minister would be the first to agree with me, because whenever these loans are taken out they are needed. This money has served the rural agricultural communities of western Canada very well over the years.
I am glad the minister has introduced the amendments and thereby dispelled to some extent the fears that were building up in western Canada that this legislation would be thrown overboard, as has happened with many other useful pieces of legislation. I commend the minister for acting on the advice that he has received, and also for listening to the pleas of the farmers that this legislation be continued. Also, I agree that the section of this bill which deals with unharvested grain is a useful provision to have on our statute books, because every time such a situation arises as a result of weather conditions over which there is no control we know that the government is prepared to act, rather than have these people come cap in hand to ask for some assistance.
As we know, legislation is slow in being passed at times. In the meantime, there is a great deal of anxiety and concern among the people involved. They do not know what the government will do. They are at the mercy of governments. Having this type of legislation on the books simply means that the people of Canada are prepared to assist in any emergency situation which may develop in any part of Canada. In this case, the legislation deals with the agricultural situation in western Canada.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Food and Drugs Act



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)- Post Office-Alleged difficulties resulting from new mail routings; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (M. Fortin)- Regional Economic Expansion-Quebec-Application for interest-free loans from federal government.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace) moved: that Bill C-39, to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was first put on the order paper in 1966 following the hearings of the Joint Committee on Consumer Affairs which was chaired by the hon. Senator Croll and the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). During the hearings of that committee we found that our consumer protection legislation in Canada was very inadequate, and in order to do something at that time I put forward several measures, one of which was this bill.
This bill proposes certain amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, to extend the coverage of that act to do two things. The first is to protect the consuming public from products which are hazardous and might cause some harm, and the second is to protect them from misleading advertising. As I say, the bill has been on the order paper through several sessions since 1966, and as I have spoken on it previously I will not take up too much time today.
Since I first introduced the bill there has been considerable improvement in our consumer protection legislation. To begin with, following publication of the report of the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Consumer Affairs, a Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was established to promote legislation for consumer protection, and generally to serve the interests of the consumer.
Following the establishment of that department, several items of legislation have been passed, and some of

May 4, 1971
Food and Drugs Act
them have covered some of the matters which I have in my bill. Among those pieces of legislation, we have the consumer textiles articles act, which was passed in the last session. We have the Bills of Exchange Amendment Act, which was also passed in the last session which protects the consumer against recourse on promissory notes when there has been a defective product sold. We have had the bill to produce more competition in the drug business, which was known as a bill to amend the Patent Act, Trademarks Act and the Food and Drugs Act. We have had the move by the government to transfer administration of section 33 of the Combines Investigation Act from provincial to federal administration. That is the section which deals with misleading advertising. I might say that since the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs took over administration of that section of the law, there have been many more prosecutions and many more convictions. We have also had the Hazardous Products bill, which was passed by parliament, and which does some of the things proposed in my bill. We have had the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Bill, C-180, which was passed by the House this session, and the federal bill on co-operatives, Bill C-177.
All those items of legislation to which I refer were the result of recommendations of the Joint Committee of the House and the Senate. Since I was a member of that committee, I feel a bit encouraged by the fact that many of our recommendations have been put forward in law. Many of us who are backbenchers try to promote new ideas or reforms in several ways. We work on committees, and try to bring in committee reports which will do some of the things we want done. We introduce private members' motions and bills, hoping that the ideas in them will be picked up by the government, by certain ministers, by the press gallery, and that by promoting them in this way we will eventually have them adopted by the government, and adopted as legislation by this House.
In the area of consumer legislation, a lot has been done since we had that committee in 1966. Many of the items I have in my bill, C-39, have been adopted and so the bill is not required in the same way as it was when it was first prepared. However, there are still certain matters that have to be covered, and certain reforms that have to be accomplished. Some people in Canada will argue that we do not need consumer legislation. They feel that with a free market economy all we have to do is guarantee that there will be the freedom of contract, and that the consumer will be protected against fraud and other criminal practices. But, Mr. Speaker, things have changed a lot in the market place, especially in the consumers' market place, since those laws were originally introduced.
Today, the products which are for sale at a retail level are extremely complex. It is not like the days when our parents went into the corner butcher store or corner grocery store. They knew the owner of the store. The products were simple and they could rely upon the merchants with whom they dealt. Today most consumers deal through large supermarkets or department stores. They are dealing with clerks who are part of a long

chain of responsibility within those large stores. The products, as I have said, are very complex and have many additives.
For example, in the grocery business we have what are called convenience foods, prepared foods. They are not simply produced as they were in the old days. You are not getting just a basic piece of meat or vegetable. There are many chemicals and additives put into the package or tin. You have many products that are partially cooked, or that have been cooked and frozen, and so forth. As a result, the consumer is confronted with large, impersonal retail businesses, and he is confronted with products which make it difficult for him, as a layman, to understand everything connected with them.
In addition to that he is confronted with a massive advertising program, a type which was not seen 20 or 30 years ago. Of particular importance is the impact of television advertising, magazine and newspaper advertising, advertising over the radio, and even door-to-door selling. When you put all these together, that type of advertising with that type of retailing, and the type of products being sold I submit, and I think most hon. members would submit that we need much greater protection for the consumer who, even if he is diligent when he goes to make a purchase, cannot possibly deal on an equal basis with the person who is selling to him.
For this reason, I urge the House to pass this bill, particularly those items in it which have not been covered by present government legislation. And I also urge the members of the House to push for further reform in our consumer legislation. Unfortunately, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not here today. I presume he is in British Columbia meeting the British Queen, but I hope these remarks will be brought to his attention. As I said, Mr. Speaker, this bill has been before the House previously and I do not have too much to say about it, but I merely put it to the House that this is an important matter. It covers a lot of important transactions with which the ordinary Canadian has to deal, and I urge that the House accept the principle of this bill.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get into this debate, having been castigated by the press and some other people because I took the side of the manufacturer and the big bad business man in the debate on the packaging and labelling bill. I do have a lot of sympathy for these people, however, and I bemoan the fact that so many people are down on those who run the stores and operate the businesses, who are twisting and turning and doing their utmost to find a product that the consumer will like. There are graveyards filled with products that these merchants have tried to sell but which have had to be thrown aside when not accepted by the public.
I do not think all business people are guilty of fraudulent practices or of trying to put down the consumer. I admit there are areas where there should be more consumer education and better understanding of the products presented, then perhaps mistakes would be avoided.
May 4, 1971

There is great confusion in the marketplace, but I think some of it is created by the way in which we want to live these days. Twenty or 30 years ago, all the meat was sold in the butcher shop, the groceries in the grocery store and the drugs in the drugstore. Now, we go to the market and see groceries, meat, drugs and clothing all in the same store, so there is reason for consumer confusion.
I realize there are areas in which this bill is an advantage. I refer to the things I have been talking about for so long in this House and in committee with regard to hazardous products. We had a hazardous products bill and I pressed the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to do his utmost to find a container for hazardous products. Each year in Canada over 50,000 children are poisoned. Some of these children cannot read, so it is important that it be made more difficult for them to get at the bottle of aspirin or pills that is going to be harmful. This is an area where we should be more definite.
In the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs about a week ago I asked the minister about these containers. He said, "We have sent directives out to the drug companies that they should consider putting pills that might be dangerous to children in these specially capped bottles." I do not think that is good enough. There should be regulations covering this type of thing. We have regulations for a lot of things, and if we are going to protect children we should have regulations covering these containers. I do not think it is enough just to label the package. I do not care what kind of symbol is put on it, a child of three or four years of age does not know what it means. They see mommy or daddy take a pill out of a bottle in the medicine cabinet, so they think that is the thing to do. Next, they climb up, get the bottle and take the pills.
The same situation applies to bleaches. Clause 40 reads:
No person shall sell any soap, detergent, or cleanser that has in it any substance that may cause injury to the health of the user when it is used according to the directions or for such purposes as are customary or usual.
We know that there are bleaches which would be injurious and that is where the difficulty is. A child may drink bleach, feel pain and even die from the effects. The next time the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) brings in this bill, he might include some regulations with regard to hazardous products in order to ensure that these accidents can be prevented.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on Bill C-39, to amend the Food and Drugs Act as brought forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) . The explanatory note to the bill is rather interesting. It reads:
At present the Food and Drugs Act protects consumers by making it an offence punishable by fine and prison to sell hazardous substances and to use fraudulent advertising and sales promotion with respect to foods, drugs, cosmetics and devices. This bill would extend that protection to include these additional consumer products:
(a)	Soaps, detergents and cleaners.
Food and Drugs Act
(b)	Fabrics and cloth.
(c)	Paints, dyes and tints.
(d)	Mechanical household appliances.
The hon. member is to be congratulated on bringing forth this kind of bill which deals with consumer legislation. Certainly, there is a very enlightened section of our society today which is concerned with this subject. It seems to me that as our society goes forward and becomes more sophisticated, regardless of how we may oppose this, people want and expect more protection by the state. They expect protection from bad drugs, dangerous products or dangerous equipment.
This Parliament has been notable for the amount of legislation brought forward in this field. Back in the first session, there was a bill which dealt with reducing the price of drugs and there was the Hazardous Products Act which did many of the things suggested in this bill to cover items that really are not drugs but are found in the home and can be dangerous if improperly used. In the present session of Parliament, there has been the packaging and labelling bill as well as changes to the Weights and Measures Act, and the many other bills which dealt with consumer protection.
The present technological age has brought great benefits to mankind. At the same time, however, man is now faced with a great variety of complex materials including foods, drugs, medical devices, household chemicals, appliances and wearing apparel. The general public is not in a position to assess the hazards associated with the use of many of these products, or to appreciate whether or not they are presented in a fraudulent or misleading manner, so hence must rely, to some considerable extent, upon government bodies for protection.
Bill C-39 proposes that the authority of the Food and Drugs Act, in protecting the consumer, should be extended beyond that of foods, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices to include the items I have mentioned. In speaking to Bill C-39, perhaps it would be desirable, at the outset, to comment briefly upon the matters presently contained in the Food and Drugs Act. The Food and Drugs Act is a consumers' act intended to protect the consumer from health hazards and fraud or deception in the use of foods, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices.
The basic provision about foods is that no foods shall be sold if they have in or upon them a harmful or poisonous substance or if they are filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, adulterated, diseased or were manufactured or stored under unsanitary conditions. Another provision about foods relates to fraud or misrepresentation. This section provides that: "No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety." This is a very wide and strong prohibition indeed. In the food section of the food and drug regulations considerable space is devoted to the control of the chemicals which may be added to foods and to the amounts of pesticide residues

10.	Toys emitting excessive noise;
11.	Kite strings made of material that is a conductor of electricity.
Certainly, we see at this time of the year that this is a good provision, because children have been flying kites. Sometimes they come too close to hydroelectric wires and the danger of electrocution is always present.
Part II of the Schedule of the Hazardous Products Act refers to those household products which may only be sold if they meet the requirements, including labelling, of the Hazardous Products Regulations. Part II includes:
1.	Bleaches, cleansers and sanitizers.
Here may I say that the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe) has already mentioned the danger of bleaches that are in improper containers. It is necessary to protect children from inadvertently coming into contact with bleaches, some of which contain caustic soda. These materials are harmful to the skin and dangerous when taken internally. Other products include:
2.	Corrosive chemicals such as acids and bases;
3.	Petroleum distillates;
4.	Adhesives, cleaning solvents, thinning agents and
certain dyes;
5.	Certain polishes and cleaning agents containing carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, etc.
6.	Fire extinguishing fluids composed of any halogenat-ed aliphatic hydrocarbons;
7.	Certain antifreeze preparations;
8.	Turpentine;
9.	Methyl alcohol;
10.	Pressurized containers;
11.	Polishing agents containing hydrocyanic acid;
12.	Toys;
13.	Dolls and soft toys;
14.	Pull and push toys that have soft-lie handles three-eighths of an inch in diameter or less;
15.	Toy steam engines;
16.	Finger paints;
17.	Rattles;
18.	Elastics;
19.	Batteries.
The hazardous products regulations clearly specify the conditions under which the substances mentioned in part II may be sold. With regard to the labelling of hazardous products, it might be pointed out that both the French and English languages must be used. In addition, reference might be made to sections 7 and 8 of the hazardous products regulations which read as follows:
Information required on principal display panels
7. (1) The principal display panel of each container of a regulated product shall show such of the following graphic matter as is required by these regulations to be shown for that regulated product:
Food and Drugs Act
(a)	the degree of hazard symbol:
(b)	the nature of hazard symbol, superimposed on the appropriate degree of hazard symbol;
(c)	the signal word Danger, Warning or Caution; and
(d)	a statement of the nature of the primary hazard immediately following the signal word.
(2) All graphic matter required by these regulations to be shown on the principal display panel of a container shall be placed parallel to the base of the container and centred around a vertical line bisecting the area of the principal display panel.
Information required on containers:
8. Each container of a regulated product shall show such of the following graphic matter as is required by these regulations to be shown for that regulated product:
(a)	a statement of the nature of the secondary hazard;
(b)	statement of precautions; and
(c)	the words 'First Aid Treatment' in boldface capitals and, immediately following such words,
(i)	the source of the hazard,
(ii)	the first aid treatment antidotes, and
(iii)	directions for the proper and safe use and storage.
The hazardous products (toys) regulations prescribe the requirements regarding the following potential hazards associated with toys: packaging, electrical, mechanical, thermal and toxicological hazards. These regulations also specify the conditions under which the following toys may be sold: dolls and soft toys, pull and push toys, toy steam engines, finger paints, rattles, elastics and batteries.
Another federal act dealing with a matter referred to in Bill C-39 as the Textile Labelling Act, also administered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. With regard to misleading or deceptive advertising of any product, action may presently be taken under section 33(d) of the Combines Investigation Act.
In summary, Bill C-39 proposes that the Food and Drugs Act be extended to include the following: soaps, detergents and cleaners; fabrics and cloth; paints, dyes and tints and mechanical household appliances, in order that these items may not present a health hazard to the user or be presented in a fraudulent manner. An examination of federal legislation would suggest that provision already exists in the following acts, together with the relevant regulations, to control adequately those products referred to in Bill C-39. Specifically, I would refer to the Hazardous Products Act together with the hazardous products (hazardous substances) regulations and the hazardous products (toys) regulations, the Textile Labelling Act and the Combines Investigation Act.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member was speaking in support of Bill C-39 when he ended by saying that everything mentioned in this bill was already controlled by other legislation and regulations. From the numbers of letters I have received calling attention to hazardous products which are mentioned in the bill before us, it would appear that the department is doing a very poor job of exercising control if, in fact, legislation to correct such a situation already exists. It seems to me no good reason exists for members on the government side

May 4, 1971
Food and Drugs Act
attempting to talk out a bill introduced by one of their own hon. friends in these circumstances.
It would appear as though the consultation process between manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers has virtually come to an end. If we are really concerned about consumer protection, the least we can do is refer this bill to the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to ascertain whether we do in fact have any control over the substances and products mentioned in the bill. It appears to me that the regulations so far issued in connection with detergents and soaps, for example, have not solved the problem. In my view there has not been sufficient consultation between government agencies and manufacturers of the products concerned.
If the intention is to continue importing the vast quantity of toys and other products we are importing now, then the quality of those imports should be strictly supervised. The controls already in existence are sadly lacking. The only conclusion is that the legislation needs revising so that the protection about which we have been talking this afternoon can be provided in a meaningful way as the sponsor of the bill before us intended it should be.
If we continue to import toys and products such as are mentioned in the bill, we should never relax our concern for the safety of consumers in this country. It is not good enough to recite a list of the legislation already in existence, when each of us in the House of Commoms realizes that the situation is not in fact under control. This is an argument for extending recognition to a bill which would bring the necessary control provisions under the food and drugs legislation.
I urge hon. members not to talk out this bill but to give it due consideration, realizing that Canadian consumers are entitled to protection and that we are the only people who can refer a bill of this kind to a committee where it can receive proper attention and where recommendations as to the necessary revision of present legislation can originate. I, for one, support this bill and urge the House to let it go to the committee at least. If similar legislation is already in effect, perhaps it would be a good thing to hear from those who are supposed to enforce it, and shake them up a little. They must become more concerned, because the consumers themselves are concerned about this issue and it is up to us to protect the public.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my views on the motion proposing that Bill C-39 be read the second time and referred to the Standing committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
The purpose of this bill is very important, for it aims at protecting consumers against the potential hazards of certain products and devices on the market.
Here is an excerpt of the bill in question:
At present the Food and Drugs Act protects consumers by making it an offence punishable by fine and prison to sell hazardous substances and to use fraudulent advertising and sales promotion with respect to foods, drugs, cosmetics and devices. This bill would extend that protection to include these additional consumer products:
(a)	Soaps, detergents, and cleaners.
(b)	Fabrics and cloth.
(c)	Paints, dyes and tints.
(d)	Mechanical household appliances.
Let me give an example showing the importance of protecting people from some hazardous products.
One lady came to see me recently and expressed her opinion on some bills that were being considered by the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. She insisted on the importance of passing legislation to provide that the chemical formula of detergents be indicated on the containers. She told me that her four-year-old daughter had drunk detergent from the container. The mother had been very much worried, of course, not knowing what to do to help her daughter. There were no indications on the container; she did not know what toxic substances were contained in the detergent, and she had much difficulty in reaching a doctor, and finding a hospital that was equipped to handle such cases.
Had the ingredients of this detergent been listed on the container, with an indication of the proper antidote, perhaps she might have had less reason to worry and could have given her children the proper care much sooner.
I wish to congratulate the mover of this proposal for having once again emphasized this problem and for having introduced a bill which in my opinion is primarily designed to provide the general public with adequate information on such an important matter. However, it does not seem to me that this bill would add very much to the existing law.
Until now, a good number of measures have been taken in this field by the government, its agencies and the provinces. The cabinet or the Governor in Council can very easily correct this legislation by bringing in the necessary amendments, which would be very simple.
We are all aware that the present era of scientific developments has rendered great services to the consumer In putting at his disposal all kinds of products, the use of which may favourably influence his health, and his welfare in general. This is the good aspect of scientific and technological development in our age.
However, as it is often said, there are two sides to every issue. This constant evolution, this progress does not go without some danger. The products now at our disposal, drugs, cosmetics, domestic products, tools, medical equipment or any other devices, all these things in general result from scientific principles which brought about the use of more active products and improved, more powerful and efficient devices. It is unavoidable that the increased use of these products and devices should involve for the user a certain danger. He has to

May 4, 1971

take the necessary precautions to eliminate the dangerous effects of uncontrolled use.
Until now, this seems to corroborate the view expressed in my first remarks, namely that it is always advisable to recall to consumers as best we can can the hazards of certain products.
Publicity in particular shows another inconvenience. In fact, in his endeavour to increase sales as much as possible, the advertiser can be carried away by his enthusiasm, magnify the products' value and even attribute to it proprieties it has not and thus promote it in a way which, consciously or not may be considered misleading or fraudulent.
However, because of this double possibility it behooves the authorities to protect the public against health hazards and fraud by controlling under adequate laws standards governing contents manufacture, labelling and advertisement of these products. Obviously, such measures cannot suppress all possibilities of more or less serious accidents, as can be deduced from annual statistics. I believe that besides passing laws the government must also help inform the public on measures to be taken both to prevent accidents and to correct their effects.
I believe that so far the government has carried out its responsibilities in this field, not only to protect the public through legislative measures but also to inform the people on the dangers of poisonings and on the aid to be given when they occur. For instance, we can recall that the Department of National Health and Welfare, in cooperation with the provincial health departments, established poison control centres a few years ago. It is said that there are about 250 of these in Canada and around 1957 the Food and Drug Directorate established a central information bureau for poison control. This bureau collects information to be used in the fight against accidents by poisoning.
We know that the government has taken a great number of measures in order to counteract the dangers created by the use and abuse of drugs.
There are some facts which are interesting to recall. For instance, the statistics for the year 1968 showed that nearly 75 per cent of the reports received from control centres concerned children under five years of age and out of a total of 41,700 cases of poisoning, 20.2 per cent had been due to headache tablets, 38.1 per cent to other drugs; 40.2 per cent to domestic products other than drugs; and 1.5 per cent to products of an unspecified nature.
In view of the high percentage of accidents caused by headache tablets, namely those containing acetylsalicylic acid, the government took special steps to protect the public, and particularly children, with regard to the use of such drugs, either by indicating the contents with special symbols, or by advising the users about special precautions.
Food and Drugs Act
Obviously, as the member for Wellington-Grey-Duffer-in-Waterloo (Mr. Howe) said a while ago, a child of five cannot understand what is written on the container, or read the warning on appliances. But we know that the parents, and more particularly the mother, watch the child. The mother is more than anyone else interested in reading what it written on containers or equipment. She is the one we can bank on to take precautions and keep the children away from danger.
We know the government took adequate steps to protect the public against drugs.
Recently, a letter containing commercial information was sent to pharmacists, asking them to use containers and locking devices in accordance with applicable standards when they are selling drugs prescribed by doctors.
Some of the provisions I have just mentioned apply only to drugs but they can show the way for effective control of various products to protect the public against health hazards by making them aware of deceptive information.
As I was saying, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), does not seem to provide any further protection since all the devices covered by the bill are already adequately covered by the Hazardous Products Act.
It seems to me also that the household products and appliances covered in the bill are not food, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and that consequently, they should probably not come under the Food and Drugs Act.
It is obvious that there was a serious gap as far as the protection of the public against those products is concerned, but I think that it has been filled by the passage of the Hazardous Products Act in 1969. We know that it is administered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since the carrying out of various measures comes either under the Department of National Health and Welfare or the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, this can give rise to complications at the public level. However, there seems to be very good co-operation, the Department of National Health and Welfare acting as scientific adviser to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I could also refer to Part I and Part II of the Hazardous Products Act. For example, the products referred to in Part II of the Annex can be sold to the public, provided that they are labelled in French and in English, in accordance with the regulations, so that all Canadians may understand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned this debate at five o'clock I had covered several areas of the legislation in order to remind the House, first that we do not object to the principle and, second, that I do not believe any of us would object to the idea that legislation should take into account contingencies such as snowed-under crops, and so on. I do not believe this legislation would be objectionable to anyone in this country, particularly since it would place farmers in a position where they would not have to come forward hat in hand asking for help, any more than the person who finding himself unemployed should have to appeal to government or anybody else for temporary assistance. I believe this type of assistance is an acceptable way of life in Canada.
What we find objectionable to some extent is the situation which might occur when a farmer is in error in estimating the type of crop he will have. A farmer may believe he will have a crop and on that basis he may take an advance. In all conscience he believes he will have a return on his crop and therefore applies for the advance, yet there are provisions which require him to pay a penalty from the day he applies for the advance.
Second, the farmer may have overestimated. In an area like mine, for example, it is not very easy to overestimate, but there are areas of southern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba where floods occur in the spring and the whole crop may be lost. There should be provision to cover that type of situation. Farmers have to rely on the good will of the people to whom they apply, namely, the Wheat Board, who appeal to the minister and if the minister feels he should be generous then that is the order of the day. I think this should be a provision of the bill in cases where special conditions warrant it.
After all, we must accept the possibility of an emergency arising which means a crop is not harvested. To except people who have suffered loss to repay the advance when obviously the crop loss was not their fault, and they have to make a special appeal to the minister, is wrong in my opinion. I think we should go a little further and consider the fact that farmers might not be able to harvest their crops as a result of flooding in the

spring. This type of hazard generally does not occur in my area, which is a rolling area, but I do know that it happens occasionally in southern Manitoba, southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. It happens only once in 10, 12 or 15 years, but we should take it into account.
There are other aspects of this bill which puzzle me. First, the simple 6 per cent interest for those in default used to apply. This is no longer to be the case. Farmers are at the mercy of the cabinet, by Order in Council, and we do not know what rate of interest will be applicable. I do not think this is acceptable. I think there should be a fixed rate. The fact that the cabinet may vary the interest rate means that it has absolute control over the individual. Surely we are not yet in this position in our country.
Let us consider the expression "the Governor in Council may authorize". We find this expression objectionable. 1 would like to see ground rules set down and lived by. I do not want to see Governor in Council authorizations just because a Prime Minister happens to be annoyed one day, because the minister in charge happens to have a bad day with his wife or anyone else, or because a member of the opposition annoys the minister that day and he decides to zero in and fix the guy. This is the kind of provision to which Canadians in general should object. I object to it not only in this legislation but in any other piece of legislation.
Let us set down ground rules. Let us not leave it to regulations or to the Governor in Council. We have a Constitution and we want to abide by it. We want to know what the rules are. We do not want to be at the mercy of a few men who may be powerful but who are very weak in many ways. I think that this is a fair request to make of the cabinet. I do not think that any minister would want the responsibility of raising the interest rate all of a sudden, following which accusations would be made against him. We can figure out averages over the long term. Let us not equivocate. We can set down these rates. The civil service is loaded with economists. They can figure out a fair average which we can accept. We do not want to be at the mercy of a few men who may have a feud.
The bill provides for cash advances on crops. It seems to me the minister is simply using this bill in order to pass other legislation. When he says that farmers may take cash advances on rapeseed, rye and flax, all he wants to do is make other legislation more acceptable, such as the measure covering rye, flax and rapeseed under the Wheat Board Act, so that he may eventually put forward another bill-that is, the stabilization bill about which he is really concerned-because he will then have an absolute count of the number of bushels produced and sold on which farmers will pay 2 per cent. That is all the minister is interested in.
As a result of this situation we find that one bill is contingent upon another. At present all these bills are lumped together. If one fails, the others will not work. The minister shrugs his shoulders. I say to him that once farmers take cash advances on rapeseed, they are obviously committed to the Wheat Board. How does the government collect the money from the farmers? We are
May 4, 1971

not dealing here with one bill; there are about three or four bills tied together. He might just as well have thrown them all in together. This is typical of the government. It reminds me of former Prime Minister Pearson who once asked, "Do you eat a half-rotten egg?" On this occasion we have to eat the whole egg even if half of it is rotten.
Despite many pleas made by other hon. members, no provision is made in this bill for the retired man who may want a cash advance and who has to rely on the mercy of the Wheat Board to obtain a special permit. The owner of the land may be in another country. How does he obtain the signature of the owner? The minister has not dealt with that kind of problem. He has not made an in-depth study of all the requirements. It might be easy enough in such a case to deal with it on the basis of fractions, one-half, three-quarters or five-eighths, making that amount available to the actual producer and having repayment on that basis. I think the department should look at this kind of problem. Older, retired people are often faced with this need. On occasion they tell me, "We have to wait for a special permit until we have made delivery." If it is fair enough for an active producer to take an advance, why is it not fair enough for the individual who has retired? His need may be just as great or greater. He may have just retired and his requirements may be more urgent. I have spoken about this problem previously and I do not know why the minister and the department shrug it off as though it were inconsequential.
A man may be a farmer for 30, 40 or 50 years. As long as he is a farmer we say fine, we will legislate for him. But the minute he quits farming is his need any less? He may have an accumulation of grain. How, then, does he dispose of it? He may have to dispose of it, as I say, in fractions. Why can he not take an advance on that basis? I think the minister should examine this matter more thoroughly.
I shall not speak any more at this stage, Mr. Speaker, except to say that this is a piece of legislation which the minister will have one of his easiest tunes piloting through the House.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, as the minister noted in his remarks when introducing this bill, some aspects of the legislation do restore the situation to its position prior to some of the amendments which were introduced by the government and adopted by the House in 1968 and 1969. Obviously, some of the changes made at that time did not work; they created more problems than they solved.
I recall that when hon. members on this side of the House repeatedly asked the government what it was going to do about farm problems, the continual answer we received from the government was one of falling back on a reference to the cash advances legislation. I suggest this was like a drowning man grasping at a straw. We said that this was no answer to the basic problems of agriculture. We approved of some of the changes and
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act agreed they were useful, but I suggest other changes created real problems and the government now is in the process of correcting the situation.
I noted implications in the minister's remarks which left the impression that the minister and the government consider that cash advances are declining in usefulness and that they anticipate they will not be used as much in the future. In some respects this suggests a reduced priority in the government's thinking on this matter. This, of course, could have some validity if there are new programs which assume greater importance than this one or which supersede or add to existing programs. But I suggest that no matter what programs are introduced, there is still an important role for cash advances to play in the over-all grain marketing situation and they must be retained.
It is essential that cash advances be retained as a permanent feature of our marketing structure; but on the basis of his remarks this afternoon it seems to me that the minister almost hoped for a reduced use of the cash advances system. Of course, he has some basis for this hope in that on a number of occasions he has drawn attention to anticipated changes in the pattern of deliveries of grain throughout the crop year. The minister now anticipates that there will not be as heavy a movement of grain into storage near the end of the crop year, which now can mean some slowing up on deliveries in the early part of the new year and thus a greater use of cash advances at that time.
I would be happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but it seems to me the implications of his remarks were that he is looking to some point in the future when we will see an end to cash advances. I hope this is not so because, Mr. Speaker, I suggest cash advances involve some degree of acceptance of national responsibility for the grain marketing situation, a situation which in fact has national implications. It affects all of the Canadian economy. It has implications and consequences for the entire economy. In fact it is a recognition that some conditions are beyond the farmer's control and for which he should not be expected to bear the entire burden.
I also suggest that the cash advances system makes possible a greater degree of flexibility in the marketing system because it does not produce the same pressure on farmers to deliver their grain to the elevator as soon as there is a bushel of space available. It also means that the government and the Canadian Wheat Board can introduce measures which can assist in the movement of grain further down the marketing chain. At the same time, I think all of us will recognize that the cash advances system must be adjusted to keep up with changes in the marketing situation, to take advantage of new proposals, new ideas, and also to take account of new problems.
I note the changes in the act proposed by this bill. For instance, I note that the fixed advance price as set out in the act is being changed to a more flexible formula type of price, giving some discretionary powers to the Gover-

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act nor in Council. This is certainly suitable in many respects and the formula which suggests that the cash advance price should be related to an approximate two-thirds of the anticipated final price has some merit. I hope that this new mechanism as used and also the safety valve contained in it, whereby there is an escape clause in the event that the amount of the advance that could otherwise be recovered is less than the farmer would be able to receive, and relating this to the repayment schedule I hope it does not mean that the Wheat Board is anticipating further reductions in grain prices.
This afternoon the minister drew our attention to the removal of the bias favouring wheat. This is acceptable, as is the proposal to place permanently in the legislation help for drying damp and tough wheat and the possible provision of advances for unthreshed grain when circumstances warrant it. The changes proposed with respect to repayment provisions on cash advances are also useful.
The minister correctly noted a decline in confidence regarding the cash advances system. I think this arose out of the very difficult marketing situation which prevailed in recent years and the feeling of hopelessness among many farmers that the existing system would enable them to repay their cash advance in the foreseeable future.
I also noted the minister's remarks concerning the plan to charge interest on defaults in payments and on repayments which are made in cash rather than deliveries of grain. I acknowledge that some problems have arisen in this regard and agree that action is warranted to deal with them. But other problems could be created as a result of the action proposed by the minister, some of which may not be fully recognized at this time. I urge the minister to keep an open mind on the problems that may arise. There should be some flexibility to take into account unforeseen problems.
I appreciate the minister's response to my question earlier today regarding the problem of farmers who may grow registered seed and who, for a variety of reasons, may be unable to sell it as such and in the end have to sell it as commercial grain. They do not know what the outcome will be at the time they harvest the crop and put it into storage. I think this is a situation where a farmer quite honestly may be in a position where he needs cash. Certainly he can honestly say that he may deliver that grain as commercial grain rather than as some form of registered or certified seed. I raise this problem simply by way of example of the situation that can arise. No doubt there are other problems encountered when attempting to introduce the restrictions which the minister has proposed.
I have noted a number of areas in this bill with which I am in basic sympathy and agreement. My real quarrel is with the proposal to remove all references to the unit quota. I acknowledge that there have been problems with respect to the administration of the unit quota. When originally introduced, its purpose was to help the small farmer. I would agree to its removal if there were something acceptable to replace it. The unit quota did help the small farmer and I think the minister recognizes this.
Most of them live in the more productive grain producing areas of the Prairies and many also have a smaller acreage of summerfallow than the average. Operation Lift really hurt these small farmers who had little room for flexibility. The large farmers with 1J or two sections or more had room for flexibility when planning production for 1970 to take into account the proposals contained in Operation Lift. The small farmer did not.
The minister is well aware of some of these problems. He will no doubt recall a letter which I drew to his attention, received from a constituent of mine. It was addressed to the minister and a copy was sent to me. This farmer pointed out that he had a half section of land and had cut down his wheat acreage in 1970 to 50 or 60 acres, and he had some summerfallow as well. Under the quota system he was only able to make a very small amount of deliveries. He pointed out that under the quota plan it would take something like three years to deliver all the grain he had produced because he had a bumper crop. The minister was good enough to send me a copy of his reply to the farmer, in which he seemed to deny the suggestion that the government's program had harmed the small farmer at all. I argue with that contention.


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


John Stratford Burton: Yes, certainly.


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder if the hon. member appreciates that those farmers without surpluses who took the advice of the program last year and grew barley and rapeseed because of the discouragement of wheat, are in fact better off than they would have been under any other circumstances.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Did you encourage barley production last year?


Otto Emil Lang: For those without surpluses, yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) has the floor.


John Stratford Burton: This farmer grew something like 50 or 60 acres of wheat out of 320 acres of land. If that is not sufficient response to what the government did, then I don't know what the minister expects. If he expects this farmer to live on nothing at all, he is mistaken. At the same time the minister urged farmers not to increase their acreage of other crops. Operation Lift seriously hurt the small farmer.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hear, hear!


John Stratford Burton: By his interjection this evening, the minister has again demonstrated that he fails to understand the serious problems faced by small farmers in the Prairie provinces and the serious situation in which government policies have placed them. They simply cannot sell

May 4, 1971

their production. There are many examples of the same sort of thing in the Prairie provinces. Just who is the small farmer?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The backbone of the nation.


John Stratford Burton: Often he is an older man who still has some years left of his working life. Farming is the skill that he possesses, it is his life, he likes it and wants to continue in it for the remainder of his working life. Many of these farmers have a very useful contribution to make to the economy and to society. Some of them know that for one reason or another they will not have a son to carry on, but nevertheless this is the life they want and they can make a useful contribution to society by continuing to farm with a reasonable degree of assistance.
I received a letter today from a small farmer north of Regina who points out some of the problems he faces. He points out that he has written to Premier Thatcher, a good friend of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang). I am sure the minister knows him very well and I expect he will go along with these remarks since they are political colleagues and get along very well together. This farmer wrote to Premier Thatcher and asked, "What shall I do? I simply cannot make a decent or adequate living under present circumstances and policies." Premier Thatcher replied, "Diversify." The farmer said, "I am 58 years old. I have had a heart condition for the past year. I cannot go into livestock at this stage of life. I should like to carry on my farming operation for the remainder of my working life." That reply is the type of nonsense we are hearing in response to some of the difficulties which are brought to the attention of public officials.
We want to know what the minister intends to do about the problems of small farmers. It has been pointed out that there are to be adjustment programs. That is good and fine. If we can implement some adjustment programs, they will help. There may be farmers on small or uneconomic farms who want to retire. If that is their wish, help ought to be provided to enable them realize their wish. Some of them may want to continue their farming operations, and they can make good, useful contributions to our society. I suggest that we must be humane as well as making good economic sense or making dollars and cents sense, or nonsense in some cases.
I want to hear what the minister will do to replace this feature of grain marketing policy. Is he going to do something by way of income policy, price policy or production policies that will be of help to the small farmer, the man who faces a special set of problems? The minister ought to be well acquainted with these problems and he should show a greater degree of responsiveness than he has up to the present with respect to the problems faced by these people.
The feature of the legislation having to do with the elimination of the unit quota, in the absence of any acceptable or suitable alternative mars and scars an
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
otherwise acceptable and useful overhaul of the act. I again remind the minister that we want to hear from him. What is his course of action? In which direction is he moving? Is he in the process of phasing-out the cash advances system, or is it still considered an integral and essential feature of marketing policy? Mr. Speaker, you can kill legislation by squeezing it out as well as by repealing it. I urge the minister not to underrate the importance of cash advances in the grain marketing system, because they are an essential component of that system.
The Liberal party, of course, historically has displayed a lack of understanding of the value of cash advances. I recall that years ago-I wonder if the minister recalls this-the then Liberal government resisted all attempts to introduce cash advances. It was not until they were turned out of office that cash advances legislation was introduced. Of course, the Liberal government has been riding along on the coat-tails of that legislation for some years since. We now wonder what is its future. Does the government plan to continue it on a long-term basis? Will it continue to be a permanent feature of grain marketing policy?
That pretty well sums up the comments that I wanted to make on this bill. I am looking forward to the minister's response to the proposals and problems which I have raised. I hope he will acknowledge that we have pointed to a number of features of the bill which are acceptable and useful. The minister is rather hard put sometimes to get his point across in western Canada. I ought to know, because today an interesting copy of the Hi-Way 15 Gazette dated April 29 came across my desk. That is a newspaper published in Semans, Saskatchewan.


Otto Emil Lang: It is an annual.


John Stratford Burton: It is a weekly newspaper. That remark shows how much the minister is out of touch. I usually write a column in this weekly newspaper because it covers part of my constituency. Occasionally the minister horns in as well. Sometimes he sends out a little column which is printed in some weekly newspapers in Saskatchewan and, probably, in those beyond the Saskatchewan border.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is a column which he does not write.


John Stratford Burton: I looked at the column headed, "Ottawa Report" in the copy of the Hi-Way 15 Gazette which came across my desk this afternoon. I like to look at my column and check it, and I was amazed to see, "Ottawa Report, by John Burton, MP, Regina East Constituency". It began as follows:
I have now Introduced into the House of Commons a bill to amend the cash advance legislation. This is one more step in the total overhaul of grains legislation and policy-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the hon. member if he had the consent of the Governor General to do this?


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I was very much concerned about the matter because I have been tutored on proce-
5504

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act dure by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


An hon. Member:: You're heading for trouble.


John Stratford Burton: I quickly ascertained that this column had been submitted by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He went on to say what the legislation contained. That was a fair enough article describing the legislation. I sometimes wonder what the minister is up to. Is he so hard put to get people to read his columns, or the material that he puts out, that he must try to steal somebody else's byline?
I must take it as a compliment that the minister chose to use my byline in attempting to put before the readers of the Hi-Way 15 Gazette his views about the cash advances legislation. I can understand the minister's position because many people in the west have been caught and now they do not have much faith in the minister's views. I do not object, so long as the minister does not do it too often. I take it as a compliment that the minister used my name in order to obtain greater reader coverage for his column.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Stratford Burton: As I have said, we feel there are some useful proposals in this legislation. We are very concerned about the implications concerning the unit quota and the future of the small farmer. I am also concerned about the future of the legislation and hope to hear the minister on these matters.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: associations and private business. In association with this, export credit and export insurance must be made more readily available to other countries. I say this to reinforce my point that all our deliberations are to no avail unless these steps are also adopted.
We must try also to place greater emphasis on continuity of the supply for export markets. If a contract is signed with a foreign country, we must be able to guarantee delivery of the product on the date and in the amounts specified. To do this requires the revamping of existing facilities at our ports. If we are to compete in the export markets, continuity of supply is vital. Market research must also be greatly expanded. The research that is needed, should be designed to reveal the size of the markets, the quality of the products demanded, how the markets are changing, and market strategies for Canadians.
I firmly believe the primary and continuing role of any government should be to produce a desirable economic and social climate for people in agribusiness. I say this in talking on the amendments to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act because I have grave doubts whether this is the direction in which we are moving. It is my opinion that as we move into the seventies this must be our primary goal and objective. This role should not include managing agriculture any more than it is the role of government to manage the steel industry or the pulp and paper industry. Because agriculture is peculiar in many respects, social as well as economic aspects of all policies must be kept in mind. Governments must always be aware that they are dealing with human beings and not abstract problems.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the amendments proposed in this legislation do lend a greater degree of flexibility to the act, but they will work only if they are coupled with a much more aggressive marketing approach.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have experienced some frustration lately because there have been no agricultural bills before us to give us an excuse to scold the minister. We do not want the minister to think he is doing a good job, or anything like that, because obviously this is not the case. Many farmers tell me that things are not good and that it is time the government did something.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The farmers are always right.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: It seems to me that Liberal politicians do not always listen to what farmers have to say. I do not know whether this is because they are not farmers themselves or because they have never suffered hurt. Those who have suffered hurt or put up with a little hardship have a better understanding or what it is to go hungry.
Cash advances have helped farmers solve some of their problems. In addition, they have helped the economy of western Canada as much as they have helped the farm-
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act ers, because farmers have no money over by the time they have paid their bills. Most rural municipalities have a good collection record as far as repayment of cash advances is concerned. To give credit where credit is due, this program has served a useful purpose in keeping municipalities, school units and the like viable.
Cash advances were first introduced because there was a need. I suggest that if our economy had been kept in gear and we had maintained our wheat sales as we should, and some of the changes required in the farming scene had been made a little sooner with proper leadership from the government, there would not have been so great a problem as later developed. The real reason for introducing cash advances was that we were not selling sufficient grain.
Now we have the situation where farmers who took the full advance last year are delivering grain, and with the low price of wheat and other grains at the moment they find they have very little money to last them the winter, and this leaves them a little disgusted. I have checked into the situation to see how things are in my part of the country, and businessmen tell me that although things are better and there is a more optimistic mood on the part of farmers and businessmen, actually there is no great flow of money.
The prime reason for this lack of money is that much of what the farmers receive from their grain sales goes to re-pay their cash advances. In addition, expenses are at a high level. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) suggested that we needed a more positive sales approach, and I agree. But in addition to a more positive sales approach we need some understanding of the cost factors in this country. It is not enough just to sell grain. You have to sell grain at a reasonable price. Not only that, but we need to control prices of goods so that incomes are kept steady. If we cannot do this, we will have to look around for additional sources of income.
There will be a number of agricultural bills before the House in the next few weeks and I shall have many more comments to make about the position of our farmers. I have no desire to make them all at the moment. I favour the changes proposed in this bill; for the most part I think they are helpful and needed and will make the legislation more effective.
I want to make one further comment about elevator agents who have frequently been asked to make cash advances. For the most part they are good, solid citizens who know their people. The record of collection of cash advances has been relatively good in the past, and we hope it will continue to be so. If it is not, I suspect it will be because the problems in this country have become so acute that the farmers have no alternative but to renege on some of their economic commitments and find themselves looking for some way of evading obligations that have become too onerous for them to meet. Having said that, I close by saying I favour the cash advance amendments and I wish the minister well in their administration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to add a few remarks that I was hoping the
5506

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act minister would make earlier today since it is not too often that this particular law of the land, namely, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, comes before Parliament. We should refresh our memories and remind the public, particularly in eastern Canada-and those who roost in yon gallery should be able to do a better job than they have in previous years-that cash advances are not taxpayers' money. Very often people in central Canada and in the extreme east and west of the country have had the impression that these payments were some kind of gift to the grain growers in the three prairie provinces.
I suppose this could have been called the original grain stabilization income plan. It was a measure that advanced a farmer's wages to him at the time he most needed them, namely, long after he had earned them. He had to repay them as and when he delivered grain. That was one of the reasons this act was passed. The second reason for this legislation was the complete failure of the old line parties and governments, and the transportation system over which ultimately they had control, to do a proper job of allowing the grain producers to deliver their products and to receive the income to which they were justifiably entitled.
Cash advances were interest-free and varied in amount-I am only guessing, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong-from $4 million to $15 million a year, if I can make a wild guess. However, the cost was justified simply because one particular segment of our society was unable to receive the income it should have received. As my colleague from Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) has said, the advances that were made cost the taxpayers nothing in relative terms. I suspect less than one-hundredth of one per cent of cash advances since 1957 ever went bad; they were repaid promptly on time.
If the plans of the minister, both present and future, in connection with quotas and deliveries work, this means there will be less need for cash advances, certainly compared with the late 1950s and early 1960s, a period when we were the victims of the same sort of government as this. Nevertheless, if the minister's proposals work, there will be less demand and need for cash advances. Certainly, if he meets his delivery objective as a result of the proposed quota system, there will be less use made of cash advances.
Therefore, it is only logical that the minister should bring in amending legislation of the sort we now have before the House, and one cannot quarrel with that. One might be able to quarrel after waiting a year to see how his proposals work out, and we might have more fun in one year's time than we are having tonight. Having said that, I am afraid I must now get a little mean and impute motives to the minister and his government.


Mark Willson Rose: You cannot do that!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have to; I have no alternative. There is a very crucial additional reason for bringing in this legislation, especially in view of the kind of government we have and the kind of minister who is in charge of the Wheat Board. The task force on agriculture has stated
that direct intervention by the government in agriculture must be resisted, indeed eliminated. This particular change, one of many we are being asked to approve, will save the government money. When you deliver grain and repay your cash advances 100 per cent as you deliver, instead of 50 per cent, the interest charges that the government had been paying before will be substantially reduced. This measure will allow the government to implement what the task force on agriculture has been advocating and what I believe now to be government policy. That results in a further erosion of rural Canada and the loss of tens of thousands of people to those areas.
I am afraid I must be mean and say this is the reason behind it, because the minister could not possibly know, however confident he might be about his proposals on quotas and deliveries, whether this legislation will work or how successful it will be. This amendment to the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act will save several millions of dollars in interest charges which the government would have to pay.
The minister has been advising farmers, as did his predecessors, and my colleague the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) listed some of the results of this advice. I can only say that a number of the farmers in my constituency deliberately choose to do exactly the opposite of what the minister advises. I understood the advice of the minister several months ago to be that farmers should not get excited or carried away and sow too much flax, mustard, rapeseed or Durum. I phoned a grain farmer in my constituency who raises other things besides grain, including a bunch of kids, the morning following the minister's statement and asked him what he thought of the minister's advice. He said he went out that morning and put in another 40 acres of Durum. In effect, he did exactly the opposite of what the minister suggested. I might add that he is not doing too badly in respect of Durum deliveries this year, Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: Oh, come on!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He did exactly the opposite. The minister and his government should realize that their credibility is in such a bad state, and has been for many years, that it is now the practice of practical farmers to either do half as much as he suggests, or exactly the opposite. Farmers who follow that course are more often right than they are wrong.
My colleague, the hon. member for Regina East, mentioned the confusion of the editor of the Hi-Way 15 Gazette. If the farmers are confused about the minister's advice, you can imagine the state of confusion in which the editors of weekly newspapers find themselves. The minister contributes a weekly column to newspapers in my riding and in the riding of the hon. member for Regina East. As that hon. member has suggested, he is butting in. That is not the only area where he butts in. He writes to newspapers in my constituency urging that post offices be closed down. I do not mind the minister attempting to be helpful, but this sort of thing is a little ridiculous.

May 4, 1971

Let me refer to another problem. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) would like to have a desk in the minister's office in his riding. The minister's office is in the riding of that hon. member. Private members cannot expect to get that sort of privilege but they can get an increase in wages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar would appreciate some aid, assistance and comfort of this type. Perhaps he could sit in a corner of the minister's office in his riding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's remarks are interesting but I have some doubt as to their relevance to the bill before the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to let my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, in on the advances to the office space fund. Actually, this is just a sort of warm-up to what is to come in the next few weeks; it is only preliminary to what will happen in respect of legislation the minister has on the order paper. I suppose one could say we are all practising or rehearsing for what is to come. This is infield practice in advance of the more serious part of the game to come.
We will go along with the amendments proposed by the minister, but God help him if his prediction falls short during this or the next crop year. These amendments will save the government several millions of dollars in interest charges. No doubt this makes the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) very happy and puts the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in his good graces. I cannot say the same for his position so far as the farmers of the Prairie provinces are concerned. We will now sort of rest a while, but we will not rest easy. We will wait to see what happens as a result of the minister's amendments. We will wait to see what happens this fall following his proposals regarding quotas and grain delivery. We look forward with great anticipation to seeing what will happen.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Bill C-239 is the result of a debate which took place in this House of Commons on October 28, 1968.


An hon. Member:: Read my speech.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not have to read any member's speech made during the fall of 1968 to know what gave rise to the proposals contained in this bill; I can only suggest the relationship between what happened in 1968 and the proposals contained in four agricultural bills, namely, Bill C-239, Bill C-176, the bill pertaining to grain marketing and the grain storage bill.
Let me refer hon. members to a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on June 2, 1968, in which he enunciated Liberal policy on agriculture. His speech was made in the city of Winnipeg.


An hon. Member:: He said, "Why should I sell your grain?"
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, he said that. I well remember that remark. I could quote his remarks on a number of other subjects. However, at this time I shall refer to the remarks he made about cash advances' legislation. I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press of June 4 in reference to his speech of June 2 in which he enunciated the Liberal government's policy. He said:
This, of course, is a long-term attempt to solve the problem.
I underline those words. He went on to say:
To tide farmers over the immediate situation, it is proposed that the amount of cash available to farmers as interest-free loans on farm-stored wheat doubled from $3,000 to $6,000 and that the rate of repayment be reduced.
This was enunciated by the Prime Minister on June 2, 1968, in Winnipeg. We have also heard the minister's remarks regarding the necessity of doubling the amount and reducing repayments. We have heard that they have done this in order to tide over the farmers and what a great benefit this program has been to producers during their worst possible delivery years. He said the government doubled the amount available and reduced the repayment of cash advances. What has this led to?
Before continuing I should like to point out to the House that the Prime Minister of Canada made these remarks when the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) was not in charge of the Wheat Board; he was just arunning, just an also-ran in the election of June, 1968. He was not in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He was not in charge of the advance payments program or in charge of sales of wheat until six or seven months after those statements were made by the Prime Minister. Let me make it abundantly clear to the House and to the country that one man is running Canada, and one man only. That man is the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear some cheers. I point out that that man happens to be on holiday today. I hope he is enjoying his holiday, because the country is not enjoying the holidays he is having. The country has not enjoyed the repeated holidays that man has taken since he laid down the program that his yes-men must follow. I think we as Canadians must be appreciative of the fact that Canadians are not yes-men.


An hon. Member:: Yes, man!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone sitting very close to the former mayor of Toronto-I believe his name is Givens; he does not speak very often in this House-said, "Yes, man". I appreciate there may well be two of them from Toronto who do not like the way this government is carrying on its business.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House that we are thankful the former Minister of Communications has said he has had enough. He has found it necessary to go across the country and say he will no longer be dominat-

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act ed by this dictator who was prepared to lay down what would be available in cash advances to western fanners even though he was a teacher of law in Montreal and knows absolutely nothing about grain production. Still he could pick from his authorities and from his advisers and determine what was best for Canada on June 2, 1968, and lay down exactly what was to happen in Canada.
The cash advances legislation is an example which I will record in this House of Commons. We will examine the master's words and dictates. On June 2, 1968, in Winnipeg the master dictated that cash advances would be doubled and repayments reduced. He said this before the present minister was even elected, let alone designated as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. This minister would like to portray to western Canada that he alone speaks for the Canadian Wheat Board and has taken under advice the Menzies report in respect of wheat marketing. He would have us believe he had that under advice as far back as October, 1968, and that he did in fact double the amount available under cash advances.
Today, before six o'clock, he told us that a real job was done in this regard and that it assisted the farmers through a difficult period. In fact, he said it was the worst marketing period in Canadian grain history. Let me read, however, the advice he received from the opposition on October 28, 1968, after the cash advances legislation of today was introduced in Bill C-113. I repeat "113" because perhaps it was an unlucky number since the legislation did not last very long. I pointed out that in Winnipeg the Prime Minister enunciated this policy and that the person who was picked from Saskatoon indicated that he carried it out even though he was not the minister in charge of the Wheat Board at the time the policy was initiated.
As recorded at page 2133 of Hansard for October 28, 1968, the minister was advised what would happen. At that time I said:
Now, if I may turn my attention more specifically to Bill No. C-113, I may say that back on October 4, which is quite a while ago, I directed a number of criticisms at this measure. However, I am not going to remain rigid or fixed in the positions I took at the resolution stage. On October 4 the minister and I got into a discussion with regard to the availability of cash advances and the ability of the farmer to repay those cash advances. I keep referring to the measure as cash advances, which is the common expression in western Canada, but actually it is the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
The interpretation of the act in the past was that a farmer would receive 50 cents on the dollar per bushel of wheat delivered, the other half dollar going to repay the advance under the legislation. On October 4 the Minister without Portfolio, who in effect is an honorary parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), said that under the proposed bill farmers would be paid a cash advance of $1 per bushel, and that the repayment would still be at the rate of 50 per cent of that amount. The minister will correct me if I interpret his remarks wrongly but I think that he said that the farmers would repay at the same 50 per cent rate per bushel delivered under their quota. I and a number of other members of the opposition fail to comprehend how this system would fully repay the cash advance within the year, particularly if the quota remained at a staid and solid six bushels per acre.
Mr. Speaker, history has proven that I and a number of speakers from the opposition parties were right when
we said there was no possible way in which cash advances could be repaid by farmers if they obtained all that was available to them. The ultimate question in that regard which might be asked by you, Mr. Speaker, or by any other member is, Why take it if you cannot repay it? I have mentioned the date on which the first remarks in this regard were made by the Prime Minister. In his Winnipeg speech, in respect of cash advances he said interest-free loans on farm-stored wheat would be doubled from $3,000 to $6,000 and that the rate of the repayment would be reduced. This was on June 2, 1968, before the June 25 election. It is obvious to anyone within the sound of my voice that the Prime Minister made those remarks purely in an effort to entice western farmers to vote for the Liberal party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did they?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks, "Didn't they?"


Stanley Howard Knowles: I said, "Did they?"


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry; he said, "Did they?" I would say that 75 per cent of them did not and that the other 25 per cent regret they did.


An hon. Member:: That isn't time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Somebody on the other side of the House said that is not true. I would like to hear that said a little louder.


Otto Emil Lang: It is your usual-a half-truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister himself, the great man who left the farm when he was 18 years old to study law and promised his father that he would never return again, has become the great adviser on Canadian agriculture. He said that my statement is half true. As I look across at him today I can see that he only half-shaved this morning, but only because he only half-looked in the mirror. He only half-faced himself in the mirror, perhaps because what I said was absolutely true. There is not a farmer in western Canada today who does not hope that an election is called immediately so that they can set the record straight and can prove that they never voted for this government. There is not a man on the other side of the House who can deny this.
I notice that the minister is very quiet in that regard, and I point out that the House leader of the Liberal party is in the chamber at present but he says nothing; he does not say that the Saskatchewan farmers want to vote in favour of this government. Not a word is heard on the other side; there is silence. Even the hecklers have died down. I wonder why. I wrack my brains to determine why. But then I come to the conclusion that perhaps it is because there are four by-elections to be held before May 31 and there is one empty seat in the province of Saskatchewan, so that a by-election may never be called

May 4, 1971

there. Why is that? It is because they cannot find a candidate. And if they found a candidate, his sons or his wife would not vote for him if he ran for the Liberal party. He would have nobody voting for him. That is why they are so silent.
Prairie farmers have caught on to Liberal proposals. On June 2 of last year the Prime Minister promised them that cash advances would be doubled and repayments reduced. "Get rid of the small farmer; get rid of every farmer; get them out of our hair," is what they are saying in this government-and western Canada has caught on. Within the last seven days, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-


An hon. Member:: Which leader?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -the Leader of the Opposition received 35,000 coupons objecting to the Liberal government's proposal with regard to agriculture. But that does not stop them. They are going to proceed with it. What does the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) have to say about the matter of cash income, which is related directly to cash advances? We heard the person in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and responsible for cash advances say that wheat farmers have just gone through the worst period in their history. He said that they need to have cash advances doubled and repayments reduced. What did the Minister of Agriculture, who fell asleep during today's question period, have to say on December 3, 1970? He said:
-one wage earner in three draws a pay cheque either directly or indirectly from the agricultural industry.
The agricultural industry is an important industry when we consider all the wage earners. What else did the Minister of Agriculture have to say? He said that cash advances are an indirect form of aid. Then he said that about 51,000 farmers from the three prairie provinces have not repaid their loans. But believe me, Mr. Speaker, they are trying to repay them. I should like to quote the Minister of Agriculture as reported in the Western Producer of December 3, 1970:
Mr. Olson said the federal government spends about 3.3 per cent of the total federal budget on agriculture-the Canada Department of Agriculture spending $281 million and other departments and agencies spending an additional $142 million. The totals do not include the "indirect aid" to agriculture through such programs as farm products purchased as food aid to other countries.
Admitting the difficulties of making exact comparisons, he said Canada spent about $350 per person employed in agriculture in 1968, and this compares with $675 in West Germany, $980 in France, $1,059 in Britain, $1,287 in the United States and $1,502 in Switzerland.
That is what the Minister of Agriculture said regarding what is directly spent on agriculture in Canada, in comparison with what is spent on agriculture in other countries in direct and indirect aid. What does the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board have to say about this whole proposal regarding aid? He said before five o'clock today that we went through a very difficult period in agriculture and that we had to double the cash advances and reduce the repayments, but he said there is
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act still $95 million outstanding in western Canada. There are 51,285 farmers who have taken advantage of this loans program and who have not paid them back, but he said that this is a great reduction from the previous year and that the loans will eventually be paid back.
He also said the following, as reported in the Western Producer of Thursday, February 4:
Mr. Lang said a new quota system, "designed to avoid a bias in favour of the highest price grain, which in the past has been wheat", will be announced within the next month.
That is in essence what he said a few minutes before five o'clock with regard to this program. He said that the whole bill is designed in such a way as not to create a bias in favour of wheat. We are now going to include grains such as rye, flaxseed and rapeseed, the production of which would make farmers eligible for cash advances once this legislation is passed. Under this bill, farmers would be entitled to receive $1 a bushel for wheat and this in essence would encourage the production of wheat. But I point out to hon. members that under the old legislation farmers were entitled to receive 40 cents a bushel for oats and 70 cents a bushel for barley. Under the present bill it is up to the Governor in Council to determine what amounts shall be made available, and for what periods.
How can the cash advances' legislation be used to encourage the production of any kind of grain if the Governor in Council does not have the guts, the determination, the fortitude or foresight to say, "We encourage the production of such-and-such commodity"? The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture have said in this House, "Last year we did encourage the production of barley." I would like the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to stand up and tell us when, before May 4 a year ago, he encouraged the production of barley. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to say when, before May 4 last year, he encouraged the production of barley. I say May 4 because now in western Canada the farmers are preparing to seed. At no time before May 4 last year did either minister encourage the production of barley.
I see the minister rearing his head; I would say "his ugly head" but I have no personal objection to it and therefore I would not want to say "his ugly head." But at no time did the Minister of Agriculture or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board rise in this House before May 4 a year ago and say they wanted to encourage the production of barley. But they say that this legislation has in fact encouraged the production of wheat. That cannot be substantiated, but what can be substantiated-I want to emphasize this before I close-is that they deliberately doubled the cash advances available under western grains, wheat, oats and barley last year and they did it because the Prime Minister said they would before the June 25 election. They did it and they were advised on October 28, as recorded at page 2123 of Hansard, that this would result in the farmers incurring debts that they would not be able to pay.

May 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board at that time was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He will remember the argument that I had with him. I told him, "You are going to bring farmers deeper and deeper into debt. This will severely hurt the small farmer." I said that in October,
1968.	I said it later in 1968 and also in the early part of
1969.	I said that the legislation would result in small farmers incurring debts that they would not be able to pay.
If one studies Bill C-239 one can clearly understand why they are increasing the interest rate on the amount eligible for repayment. It is because they have sunk the small farmer into debt. They have driven him from the farm. And then only within the last few days the Prime Minister stood up in Vancouver-the same man who made the speech in Winnipeg two years ago-and said we have to gear ourselves to a policy of net social benefit. Is it net social benefit to drive small farmers into the cities to live on welfare? I would think not.
The small farmer enjoys more psychological security living on his small farm than he ever will living on welfare in the air-polluted, water-polluted cities. On the farm he enjoys a better quality of life. He certainly enjoyed a better qualify of life on the farm in 1968 before he was enticed and led to his own destruction by the Prime Minister, aided by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
What does this bill suggest? I would like all members to look at clause 12. What does clause 12 suggest? Higher interest rates-that's what it suggests. Who will pay them? It is not the farmer who can afford to pay, but the farmer who is already behind on repayment of his cash advances. That is when we soak him. We catch him when he is down and put him out of business. We force him to go into the cities, make him take a job or go on welfare. In any event, he must leave his farm. That is the purpose, the object of most of the farm legislation that has been introduced by the government and this cash advances legislation is a perfect example. If one studies the chronological order in which the government has proceeded with its farm legislation, you can see this is the way it is aimed, right through from October, 1968, up to Bill C-239.
Does a farmer get any indication from this bill as to how much he will be able to get as a cash advance on wheat? The farmer is now going into the seeding period. This bill covers rye, flax and rapeseed. Mr. Speaker, I notice this ugly head is rearing itself once again and paying attention. Does the farmer receive any indication of what he will receive as cash advance on the grain he is preparing to plant this month? I see the minister mouthing the word "Yes." I have to say the word "Yes" because I know from my experience in this House that mouthed words do not appear in Hansard; therefore, I have to interpret the words that the minister mouths. He mouthed the word "Yes," meaning that before spring planting farmers will know how much advance will be available under the six crops covered by this bill. Am I correct in that statement? I would like to see him nod his head on that statement.


Otto Emil Lang: Half right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, if I were an American politician I would say I was in the ball-park, but I am not and I want to be right. Before this legislation passes I want the minister to stand up and say what is 100 per cent right. Will the farmers know how much in cash advances will be available to them with regard to the various crops, before spring seeding? Will there be half the value with regard to flaxseed, which runs in the neighbourhood of a little less than $3 a bushel? Will that be available to them as a cash advance, now that flaxseed is coming under the bill? With regard to rapeseed-a very speculative crop, I might add-has the minister the foresight to predict that half the value of rapeseed under today's prices will be available through cash advances to farmers, before they plant rapeseed this spring?
How much will be available? If $1 a bushel isn't available under wheat, how much will be? If 45 cents is not available under oats, how much will be? If 70 cents isn't available under barley, how much will be and how much will be the repayments of the farmers? Will they be increased, or reduced as the Prime Minister stated on June 2, 1968? These are questions that the farmers are asking themselves. But we are being asked to pass this legislation without any answers, and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board suggests I am half right. This is not good enough when you consider the problems the farmer has had in the past year.
The farmer has taken the advice the Prime Minister gave on June 2, 1968. He has taken the cash advances. He has taken more than half the price of the grain sold, in cash advances. He has accepted a reduced repayment. He stands in debt. As of April 24, 1970, the Canadian farmer had received $228 million under cash advances. Since that date he has been attempting to repay it. How successful has he been?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How could he be successful, under this government?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: down to at least $15' million or $16 million, it he were prepared to fill the storage available in western Canada- available, that is, in the commercial storage space on the Prairies, on the coast and at the Lakehead. But he has deliberately kept that storage empty.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Many farmers are asking this question. One could answer that the government want to collect the higher interest rate proposed in this bill. I do not really believe that is the case, though it might be a political answer.
I think they want approval to remove the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. They want to be able to say, on July 31, "The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is nothing. It did not really do much good and it has been reduced from a $40 million normal payment to something like $20 million. The opposition is completely wrong in advocating that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act not be done away with."
What have we to say with regard to grain in storage? Do we need it in storage or not? It is interesting to note that on March 15, 1971, I put the following question to the minister:
I have a supplementary question with regard to grain sales for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister inform the House whether the additional 10 cents per bushel for barley is bringing in the required amount of barley or are we still turning down sales requests?
Disregard the last part of the question and consider the first, where I asked if this program was bringing in the necessary amount of barley so that quotas would be available to the producers. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is in charge of the Wheat Board, at page 4252 of Hansard had this to say:
The flow of barley is stepping up. We hope it will continue to increase. There is space available in some provinces where there are also significant barley quotas available. We are therefore urging the farmers to deliver the grain because-
I emphasize the word "because" Mr. Speaker.

because the Wheat Board would like to see the flow of barley established before it makes additional sales.
In other words, the Wheat Board was not prepared to make additional sales until it had the grain in storage. I see the minister shakes his head in a negative manner. I would be pleased to see him stand in this House and correct my interpretation of his words. But now can one misinterpret those words on page 4252 of Hansard when he said-


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Fine.


Otto Emil Lang: I wonder whether the hon. member can notice the distinction between the words "until the flow of grain is established" and the words "until the grain is in storage"?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I never was much for being-


Otto Emil Lang: For being accurate.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -picayune about words, but let me explain to the minister the meaning of the words, "We are therefore urging the farmers to deliver the grain". Let me just go that far. These are his words, not mine. Now he wants delivery. We have come that far. Every farmer in this House could deliver his grain. Let's go a little further, "-because the Wheat Board would like to see the flow of barley established before it makes additional sales." I emphasize the word "before"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I do so to advise him that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In light of the clock, I wonder if I could request-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent. It is impossible for the Chair to determine whether there is unanimous consent unless I am given an opportunity to hear. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize the position the clock is in and I will take only a few more moments. Let there be no misunderstanding of the minister's statement on March 15, 1971, found at page 4252 of Hansard when he said, "We are therefore urging the farmers to deliver the grain because the Wheat Board would like to see-". I emphasize the word "see," meaning availability. How else can you determine the meaning of the word "see"? He continued, "-the flow of barley-", and I emphasize the word "before", "before it makes additional sales". Additional, meaning plus; something that you do not have now but you will have if you see the flow.
I say to the minister that we cannot afford to have empty storage space, because if that storage space is full we will then see the flow, know the flow and go out and make sales. Because of the empty storage space, the minister has cost the farmers of western Canada money because the sales representatives of the farmers, the Canadian Wheat Board and others, could not see the flow, did not know the flow, did not know the availability of additional grain and therefore they turned aside sales of barley. This is true of grain of all kinds, including wheat, oats, barley, rapeseed, flaxseed and rye.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked the minister who is apparently in charge of the Post Office the following question:
Since new mail routings introduced by the Post Office have in many cases resulted in much slower mail service and reduced

May 4, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
standards, is the minister planning a further overhaul to correct the mess that exists in many places?
The minister replied:
I did not quite understand the first part of the question.
This is not an unusual occurrence with respect to the minister in charge of the Post Office, so I asked this further question:
Is the minister not aware that there are many cases in Canada, such as some in Saskatchewan which have come to my attention, where mail that formerly travelled 109 miles in two days to reach its destination from a major centre now has to travel almost 350 miles and takes six days?
Mr. Speaker, the occasion for this question was a letter I received from a resident of Raymore, Saskatchewan. Some of the people who get their mail in Raymore live in Regina East. The letter reads:
We are on rural route mail delivery twice a week. Tuesdays and Fridays.
We used to get the Western Producer on Fridays. Since they changed the mail route from Saskatoon we don't get our mail till Tuesday.
Why are all the detours? Saskatoon is around 100 miles from Raymore. The way the mail travels, it is around 400 miles.
Can't we get a better mail service?
Then the letter reads:
This is what we call a poor service, getting week-old news.
The sender of that letter included in the envelope a letter he had received from the circulation department of the Western Producer dated March 30, 1971. It reads in part:
With reference to your recent letter, please be advised that the Western Producer for your area goes out each Wednesday but on occasion it may go out on Thursday morning. In checking in the mailing room we find that since the mail now has to go to Regina, then to Melville then to Raymore, this would explain the reason for the delay.
Let us look at the picture. Raymore is approximately 109 miles southeast of Saskatoon. From Saskatoon to Regina the mail travels 161 miles, but at Regina it is only 74 miles from Raymore. It travels from Regina to Melville, another 93 miles, so that it is then 90 miles from its final destination, Raymore. Finally, it makes its last journey of 90 miles and arrives in Raymore after having travelled 340 miles.
I could cite many other examples. One came to my attention within the last couple of weeks. A lady in Ottawa had sent a letter to her mother in Weyburn, Saskatchewan. It was mailed early on Wednesday afternoon, April 7, and arrived in Regina on April 8, as is evident from the postmark. The mother received the special delivery letter in her mail-box on Easter Monday, April 12, five days later. I remember that 25 years ago we had a one-day service from eastern Canada to Saskatchewan for regular, first-class mail.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who represents the constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt, ought to be familiar with this further example. The village of Lake Lenore is located approximately 20 miles northeast of Humboldt, which in turn is 70 miles straight east of Saskatoon. Instead of there being a direct service between Lake Lenore and Humboldt, mail from Lake Lenore now travels to Saskatoon, almost 100 miles, and then 70 miles back to Humboldt. Certainly this is no improvement and it is not an efficient operation.
These new routings may speed up some mail services but they seriously hurt rural mail service and service to small centres. The post office is a vital institution in rural communities and it is important today in terms of service in respect of modern agricultural requirements. There are concerns about the future of rural Canada. The process of disintegration of communities and of rural life is evidenced in many parts of Canada.
Hundreds of post offices have been closed in the past couple of years. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) earlier tonight recalled that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, interfered with respect to a post office on the border of Regina East and Regina-Lake Centre. This was the post office at Serath. The minister passed on the message, acting as a messenger boy, that some people who would like to see the Esk post office kept open but wanted the Serath post office closed. I suggested, without contradiction, that those people were the Last Mountain Liberal executive, the local Liberal executive in that area of Saskatchewan.
I think this matter is too serious to be passed over lightly. I know that probably the reply will point out that there have been improvements in mail service as a result of new groupings. With that I probably cannot argue. However, I suggest that there have been other detrimental effects as a result of new programs introduced by the Post Office, such as these routings, closure of post offices, reductions in service, and so on. These are hurting rural life in Canada and in the process are hurting Canada as a nation.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister without Portfolio, in charge of the Post Office (Mr. Cote) who is unable to be present this evening. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) has drawn our attention to certain delays in mail deliveries in Saskatchewan. He described the circuitous route followed by some mail. The principal source of the problem in southeastern Saskatchewan, for example, arises from existing trucking schedules in relation to the changed receipt time for incoming mail, which has been caused in turn by changes in railway services.
I assure the hon. member that in this particular situation, as in other, similar situations, a solution is under consideration. This solution will involve an extensive change in truck routing and schedules, one which we trust will not unfavourably affect other locations in the general area. These changes will be implemented as soon as a balanced trucking network is established in conjunction with the assured mail program due to start early in August.

May 4, 1971



REGIONAL, ECONOMIC EXPANSION-QUEBEC-APPLICATION FOR INTEREST-FREE LOANS FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on April 21, as reported at page 5120 of Hansard I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether the government of Quebec had applied for assistance from the federal government not only to finance the public sector of the Quebec economy, but also the government of the province of Quebec and municipalities which, it is well known, are facing tremendous financial problems.
Furthermore, I asked the Prime Minister whether the federal government was considering setting up some sort of Canadian development agency corresponding to the CIDA, through which the federal government grants interest-free loans to foreign countries. Therefore, I requested the creation of a Canadian development agency that would distribute new credits issued by the Bank of Canada in order to finance the public sector of the economy and develop the municipalities in Quebec. Provincial and municipal authorities could then set up priorities which would enable them to insure a certain economic development.
As it is reported in Hansard, the Prime Minister answered by a joke as he thought the question was quite funny. Once again, he found a way to evade the question. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I asked that this matter be discussed later.
For instance, the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
-the federal government pays to developing provinces huge amounts which will nearly reach one billion this year.
Then he said:
These are not interest-free loans-
These are his own words. He is confessing-
-but grants taken from the other provinces' taxes.
First, this is hardly the case because Quebec contributes as much as any other province to the equalization system and, second, with his elusive tactics, the right hon. Prime Minister did not answer the question. He even added, Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers' money should contribute to economic progress.
Mr. Speaker, it is not the Canadian taxpayers' money which contributes to the development of foreign nations, but lines of credit with the International Monetary Funds which are issued to Canada and redistributed by the Canadian International Development Agency. Why? To stimulate the public sector of developing countries. We agree that Canada assists those countries. Since the government considers that policy useful to other countries, as he suggests it is, and we agree on that, I wanted to know whether he would accept under that same policy to assist provincial and municipal governments, particularly in Quebec?
I asked that question because Mr. Bourassa, the premier of Quebec, was then on a pilgrimage in Europe on hands and knees before financiers while a little earlier he had been crawling at the feet of United States tycoons. Why? To sell Quebec to American and foreign interests.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
At the same time, we give our money to foreign countries for their development. Taking into account that inconsistency, I was expecting an intelligent answer from the Prime Minister, but it did not come.
Mr. Speaker, only recently a meeting of municipal representatives asked the federal government to help them develop their long-neglected areas. The mayor of Victoriaville, a municipality in my constituency, was recently refused through referendum large amounts that were to be used to establish recreation centres and organize the public centre in that city, because people said: We are already paying too many taxes. On that account, they were right. But can anybody blame the municipal council which does not receive any help from the provincial government nor from the federal government, which is pure nonsense.
Thus municipal and provincial authorities are placed in such circumstances that they must either refuse to act or sell our province or our natural resources, because we sell them-we give them I should say-to foreigners in order to develop this country.
Mr. Speaker, my question was simply as follows: What does the Canadian government intend to do? Does it want Canadian provinces, especially Quebec, to benefit from its policy on developing countries? If so, is it its intention to enter into discussions with provincial authorities? Mr. Speaker, the government could show at least enough logic and intellectual honesty to accept such a proposal and to discuss the question.
I therefore repeat my question to the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Economic Regional Expansion (Mr. O'Connell), who is, I know, a very public-spirited and conscientious man! May we expect the federal government to present as soon as possible an investment policy that would be based not on taxes, but on new lines of credit issued by the Bank of Canada, to provide for the sound and normal economic development of the provinces and municipalities and get them out of stagnation?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recognize that some aspects of his question are arguable.
A distinction should be made between the government's programs for the economic expansion of developing countries and those aiming at reducing disparities between the various regions of Canada. Those areas are not completely unconnected but they are not identical and the government's programs in favour of developing countries should not be compared with those concerning the economic development of Canada.
The federal government is not considering setting up a new organization to accelerate our economic expansion since, as already stated by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), replying to the hon. member on April 21, all the required bodies are already existing.
For example, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will allocate this year more than $330 million

May 4, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
to our economic development. Since most of this amount will be paid in the form of subsidies, it is in my opinion better than a loan. In addition, the transfer payments to the provinces will amount to over $1 billion. Moreover, this year, the federal government has granted $150 million to the province under a special development loan program, so as to accelerate the implementation of job-creating projects.
I could keep on with this enumeration but I think that I have demonstrated that the government has granted priority to the economic development and to the amounts required by this thorny problem and that it is neither necessary nor desirable to add new organizations to those already existing.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Wednesday, May 5, 1971