1971-09-16

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-20, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Jury Service for Women), to which the concurrence of this House is desired,



PRIVILEGE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. My question of privilege deals with the failure of the government to carry out the provisions of clause 3, subclause 3, of Bill C-207, the government reorganization bill, which was passed by the House earlier in the session. This clause provides:
The Minister of the Environment is the Minister of Fisheries for Canada.
I might add that that provision was consequential upon an amendment put forward by myself and moved in the House when the bill was before us.
On Tuesday, September 14, I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries concerning a conservation conference. This question is reported at page 7790 of Hansard and Hansard makes reference not to the Minister of Fisheries but to the Minister of the Environment. When I brought this to the attention of Hansard, I was advised that they must work from a list of the ministry provided by the government and that this list does not contain a Minister of Fisheries. I also note that the list of ministers appended to Hansard for yesterday, Wednesday, also omitted the title of Minister of Fisheries.
I realize that this may not appear to be an important point to some, but considering that it took quite a long debate to bring this very important and useful amendment about I believe there is a continuing need in Canada for a Minister of Fisheries to give this important industry the continuing attention that it so justly needs at this time. Consequently I feel that the list of the ministers supplied to Hansard is not complete as it does not contain the Minister of Fisheries. Therefore I suggest respectfully that, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3, subclause 3, of Bill C-207, in the future Hansard should record that there is, by the law of this country, a Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will agree that the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East is one of interest and importance. I have the impression that perhaps the point which he has raised is more a question of legal interpretation, although I am not sure. As I said, the matter is one of interest and I would like to look at it. In any event, at this point the hon. member has not thought it necessary to submit a motion for the consideration of the House and of the Chair. Therefore I will consider the matter as one which has been brought to my attention, look into it and communicate with the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, under Standing Order 43, to present a motion which I believe should receive the immediate attention of the House of Commons. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch):
In view of the unprecedented combination of the highest number of unemployed on record for the month of August and the highest July-August price increase in ten years, this House expresses its want of confidence in the economic policies of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members realize that under Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is some disagreement to the motion proposed by the hon. member and the motion cannot be put.



PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEMS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Because of the urgency and importance of the motion and the constructive suggestions contained in it I hope it will receive the unanimous support of all Canadian members of the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: What about the continentals?
7862

September 16, 1971
The Canadian Economy


John Howard Lundrigan: Fullblooded Canadians. The matter involves the August unemployment rates released today showing, in actual numbers, 455,000 Canadians unemployed, the highest number for the month of August since the beginning of the compilation of statistics by DBS in 1946. Because of the obvious urgency of this problem, coupled with other economic indicators which show dramatically the current critical state of the economy, I should like to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
This House directs the government to immediately launch a series of initiatives explicitly and purposely aimed at the amelioration of the domestic economic problems facing this nation, and that these initiatives include the preparation of a massive winter works program, and that the energies of all related government departments be directed toward this end in an effort to alleviate what will otherwise become the bleakest winter in recent Canadian history.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



MEASURES TO STIMULATE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask leave to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland):
That in view of the dismal prospects for the coming winter, forewarned in the statistics released this morning, this House urges the government to bring forward immediately measures to stimulate the economy to prevent a repetition of the high levels of unemployment experienced last winter.


Mr. Speaker:: Again this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order I wish to raise with Your Honour is that the record should show that on each of the three motions sought to be moved under Standing Order 43 the Liberal members objected.



GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with the practice adopted last year and the wishes you expressed in 1968-

and, to me, your wishes are orders-in order to hasten the distribution of the Canada Year Book, I am pleased to table today, in both languages, under Standing Order 41 (2), two copies of the work in question.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-266, to amend the Criminal Code (stay of proceedings).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide, where provincial Attorneys General direct a stay of proceedings in a criminal case, that after a year's lapse the charges shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The purpose is to remedy the situation revealed recently in the province of Quebec where the Attorney General of that province entered a stay of proceedings against 36 persons charged under the War Measures Act or the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, and it was claimed that the effect of this action was that the charges could be revived at any time and thus hung over the heads of the persons accused indefinitely without giving them a chance to prove their innocence. The proposed amendment, Mr. Speaker, was recommended a year ago by the Canadian Bar Association.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the unprecedented combination of the highest number of unemployed on record for the month of August and the highest July-August price increase in ten years.


James Aloysius McGrath: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview has given the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. I recognize that the matter raised in this proposed motion is one of serious importance. However, the Chair has to take into account whether there is immediately before us an opportunity for debate of the matter proposed for consid-
September 16, 1971

eration under the terms of Standing Order 26. As hon. members will recognize, we are involved currently, even this afternoon, in a debate which comes very close to that proposed by the hon. member for Broadview. Indeed, the amendment proposed for the study and consideration of the House by the hon. member for Edmonton West substantially covers the field suggested in the proposed motion now before me. In the circumstances I would not think it would be in order for the Chair to put the motion.



WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-FARMER'S ECONOMIC PLIGHT

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, this is a proposed motion to adjourn the House. Pursuant to Standing Order 26 I ask leave to adjourn the House to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. The matter arises from the serious shortage of cash income of Canadian farmers, making it almost impossible for them to continue farming operations and make a living. The situation has been aggravated by a decrease in the price per bushel of wheat and the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has not received certain payments from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada for the storage of grain for the crop years 1970-71 and 1971-72 to date. I therefore ask for the adjournment of the House and move:
That the House adjourn to discuss the serious cost squeeze and present economic plight of the farmer which has been further aggravated and their income seriously reduced by the failure of the Canadian Wheat Board to receive moneys for storage of grain for the crop years 1970-71 and 1971-72 to date from the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East has submitted for the consideration of the Chair a motion dealing with the same matter and essentially in the same terms. Perhaps it would be advisable to allow the hon. member to put his motion also and then a ruling can be made on both motions at the same time.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the urgent need for the government to make the payments to the Canadian Wheat Board specified in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956 so that an immediate improvement can be made in the economic position of western farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North and the hon. member for Regina East have both filed the notice required by Standing Order 26. Hon. members will not mind my reminding them again, as I have done on a number of occasions, that Standing Order 26 specifically states that the statement of the matter sought to be debated under the Standing Order should not be accompanied by argument. The thought behind the new rule is that, notice having been given to the Chair, it will be the Speak-
Inquiries of the Ministry
er's responsibility to consider all aspects of the matter and to give a ruling without presentation of argument either in support of or in opposition to the motion.
This having been said, it is obvious that the general matter referred to in the motions before us is of considerable importance and interest. This is evidenced by the many references made to it by a number of hon. members during the last few days. Indeed, a few motions have already been proposed under Standing Order 26 which were disallowed by the Chair. My main objection to the previous motions was that they were essentially censure motions or non-confidence motions which are not contemplated by the Standing Order. I took the opportunity yesterday to make this suggestion to the hon. member for Calgary North.
The motion proposed today refers, on the other hand, to the economic situation of western farmers as it relates to the payment or non-payment of certain sums to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Chair would find it difficult to question in any way the submissions contained in the statements in support of the motions. On the strength of these statements and in view of the suggestions made in the course of my ruling of yesterday, I would be inclined to favour the motions and to agree that this is the kind of situation contemplated by Standing Order 26.
I do not overlook the aspect of opportunity for debate at an early date. It may well be that this is the kind of situation which ought to have been debated on a supply motion. However, I have no indication as to when this opportunity might come. In view of these circumstances, having reflected very seriously on the matter and having given, as I say, very serious and the most sympathetic thought to the different aspects of this matter, I have reached the conclusion that hon. members would want to have an opportunity to consider this matter for a few hours. Therefore I suggest, if hon. members agree, that there be a debate on this subject later this evening.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the disturbing increase in the seasonally adjusted figures for unemployment released this morning and the ominous outlook that this provides for the coming winter. Is the Prime Minister prepared to assure the House that, in view of these figures and the outlook, he is prepared to take immediate steps to initiate a new works program for this winter, with the prospect of providing some employment through that program?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the figures are so significantly impressive that the government as well as the opposition is concerned about the publication of those figures.
24319-9}

September 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: That's a change.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just submit that, before being able to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition, we will have to look at them in a little greater depth. We only received them this morning and it is obvious from some questions which have been asked that various interpretations are possible. We know, for instance, that these figures reveal that there has been the biggest surge in the numbers of unemployed ever during the spring and summer-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in the numbers of employed; I beg your pardon. There has been the biggest surge in job creation ever in the spring and summer months, and this has translated itself into a lowering of the unemployment figures for people 25 years old and over. Therefore the addition in the figures is caused essentially, I would say, only by the people in the 14 to 24 age group. This is obviously very serious, but the cause of it is not too well known. What we do know is that the rate of participation has increased; in other words, the number of people who at this time of year usually withdraw from the labour force have not withdrawn in that age group. We want to see the causes and reasons for that before being able to prescribe remedies.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that these figures which the Prime Minister cited just now support the position that the June budget presented by the government was based upon false premises, will the Prime Minister now commit the government to bring in some realistic tax cuts, with a view to giving our economy a real forward surge which has not developed as a result of the budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not subscribe to the "realisticness" or otherwise of the premise concerning the budget. I just point out to the opposition and to the country that there is nothing easier or more enjoyable for a government than to cut taxes, especially in a year leading up to when there might be an election. It is not a matter of urging from the opposition to cut taxes. We would love to do that if it were the best thing to do but, as I said in my previous answer, we are trying to look for the most responsible answer for this serious economic situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I suggest that this is really a question of the complacency and indifference of the government. Since even the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has indicated that the purported downturn forecast by the government just is not fast enough, will the Prime Minister reveal to the House what the government's own projections are with regard to employment for the balance of the year? In particular, will the Prime Minister indicate whether he now expects the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment will fall below 6 per cent as he and the Minister of Finance have been predicting all year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have never made any prophecy on this. I think the Minister of Finance was

indicating what he expected the figures to be from the general projections he could assemble. I certainly support the Minister of Finance.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-REQUEST FOR NEW BUDGET WITH NEW ECONOMIC DIRECTION

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the disturbing rate of unemployment and in view of the fact that all of the economic indicators are in the negative, will the government now consider bringing in a brand new budget setting out a new economic direction for this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Prime Minister is not willing to answer that question, does that mean that the government is satisfied with the growing rate of unemployment?



UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-SUGGESTED TALKS WITH GOVERNMENTS ON JOINT STIMULATIVE MEASURES

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that unemployment in the Atlantic provinces is chronic, for example, the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for Prince Edward Island have been around 2,000 for over a year, will the government give consideration to holding talks with the governments of the Atlantic provinces with a view to embarking jointly on stimulative measures to reduce unemployment in the Atlantic provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do not see any reason for having talks with any particular province at this time of the year. The figures with which we are concerned apply to the total labour force and particularly, as I said, those in the age group from 14 to 24. We have regional programs. We have had regional meetings with regional groups of provinces, but I do not think there would be any justification at this time for meeting merely with the Atlantic provinces and not with any other province that wanted to discuss this subject.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister consider-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that many hon. members are rising on supplementaries. They will be recognized in due course, but I doubt whether all of them can be given an opportunity to ask supplementaries in the 40 minutes we have available. However, I will do my best to keep the matter rolling as smoothly as possible. For the moment I recognize the hon. member for Malpeque.


John Angus MacLean: Will the Prime Minister give consideration to meeting jointly with all the provincial governments with a view to reducing the unemployment figures inasmuch as all levels of government have a keen interest in this matter?
September 16, 1971


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not only will I consider it, Mr. Speaker, but I have indeed acted on it. More than a month ago I wrote to every province suggesting a meeting of the provincial premiers and myself as early in the fall as possible, this time to discuss not constitutional but economic matters and others which might be of interest to them. Although up to this stage I have proposed three or four dates, I must say I have not yet been able to get agreement from the provinces to meet with the federal government at any time. I am still hoping to work out a date for such a meeting.


Mr. Forrestall:: Have they no confidence-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is your problem over there?


J. Michael Forrestall: Have they no confidence in you?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They cannot on the one hand suggest that I meet with them and then on the other suggest that they do not want to meet with me.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE AMONG THOSE UNDER 24-STUDY OF REASONS

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
He stated a moment ago that he was very upset by the fact that those who are especially affected by the high rate of unemployment in Canada were under 24 years of age. He also said that the causes of unemployment among those workers were being investigated.
Could the Prime Minister say whether those studies are under way. If not, what would they deal with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not have the hon. member conclude that very lengthy major studies are being carried out. I gave that reply to a question put to me a short while ago, i.e. that the figures had reached us this morning only and that we were analysing them. So the hon. member should not assume that this analysis will involve very long deep studies.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The right hon. Prime Minister's reply would seem to indicate that studies will not last very long, because the government possesses quite a lot of the information required. In that case, is the right hon. Prime Minister in a position to indicate whether concrete, positive action is to be taken in the light of information available to him concerning the unemployment of that group of workers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the problem is indeed quite simple. It is a matter of finding out why young people age 14 to 24 have, between the end of July and the beginning of August, left the labour force at a slower rate than in previous years. As the hon. member can see, the question is very simple. Perhaps he could come up with a very simple explanation as an answer? If so, he should provide us with it so that our studies would be all the shorter.
Inquiries of the Ministry
[English\



UNEMPLOYMENT-IMMEDIATE AMENDMENT OF CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN TO HELP PROVINCES AND CITIES MEET WELFARE COSTS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As the unemployment burden will likely be at least as great as last year and in view of the fact that the new Unemployment Insurance Commission access reforms will not help this winter, at least for the majority of the winter, is the government going to introduce immediate reforms in the Canada Assistance Plan to help the poorer provinces and the larger cities finance their added welfare costs this winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I
answered a previous question, Mr. Speaker, I have suggested meetings with all the provinces to discuss this whole situation. I cannot answer the member's question until I know what the point of view of the provinces is on this matter.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the government bring in its family income security plan for second reading now instead of postponing it until perhaps next May?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the opposition will help us pass the taxation bill now, the government will be able to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister with regard to the economy and the prospects this winter. Inasmuch as the Minister of Finance has been consistently wrong in his predictions about the economy and its growth, will the Prime Minister, in his quest for some ways and means of solving this situation, try doing this through another Minister of Finance?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-ACTION TO ACCELERATE PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: My supplementary is for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister use his good offices with the Unemployment Insurance Commission to try to persuade them to disentangle the increasing administrative mess that has existed there, particularly with the greater rate of unemployment of the past two months or so, so that those who are unemployed can at least get their unemployment insurance benefits without having to wait for months?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any specific cases in mind I would be very pleased to intervene personally. The latest statistics that I was given the other day by the Unemployment

September 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Insurance Commission indicate that claims are being handled at approximately the same rate as this time last year.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. I request the minister to use his good offices with the commission to see if they can provide him with more accurate information.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-REQUEST FOR RECONVENING OF FINANCE MINISTERS' CONFERENCE TO DEAL WITH PROSPECTIVE WINTER SITUATION

James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the statistics released today by Statistics Canada indicate that we are going to have a serious rate of unemployment this winter, as an immediate step will the Prime Minister consider reconvening the finance ministers' conference to deal with this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are periodic meetings-I believe three or four times a year-of the finance ministers. There was one in the middle of the summer so there is probably another coming up soon. I do not see any need to reconvene one. I will inquire when the next meeting is to be. The suggestion was made by one of the hon. member's friends that I meet with the premiers, and I repeat that that is what I am working at now.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East will probably recognize that there are still a number of hon. members who are anxious to ask questions on this subject. I would hope that each member individually would try to limit his supplementaries. I am sure hon. members will recognize that this might be helpful to all concerned.


James Aloysius McGrath: If there is to be a conference either of premiers or of finance ministers to deal with the critical unemployment situation, would the Prime Minister consider having placed on the agenda of such a meeting the question of a winter works program and a cost-sharing formula in connection therewith?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure this idea will crop up somewhere without the subject being placed on the agenda. Only the general subjects are placed on the agenda; we do not try to detail all the brain children that spring from various parts of the country.



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC OUTLOOK, GOALS AND PROJECTIONS

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: In order to help, those who have been swamped by the surge in the economy and hopefully to restore some confidence in the economy, does the Prime Minister intend to make a full statement on the economic outlook and the government's goals and projections with regard to employment and inflation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Does the government have any goals and projections regarding employment and inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, to part of the question, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What part?



UNEMPLOYMENT IN QUEBEC-SPECIFIC ACTION TO DEAL WITH PROBLEM THIS WINTER

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: In light of the forecast by the Minister of Finance of Quebec that unemployment in Quebec this coming winter will likely reach 13.5 per cent, a record high if I am not mistaken, outside of absolute depression, can the Prime Minister inform the House, given the political sensitivity of Quebec within confederation at this time, whether or not the government is taking a specific approach for the coming winter in terms of dealing with unemployment in that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure what figures the hon. member is quoting. I believe he is referring to a figure which was given by the Quebec minister in the eventuality that the measures of the Nixon administration take their full effect, but as the hon. member knows there is legislation before the House through which we hope to prevent those measures having full effect on employment in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Prime Minister seriously suggesting that $80 million spread throughout Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is debate.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SPECIAL CABINET COMMITTEE TO DEVISE PROGRAM TO CREATE EMPLOYMENT THIS WINTER

John Howard Lundrigan: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has a new and special cabinet committee been charged with the specific responsibility of directing the efforts of government and its related departments toward a massive employment-creating program this winter?If so, who heads and co-ordinates the committee and what are its terms of reference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do not
usually communicate information relative to internal administrative changes within the government, but if it is helpful to the hon. member I can tell him there is no such special committee.


John Howard Lundrigan: On the basis of that answer I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has directed any government departments, such as Public Works, Regional Economic Expansion, Manpower and Immigration and Finance, to concentrate their energies on massive employment-creating programs this winter and, if so, can he indicate in a general way the nature of this direction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I have so directed such ministers and a few others besides to find an answer to the problem about which both the hon. member and myself are concerned.
September 16, 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT-PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE HARDSHIP OF THOSE OUT OF WORK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS

John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact that statistics released today show that 106,000 Canadians, or approximately 25 per cent of the total number unemployed, have been seeking work for more than six months, can the Prime Minister say whether he is contemplating any special programs or legislative changes designed to work effectively with the provinces and municipalities in order to alleviate the tremendous hardship presently being experienced by these Canadians and their families?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have the figures at my fingertips, but I believe the hon. member is referring to the hard-core unemployed and my understanding is that their number has decreased rather significantly in the past month.


John Howard Lundrigan: Further to that answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that we might go on to other hon. members who are seeking an opportunity to ask supplementaries on this subject.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, I did not ask for a statistical breakdown by the Prime Minister. I asked whether he had any programs designed to alleviate the hardship of the 106,000 Canadians who have been out of work for more than six months. Could he address his energy for a few seconds to that very important question?



UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASE-CURTAILMENT OF SUBSIDIES AND TAX CONCESSIONS TO FOREIGN-CONTROLLED RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: In view of the unprecedented high level of unemployment these past weeks, can the Prime Minister say whether or not the government will now move to curtail the large subsidies and tax concessions given to foreign resource industries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question might have been prefaced by a phrase which said exactly the contrary-in view of the unprecedentedly high number of people employed in the month of August, the highest ever. This just shows that statistics can be thrown out to prove exactly the contrary, one or the other.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I ask, then, whether the government is contemplating any measures to stimulate manufacturing right here in this country and develop the processing of resources in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The minister responsible for industry has made several speeches on this subject-


An hon. Member:: Speeches are not enough.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I am sure he will be glad to send copies to the hon. member to show the ways in which we do stimulate manufacturing industries.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre and then I think, in fairness, call on the hon. member for Bellechasse.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF BRIEF OF MAYOR OF CORNWALL

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to table the brief on unemployment he received over the weekend from the mayor of Cornwall? I am sure it would be most helpful at this time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know the brief is a public document. If the hon. member is interested in having a copy I will see he gets one. It is a three or four page brief. I see no precedent for tabling it in the House but I am sure Mr. Speaker would not object if it were the unanimous desire of hon. members to have it tabled.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since foreign competition is becoming increasingly keener in the sector of knitted texturized yarns, thus representing a serious threat to Canadian industries, will the government consider taking control measures with respect to these imports in order to protect Canadian industries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we have a policy on textile products and a number of sectors of the textile industry have been assigned to the board up to this point. We had a report from the cotton yarn board which lead to decisions which I think were important. The government is currently studying a report submitted by the shirt board. I hope to be in a position to make announcements on this very shortly.
Sweaters are another matter, and acrylic fibers a fourth one, now under study. The Textile and Clothing Board is therefore very active and it issues recommendations quite regularly.
If the sector mentioned by my hon. friend is one of those which require referral to the Board, we shall act accordingly.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since textile manufacturers who used to export to the United States are now trying to sell more in Canada and since that might amount to dumping, will the government take effective measures to prevent this?

September 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there is an anti-dumping tribunal available mostly to producers who feel they are affected by imports in any sector. I do not think the government needs to lead producers by the hand to the door of the anti-dumping tribunal. They are clever and aggressive enough to take those steps themselves.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is very funny, but on the occasion of a visit to Victoriaville this summer, he announced to textile manufacturers that the legislation on import controls would be more rigid. Is he now in a position to indicate whether a review of those legislative measures is under way and, if so, when will he announce it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, there are some things the hon. member did not understand. When I was talking in the Eastern Townships, I said that there were perfectly legal and justified means available to the producers to protect themselves before the antidumping court.
Pursuant to Section 26 of the Textile and Clothing Board Act, there is also a possibility for producers, in sectors other than textiles, for instance in the footwear sector, to obtain a decision from the anti-dumping tribunal by showing that injury is being done to their industry.
Therefore what I was saying then is that those instruments are there to be used, and I would encourage producers to use them.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has received a communication from the United States authorities giving an answer to the request of the government of Canada for an exemption from President Nixon's surcharge, and whether the government of Canada has received any communication from the United States authorities expressing any views of that government with regard to the legislation now before a committee to provide some help to the manufacturing export industries of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we have received no formal reply, but we do know that our representations are under study.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said he had received no formal reply. Has the government of Canada received either a formal or informal communication in respect of either of these subject matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that when the ministers and the officials met they asked questions and got answers, but we have not received a reply to our representations.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).J



INCOME TAX


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the brief submitted by the Federation des Caisses Populaires Desjardins regarding Bill C-259, does the government intend to amend the bill as a result of those recommendations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has informed me that he received such a brief and that he was carefully looking into it since the matter raised is important and since he also wants to add the views he will hear next Monday when he will meet other groups of the co-operative and credit union movements and that all these representations will be the object of a very serious study.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. In view of the minister's interest in the Antigonish movement as developed by Father Coady many years ago and which was one of the foundation stones in the development of co-operatives in Canada, will he use his great weight of office with his colleagues when this question is discussed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question has to be considered as a representation or suggestion to the minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he tell the House what response the Canadian government has made to the urgent appeal of the Secretary General of the United Nations for financial assistance to cover the cost of U.N. relief operations in East Pakistan where it is reported that some 25 million people are threatened with starvation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the House that the government is providing a grant of $500,000 in response to this appeal to provide assistance toward the administrative costs being incurred by the United Nations. I understand that the United States is giving $1 million and the British are giving $1.2 million. This cash donation will be used to help finance approximately 180 technical and relief experts that the United Nations is presently sending to East Pakistan to identify relief priorities and enhance the efficiency of relief distribution.
September 16, 1971


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate whether this grant is in addition to the $5 million in grain that was to be delivered to East Pakistan for the same purpose?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is a special request made by the Secretary General for help in respect of the administrative costs, and I think we have responded very generously to this request.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Some weeks ago I asked whether, in respect of the problem in Pakistan, we had made an offer to Pakistan and India of some of our mobile hospital units which are in mothballs in the Department of National Health and Welfare? Was this offer made and, if so, what were the results?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of that question in order that I can give an accurate response.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Prime Minister a question the other day regarding the circumstances facing Canada as a result of the DISC program and the 10 per cent surcharge, now aggravated by the recently released unemployment figures. I was under the impression that my suggestion that an address on the state of the economy outlining the objectives and the targets determined by the government would be an excellent way of advising the people of Canada of the realistic situation. As a result of an answer given to the same type of question asked by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, am I to understand-I am not being facetious in asking this-that the Prime Minister does not think the state of the economy is such that it merits a statement by him now or in the very near future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very serious reservations in respect of the hon. member's question when he says "am I to understand" or "are we to understand" that the Prime Minister has reached such and such a decision or is of such and such an opinion. To my way of thinking that is not a proper way to ask a question. I hesitate to suggest to the hon. member that he might rephrase the question. Perhaps it might be easier to allow the Prime Minister to reply.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the preamble just uttered, Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister now give the House and the country the assurance that he will at the earliest opportunity make a statement on the economy, advising the people of Canada and the House as to the realistic state of the country in terms of the economy, the DISC
Inquiries of the Ministry
program, the 10 per cent surcharge and the unemployment picture in order that we may be apprised of what the government has in the way of plans to reduce unemployment and increase productivity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope this is not a second preamble. Again, the question having been asked I have no objection to the Prime Minister replying briefly to both questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I correctly followed both preambles, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for something in the nature of a budget speech. I must point out that budget speeches are normally made by the Minister of Finance, and it is not our intention to have him make one at the present time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in light of the lack of confidence we in the opposition and the people of Canada have in the statements made by the minister and in view of the fact he has never been right, will the Prime Minister take it upon himself to give leadership in this regard so we will know they have nothing in common by making a statement to the people about what is taking place today in respect of government plans?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the increased unemployment contemplated as a result of the recent United States surtax move vis-a-vis our export market, has the government yet reached any decision regarding the amendment of Canadian immigration legislation or, on the other hand, tightening of the regulations that currently allow United States citizens to move relatively freely across the border for the purpose of temporary employment in Canada, while United States laws generally forbid equal access to Canadians who are seeking temporary work in the United States?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no formal change has been made in the regulations in this regard at the present moment, though the matter is under active consideration.
* * #



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Because I believe it is vital that all blatant examples of male socialist chauvinism should be bared to the public, would

September 16, 1971
7870_________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry
the Prime Minister undertake to instruct the federal task force which is studying the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women to investigate charges that a woman journalist was barred from a New Democratic Party press conference held yesterday in a sauna bath at Thunder Bay, Ontario?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL COMMISSION- CANADIAN POSITION AT SEPTEMBER MEETING RESPECTING ILLICIT TRAFFIC

['The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is that we will be raising this general subject in connection with the debate on the nuclear test ban.']
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When the United Nations International Narcotics Control Commission meets in Europe at the end of September with a view to strengthening the international drugs treaty known as the "Single Convention of 1961", is it the intention of the Canadian government to support the United States authorities, who have been actively seeking Canadian assistance in recent days, in a joint effort to stiffen control and stamp out illicit drug traffic?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of that particular meeting is that its aim is not to come to any firm conclusions but to have discussions between various nations that might eventually lead to an agreement.


Richard Russell Southam: I have a supplementary question which is based on the statement made by Dr. Ross Chapman, the special federal adviser who will represent this country at the meetings in Europe in September. In his statement on Friday Mr. Chapman said that the Canadian position had not yet been determined.


John Carr Munro: I do not think there is any inconsistency there with what I have said.



Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister regarding the massive nuclear test to be held at Amchtika which has still not been cancelled. Can the Prime Minister advise whether, in addition to or instead of going cap in hand to Washington, he or his government is giving consideration to having this very serious matter brought before the United Nations or referred to the International Court of Justice?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the United States has not accepted the jurisdiction of the court. In spite of the ignorance expressed in the ranks of the NDP, I do not think that the United States would in

any way feel bound by a decision which they declare does not bind them.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that the United States is a charter member of the United Nations, and I was asking what he was proposing to do in terms of making representations to that body.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is that we will be raising this general subject in connection with the debate on the nuclear test ban.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has he instituted any inquiry under the provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act into the killing of the Indian Chief Ed Bird in the Northwest Territories?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House on Tuesday, I think it would be better first of all to study the report of the coroner and, in my view, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Justice, who is Solicitor for the Northwest Territories, to answer this question.


Erik Nielsen: Since the RCMP come under the minister's jurisdiction, and in view of the fact that the provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act provide for such an inquiry, is any inquiry under the act being made?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there is something that prevails over the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, that is the normal process of courts and I believe that before launching an inquiry of any kind, it would be good to examine the report of the coroner who holds the first responsibility for inquiring into the matter.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary which I should like to address to the Minister of Justice. Since the coroner's inquest has been completed and his report is probably now in the hands of the minister's officials, can the minister tell the House whether any inquiry is being conducted into the killing of Chief Ed Bird by a member of the RCMP?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the coroner's inquiry and the jury's verdict in the coroner's inquiry exonerated the officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am advised by our office in Yellowknife that the transcript of the inquest will be available September 17 or 18. When I have received the transcript I will decide whether any further action should be taken.
September 16, 1971



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Could he tell the House whether he received a telegram from the Montreal firemen association asking him to amend section 393 of the Criminal Code which concerns people who make false fire alarms.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether that question is in order as it has been asked, because the hon. member is just asking whether a telegram has been received. In any case, the minister might answer briefly the question asked by the hon. member.


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received that telegram and I will look seriously into the matter.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. Is it his intention to refer the Auditor' General's 1970 report, tabled in the House on June 4, to the Public Accounts Committee and, if so, when may we expect it to be referred?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on this subject I would be happy to have a word with the chairman of the committee and arrange to have a reference at the most convenient time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which relates to earlier questions dealing with the very high rate of unemployment among those in the 14 to 24 years age group and with the fact that there has been a significant decline in the projected number of enrolments at universities this year of some 75,000. In view of the close to one quarter of a million young people who are unemployed, and in view of the government's special program this past summer, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any plans are now going ahead to formulate new programs to deal with this exceptional problem, having regard both to its present impact on the economy and its long-term impact?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the exceptional figures with which we are faced, and I myself said the same thing 243I9-10J
Income Tax Act
when answering the Leader of the Opposition. It is because this withdrawal rate from the labour force of our young people at the present time is so exceptional that I cannot say at this time what response we are going to make to it. We are trying to understand the significance of it. Does it mean that our young people are less interested in furthering their education than in previous times, or is this just a temporary situation? Does it have to do with rejection of the work ethic or study ethic or acceptance of the work ethic? I am afraid that I am not in a position to give an answer to this question and, therefore, to pose a solution at this time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: We have reached the end of the question period but perhaps the hon. member for Egmont might ask his supplementary before I call orders of the day.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the great importance of this question, as the Prime Minister has said, would he or one of his ministers be prepared within the next few days to outline to the House the methods whereby the whole question is being studied and the time frame within which some action is likely to be taken to deal with this problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I cannot give that explanation within the next few days, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, September 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) that Bill C-259, to amend the Income Tax Act and to make certain provisions and alterations in the statute law related to or consequent upon the amendments to that act, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 7763).
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour has indicated, the amendment to the bill proposing second reading of the income tax amendments does indeed give us a very fertile field to discuss the economic situation generally and of course more specifically the significance of figures that were released earlier today. Just as it seems almost impossible for the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) or the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) to mention anyone going to Washington without adding the tag "hat in hand", so I find it almost impossible to refer to hon. members opposite on the monthly unemployment statistics day without using the phrase "gloom and doom" early in my remarks. Having used it once, I will try not to do so again. The fact is that, just as it is true that unemployment was too high in mid-August, so it is true that the over-all message of our economic indicators

September 16, 1971
Income Tax Act
was a healthy expanding economy, an economy expanding at an accelerating rate. For the first half of 1971 the real increase in the gross national product was 6.2 per cent, almost double the growth rate for all of 1970.


An hon. Member:: It was never so good.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The increase in the real gross national product for the second quarter at an annual rate of 8.9 per cent was the largest in two years. Demand for goods and services was advancing. The 4.3 per cent increase in consumer expenditures in the second quarter was the largest in many years. Combine that with low inventories and we see excellent prospects for the expansion of the manufacturing sector. The annual rate of housing starts, 225,000 in the second quarter, 243,000 in August, indicate a record will be achieved in 1971 as a whole.


James Aloysius McGrath: You do not even believe that yourself.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Total capital expenditure was up 5.7 per cent and business capital expenditure 6 per cent in the second quarter. The survey of investment intentions was revised upward by two points to 11 per cent at mid-year, and notwithstanding high increases in productivity, 245,000 new jobs have been created by the economy in the past 12 months-that is a seasonally adjusted figure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: -I should like to emphasize that neither the figures I used-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for St. John's East seeks the floor on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but surely it would be in the national interest if the hon. member were to make his speech after the market closes today.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I would like to emphasize that neither the figures I have used nor those I will use later reflect in any way decisions taken in the United States recently. The message is that we were doing very well until those measures were taken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: We performed relatively well during the current U.S. administration's period of fiscal conservatism; we performed relatively well during their period of inflation. We have proved that we do have room to pursue successfully some independent economic policies. Whether we can perform relatively well during their period of protectionism remains to be seen, but we will certainly try.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The two areas of concern raised today are unemployment and the cost of living.


An hon. Member:: Oh, really?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: As to the latter, prices are now rising more strongly. This is a grim warning to the government, to all politicians regardless of party and to Canadians

generally-bearing in mind the fact of our current economic expansion-that the danger-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that there is some unfairness in not allowing an hon. member who has the floor to make a speech in such a way that he can be heard by the Chair. It is difficult for me, with all these interruptions coming from hon. members, to hear the hon. member, and I think that in fairness to him he should be given an opportunity to make his speech. At least, it would be fair to give the Chair an opportunity to hear what the hon. member has to say.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I could shout loudly because common courtesy is not something I have come to expect from over there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Common sense is what we want.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I was speaking of the two areas of concern that have arisen as a result of today's announcement by Statistics Canada-the matter of unemployment and the cost of living. There is no question, so far as the cost of living is concerned, that prices are now rising more strongly, and this is a grim warning to the government, to all politicians regardless of party and to Canadians generally-bearing in mind the fact of our current economic expansion-that the danger is not that this expansion will proceed too slowly but rather that, fostered by inflation and prodded along by political pressures as an election approaches, the expansion will proceed too quickly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Shame.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The main reason for the rise in the consumer price index is readily identifiable. It is the rebound in food prices from the chain store price war of last winter. The consumer price index is up seven-tenths of one per cent over July, but excluding the food index the increase is only three-tenths of one per cent.
The main unemployment problem is also identifiable. It is the tidal wave of young people as a result of the baby boom of the mid 1950's that has had such a great and varied impact on our society in recent years. This has manifested itself in numerous ways ranging from the vastly increased demands on primary school facilities in the early 1960's and secondary and post secondary facilities later to the more recent but all pervasive phenomenon known as the "youth cult".
The entire increase in seasonally adjusted unemployment from 6.3 per cent to 6.5 per cent from July to August occurred among teenagers 14 to 19 years of age. For the whole of the labour force other than teenagers, adjusted unemployment declined. This, of course, includes practically all heads of households.
On the actual rather than the seasonally adjusted basis, unemployment declined in all age groups, including teenagers. Actual unemployment declined to 5.1 per cent from 5.7 per cent in July. For the adult labour force, actual unemployment among men was 3.7 per cent and among women 2.7 per cent.
September 16, 1971

Earlier this afternoon it was suggested that on the seasonally adjusted basis at least, we experienced the highest August unemployment on record. I do not know about that, I imagine it is correct, but I have not checked it. But I do know that we do have the largest labour force in history and that in August there were more people working in Canada than ever before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Random figures for the the number of employed will indicate the trend. In September 1969 there were 7,756,000 Canadians working. In September 1970 there were 7,898,000 working. In March of 1971 we crossed the eight million mark at 8,018,000, and in August of this year, last month, 8,517,000 were working. In other words, for the year from September 1969 to September 1970 the increase in the labour force in Canada was a little under 150,000.


Mr. Bell:: But there are more people in the country.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: For the five months from March to August of this year, the increase was just under one half million. During the current calendar year, January to August, the labour force has increased by 643,000 to over 9 million-9,160,000 to be more exact. With respect to employment, the number of Canadians working increased by 724,000 to the 8,517,000 figure I mentioned a moment ago. At the same time the number of unemployed fell by 83,000 to 455,000.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy has been expanding at an accelerating rate throughout 1971 until August. There is a very real problem with the very large body of teenagers entering the labour force each year. They are entering an increasingly productive work force. Employment is increasing, increasing greatly, but not sufficiently to absorb this particular age group, and the problem of why the members of this age group-in addition to the sheer numbers that are coming along on this flood tide of young people-are staying in the labour force, why they are not going back to school or university, of course was alluded to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few minutes ago. It is a very serious problem, a very genuine problem. Nobody denies that. The fact is that on the over-all basis, it is the problem. With respect to other segments of the work force, other age groups, and particularly heads of households, the employment situation is not really as difficult as the over-all picture would indicate, taking into account this phenomenal situation in the 14 to 19 year age group.
I would like to reiterate that nothing I have said is an assessment of what is likely to occur as a result of recent U.S. actions, because nothing that occurred to mid August reflects those actions. At the moment, I suppose the best we could say is that it is uncertain.
Turning to the tax bill before the House, Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with some considerable amusement to the invitations from across the way for my participation in this debate. My failure to respond earlier to those kind invitations is not to be construed as ingratitude. I appreciate the kind comments of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and certainly shall, if the
Income Tax Act
Law Society permits, use his generous endorsement of my expertise in the tax field as and when I re-establish myself in private life. I regret that the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko) was unable to extend his brief and unusual visit to the House of Commons so that I could now thank him personally for his invitation. I must say that I found the speeches of both hon. members a refreshing change from the tedious reading into the record of the pedestrian offerings of the Tory research bureau.
I understand that during the past summer that organization found time to turn out about 20 speeches on the budget and Bill C-259, which were then circulated en masse to their employers with the suggestion that, "If you find one you like, it's yours". Evidently several hon. members opposite found ones they liked. It is an interesting use of the public funds provided to the Official Opposition for research purposes. It is regrettable, from a cosmetic point of view at least, that these speeches are so similar to each other as to be easily identified.
It may be, Mr. Speaker, that you and I are the only ones really paying attention to these speeches. After all, we are in the unenviable position of being paid to do so. Certainly, if the media are listening they are not giving any indication that they have heard, but I did think, in kindness, that I should let the hon. members of the Official Opposition who are using these bottom-of-the-line production models know that they are neither fooling nor impressing anyone who is listening.
In so far as the NDP is concerned nothing has changed over the summer. They are still on the tack that Bill C-259 does not constitute tax reform. That is a value judgment in which the government and the vast body of Canadians do not concur. I suppose that the corollary of a half truth is a half lie, but since the term "half lie" would be at least half unparliamentary I will stick to half truth. The NDP persists in telling half truths about the reformed dividend tax credit and the abolition of the federal estate and gift taxes.
Members of the NDP deal with estate and gift taxes in complete isolation from the institution of the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is, in effect, a pay-as-you-go estate tax and, of course, a gift tax is a necessary adjunct to an estate tax. No fairminded Canadian honestly accepts that a tax system designed for equity, for continued economic growth, and to meet modern social needs could incorporate the double whammy of the estate tax together with a capital gains tax. I will leave it to others to decide whether the NDP is not fairminded or not honest on this subject, or perhaps neither fairminded nor honest, but there is not doubt, to be most charitable, that members of the NDP are deliberately dealing in a half truth when they divorce the institution of a capital gains tax from the abolition of the estate tax.
The other half truth is even more flagrant. In talking about the dividend tax credit they talk about the increase from 20 per cent to 33 1/3 per cent, but religiously never mention that the present 20 per cent dividend tax credit is tax free while the reformed 33 1/3 per cent dividend tax credit will be taxable. The present tax free credit is, of course, of more benefit to persons with high incomes than to those with low incomes, while the new system will in fact more closely reflect the recipient's own circumstances. In actual fact, assuming that the provinces con-

September 16, 1971
Income Tax Act
form their tax systems to the federal system, the new credit will be of the same benefit as the old to a taxpayer with a marginal tax rate of 40 per cent, that is, in the $12,000 taxable income range. It will be of less benefit to those with higher marginal rates. It will be of more benefit to a taxpayer with a lower taxable income.
Members of the NDP look upon the Carter Report as the epitome of reform. I wonder if one of them will stand in his place and say that his party endorses Carter's proposed treatment of dividend income. In case they have forgotten that, as well as some other details of the report, permit me to remind them that the combined effect of Carter's recommendations of a flat corporation tax rate of about 50 per cent and a top marginal personal rate of 50 per cent, together with a gross-up and credit system with a refund where the credit exceeded the tax liability, would result in few, if any, resident shareholders paying any tax at all on dividend income, and almost certainly in most of them receiving a credit against other tax liability, if not indeed a refund cheque.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the government in seeking the all party agreement that led to the detailed ways and means motion, which has given Your Honour some problems, was to permit all hon. members to have just as much precise information as possible before them during the budget debate. The Minister of Finance also made clear that he expected interested persons and organizations to take advantage of the summer recess to make further representations in connection with the bill. This invitation would, of course, not have been very meaningful if the government did not intend to pay attention to, and to act upon, these recommendations where they had merit. Well, it was a meaningful invitation, and the government has decided to act upon a number of the representations, and is still considering many others. I would not like to specify any of these at this time if for no other reason than that they cannot all be mentioned. It would be wrong to leave the impression that any not mentioned have necessarily been rejected. In addition, Your Honour will appreciate that government amendments to a tax bill will fall under the general constraint of budgetary secrecy.
Accordingly, I can only assure all persons and organizations who have made known their views on Bill C-259 that those views have or are being very seriously considered and that numerous amendments-my own personal guess is that there will be upwards of 100-will be offered by the government during committee of the whole. I suppose I should apologize in advance to Your Honour, and perhaps more particularly to the chairman and deputy chairman of the committee for the procedural price we may pay for the government's admirable flexibility and continued responsiveness to informed and responsible comment.
It is evident from the speeches made during this week that there has been no fundamental change during the summer since public acceptance of the budget and the tax reform package was made so manifest. Nor has there been any change in the position of the opposition parties. There have been concerns expressed about particular matters. These have or are being considered by the government. They have obviously been communicated to members on all sides of the House. They cannot be dealt

with during this stage of the proceedings but must await committee of the whole.
Accordingly, I would appeal to the members opposite to stop rehashing their budget debate speeches and let us get on to committee so that we may consider particular items of concern, improve the bill by appropriate amendment and give Canada and Canadians the benefit of the work of a decade. And Mr. Speaker, I hope all members will agree that the business community could not care less about the niceties of parliamentary procedure but it does want to know for certain, just as soon as possible, the tax framework within which it will be operating starting next year. Bourinot, May and Beauchesne may mean something to a lance corporal's guard of individual taxpayers but, for the remaining millions, increased tax exemptions, moving and employment expense allowances, child care deductions and lower taxes are the name of the game. Again, I appeal to all hon. members, let us get on with the job of giving Canada a reformed tax system, a better tax system and, for the great majority of Canadians, lower income taxes.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, it was a sheer delight to listen to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who has just taken his seat. He alluded to the fact that in his opinion some of the speeches from this side of the House had perhaps been prepared by members of the research staff. I admit that from time to time it is necessary for us to consult with those learned men in connection with specific points in a speech. Listening to the offering of the hon. member, no one could accuse him of using a ghost writer or any research whatsoever. As a man known for his ridiculous presentations to the House, he rose to the ultimate today. The jumbled presentation of statistics, listed in a manner which would serve the government's purpose, leads one to some very strange conclusions.
For instance, he assured the House that even viewing all these serious situations that Canada finds itself in today, in fact Canadians have never had it so good. If we are not prepared to believe this, he left the door open because he said there are some extenuating circumstances. We never had it so good and all indications were that things were going to be better until our neighbour to the south introduced the surcharge.Then for the benefit of those people who could not give any credibility in that statement, he said, "A lot of the unemployment today is attributable to too many babies just after the war". If anyone listening to this speech could pinpoint his birthday in that era, Mr. Speaker, there would be some credibility in that statement.


Thomas Miller Bell: You can't blame Nixon for that.


Harold Warren Danforth: The decision by our party to propose the amendment we have before us was not taken lightly or facetiously, but was taken after careful consideration of the welfare of Canada and the economic climate which is so important to each and every one of us. This is a tremendous tax measure before us. It is an entire change under the guise of reform in our taxation system. The task of
September 16, 1971

revising our tax system has beset Parliament for a number of years and now the government has brought forth this bill.
Our party is concerned by the fact that this is a longterm program, as shown by the introduction of the white paper. We have asked that this bill not be read a second time because it is primarily based on the recommendations and policies of the government as enunciated in the white paper. We are dealing with a premise, a policy, a blueprint laid down months and even years ago during the consideration of this matter. We have seen tremendous changes in the economy of Canada, not only in the last few years but in the last few months. In studying these tax measures, and knowing the basic policies laid down in the white paper, we are well aware that the concept of tax reform presented by the government has led to this major piece of legislation, the main thrust of which is intended to offset the economic indicators we face today. We are well aware that in this context it will not be effective in dealing with the major problems facing us.
There is nothing in this tax bill that will counteract the tremendous climb in unemployment in this country. Members on all sides of the House are concerned about people who cannot find jobs. In this particular measure that we are seized with, and there is' no doubt that we will be seized with it for some time because of its complexity, there is no solution to this basic problem. Tied in with the problem of unemployment is the problem of inflation which has reared its ugly head again after assurances from the right hon. gentleman opposite that it was licked, but there is nothing in this bill to deal with it specifically and quickly. That is why we are asking the government to reconsider and, if possible, to incorporate into the bill specific clauses and principles directed immediately to these major problems.
I could mention other problems that could be covered in this bill such as, for instance, the rapid expansion not only of major industries but of minor industries. We do not find the emphasis on that. We do not find the emphasis on the development of our mining industries or national resources. We do not find specific measures designed to increase our secondary industries and to retain in Canada the processing of many of our raw materials before export. We do not find, either, a policy to develop incentives for Canadians to provide jobs. Today in this country we need a policy to provide jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: We have it.


Harold Warren Danforth: The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) says we have it. That is what worries me, Mr. Speaker. The policy we have cannot, is not and will not work.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It is working.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is why something needs to be done.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Let us not see a breakdown if that policy is working.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, in my deliberations this afternoon, I do not propose to get into specifics on the
Income Tax Act
measure before us but to deal with the principles set out in the amendment. The ordinary taxpayer, and I am proud to be one of them, today is mainly interested in knowing how much money various levels of government will extract from him. Taxpayers are concerned about how much money they will have to spend on what they consider to be their living expenses, and how much of their earnings will be left after deductions? That is what the ordinary man is concerned about, as well as the ordinary lady who goes to the supermarket to do her shopping. They ask, "How much have I left, and how much will my money buy?" In addition, the ordinary man or woman is worried about inflation and higher costs.
How many thousands of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are worried by the terrible thought that, "perhaps next week I shall not have a job"? The emphasis today seems to be on people who have no jobs. Yet far too many families face the terrible anxiety that, just over the horizon, may lie the loss of a job, especially when they see productivity in an industry slowing down, when they see small neighbourhood businesses closing down and when they see other, companion industries in which other members of the family are engaged, going out of business. Potential loss of a job is a tremendous hardship and worry facing thousands of Canadians, and that is why there is not the buoyant spirit and confidence in Canada at present that there was a few years ago.
Everyone in Canada, without exception, favoured tax reform; yet the interpretation of tax reform in the mind of the ordinary citizen is far different from the concept in the mind of the government. Tax reform legislation for the ordinary citizen meant a measure to uncomplicate a very complicated system of extracting money from pay cheques. They wanted the system made simpler. Also, everyone believed that if there were equity in taxation, if everyone paid his fair share, there would be no necessity for the constant pressure of increasing taxes at all levels. That is why everyone supported the idea of tax reform.
Let me say why this measure is troubling Canadians today. Even while contemplating tax reform this government, since coming to office, has imposed tax after tax and increase after increase. I am not saying the same thing would not have happened if others had sat on the government side of the House. The fact remains, however, that in the past few years this government has been directly responsible for imposing six different types of taxes. It brought them in even before introducing any so-called tax reform. Perhaps I could list these additional taxes for your convenience, Mr. Speaker.
It will be recalled that shortly after this government took office, they increased the rate of the old age supplement. No one in the House opposed that, Mr. Speaker. There was much discussion about the degree to which the old age supplement should be raised, but no one objected to the principle. As with all measures of this type, some one has to pay. There was an increase in personal income taxes. The increase went directly to pay the increase in the old age supplement. After that another tax was imposed, Mr. Speaker. It was felt that if more money could be taken out of the economy, a brake would be placed on inflationary trends. The government introduced the withholding tax relating to corporations. A certain portion of a corporation's income would be retained by

September 16, 1971
Income Tax Act
the government, to be paid back at a slack time at the convenience of the government. This was another tax.
A third tax was imposed. The Canada Pension Plan was introduced. No one objected; yet the actual concept and workings of the Canada Pension Plan really meant that it would be compulsory saving; that is, all those who work must pay into this compulsory savings plan or Canada Pension Plan. It is true that it may benefit people to some degree in their later years. I certainly hope the plan does that. However, in itself, it is a tax on the daily income of the ordinary individual.
Then, another tax was imposed, a tax which is still the subject today of tremendous controversy. I am talking about the 11 per cent tax on building materials and repair components. This was serious because, immediately, it affected the entire construction industry. Costs increased by 10 per cent for a home, 10 per cent for the factory, 10 per cent for a garage and 10 per cent for a school. This was a tremendous increase in costs. We were told the tax would probably be temporary. However, years afterwards, even after we had demonstrated to the government the way in which removal of the tax would immediately create jobs, inspire the economy and give impetus to the construction industry, the government stubbornly refused to remove the tax. That was another tax the government introduced. These "progressive steps" were a charge on everyone and took some portion of the ordinary man's income. Every tax, whether it was of 1 per cent, 3 per cent or 11 per cent, meant less take home pay for the ordinary individual.
In addition, we face an added tax, a terrible, creeping tax that the ordinary citizen objects to but can do little about, the terrible tax of inflation. Week by week and almost day by day, the ordinary householder pays more for everything he uses. The increase may be part of a percentage point, a whole percentage point or two or three percentage points. Today, the cost of living is much higher than it was even three years ago. These are all taxes, Mr. Speaker.
Now, we face this tremendous volume of tax changes known as tax reform. Mr. Speaker, I have contemplated very closely the impact of this measure. It will determine whether or not an individual or family can retain a business and whether or not individuals will find jobs in the immediate future. Once this tax measure passes it will determine whether or not people will be able to afford their own homes or pass on their estates from one generation to another. Realizing the implications of this measure, I am absolutely impatient with members on the government side who, one after another, have said, "Pass this measure, pass this measure". Mr. Speaker, they accuse the opposition of holding up measures in this House.


Mr. Greene:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: They accuse us of filibustering.


John James Greene: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: If you look back through the records of this session alone, you will find that whenever two or three members of the opposition rose to speak on a government measure, government members immediately

said, "This is a filibuster; we cannot get our measures through the House because the opposition will not let us."


John James Greene: You are irresponsible.


Harold Warren Danforth: It is the government that is irresponsible. There are 120 members on this side of the House, everyone of them representing a very substantial segment of the citizens of this country. Every member has the right to express whatever opinion he wishes on every single measure the government proposes to bring into the House.


Mr. Boulanger:: Who is stopping the hon. member?


Harold Warren Danforth: I have no patience with that type of attitude in the Canadian Parliament. There was a time when the members on that side of the House were men who were really interested in the welfare of the Canadian people. Because of the magnitude of these changes, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be necessary for us to deal with them very seriously on a clause by clause basis because the ordinary man on the street does not have time to do this. He is so busy trying to earn a livelihood or find a job that he does not even have time to read the newspapers or follow the day by day deliberations of this august House. It is impossible. He relies on us, his representatives, to bring about the very best tax reform measure for Canadians.
What bothers me is the devious manner in which this government in past months has approached this entire proposition. I have absolutely no confidence in the pronouncements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or his parliamentary secretary. I respect them as individuals. I am not castigating them personally, but the manner in which they discharge their duties in this House is very suspect.
I remember sitting in this chamber for most of my Christmas holidays debating a government measure whereby the amount on which the estate tax was to be imposed would be lowered from $60,000 to $20,000. This bill was introduced just before Christmas. Your Honour will recall that members opposite asked us to please pass it. We were told that if we wanted to get home for Christmas, all we had to do was pass that measure and we would be home free. What a joyous occasion that would have been if we had gone home for Christmas knowing what countless thousands of Canadian taxpayers would have had to pay. It would have been a mighty poor Christmas for thousands of families if we had yielded to that type of threat. We finally reached a compromise with the government that it be reduced from $60,000 to $50,000 instead of the $20,000 proposed by the government. We did our best. We went home the day before Christmas satisfied that we had acted correctly, promptly and justly on behalf of the Canadian people.
When we returned, the Minister of Finance indicated with glee to this House exactly what had happened. It was true that he had agreed to drop the amount on which the tax would be imposed from $60,000 to $50,000, but he did not tell us that under the regulations the tax on amounts over $50,000, instead of being calculated on the excess over $50,000, was based on a rate beginning at $20,000. This might have been considered a clever move by the
September 16, 1971

government, but on behalf of the Canadian people who have to pay such bills I say it was a most devious action by government members. Through experience we have learned to constantly watch for this type of action.
Any tax consultant, tax expert or anyone who has made a life study of the tax system in Canada can only reach one conclusion from viewing this tremendous volume before us. It is not tax reform; it is simply a change in the basis of taxation. Although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance very carefully pointed out the fringe benefits, namely that some individuals in Canada will immediately have an apparent abatement of taxes, the whole thrust of this tax measure is to again increase to a tremendous degree the actual taxes paid by Canadian taxpayers.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Nonsense.


Harold Warren Danforth: The parliamentary secretary says "nonsense". This is another indication of his responsibility in office, but the Canadian taxpayers will learn to their sorrow that there is an increase in taxes. As far as the ordinary man is concerned, there are, as pointed out by the hon. member to my left, very beautiful concessions to the upper end of the scale, those earning $200,000 and more, but the working man will have to pay for these concessions. It is all right for the minister and his parliamentary secretary to say that millions of taxpayers will be taken off the roll with the increase in exemption, but I challenge the minister to state in this House that those same millions of taxpayers will not be back on the roll after January 1. I do this for two reasons. First, unemployment insurance is to become part of the taxable income. Second, the rate of taxation on the first $1,000 of taxable income will be such that I wager the result of the change of the basis of taxation will be that the government will make money, perhaps to the extent of $30 million. That is not a tax concession, Mr. Speaker, it is a deliberate tax increase.
When we see that this is the policy of the government in every facet we look at, we have to be cautious. We cannot do as the government says and merely let this bill go to committee in order to get on with the business of the nation. If the economy of the nation continues to be guided by these policies, there will be no point in getting this bill through because there will not be any business in this nation. All small businesses today are faced with near bankruptcy. The matter of the United States surcharge is just an added straw on the back of the camel. It is utterly ridiculous for the parliamentary secretary to stand in his place and say that the economy was booming before the surcharge came into effect. It is equally ridiculous for the parliamentary secretary to state that the unemployment figures were decreasing before this United States surcharge.
The unemployment figures decreased because this government tried to buy that decrease. The government spent $67 million to take the students off the streets so that they would not register as being unemployed. They did not want these students to be looking for jobs and registering in the unemployment offices. If that happened, they would be included in the statistics that would hurt this government. The government would rather use the taxpayers' money for a short-term effort to remove these
Income Tax Act
names from the unemployment insurance roll, but the inevitable has now happened.
Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressed grave concern and anxiety over the fact that enrolments are down this year instead of up. He said that the government is going to look into the reason for this. The answer to why young students are not enrolling in colleges today is simple. They do not have the money because jobs were not available. It is as simple as that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: To suggest there is a trend indicating that young Canadians do not want an education to the same degree they did one year ago is sheer nonsense. These young people know the value of an education, and that is why hundreds of thousands of them are attending school. The fact that enrolment is down is another reflection of what is actually happening under the economic policies of this government. That is why I am impatient when those in the government ranks ask us to rush through legislation, say we are impeding progress and holding up the exemption these people may get. If we honestly believed that this government wanted people to have exemptions and that this tax reform would be such that they would have less taxes to pay, it would be in our interest as a political party to rush this measure through the House. For them to tell us that we would lose favour with the electorate if we dare oppose their will to drive this measure through the House is nothing but arrogance, to use a word which has been justifiably applied to them over the years. There is no other word for it. This explains their attitude, their policy, their day to day program. This is why they constantly talk about filibuster. If there ever has been a word which is overworked by members on the other side of the House, it is the word "filibuster".


Erik Nielsen: Bring in the exemptions alone and we will pass them.


Harold Warren Danforth: That is true. As my hon. friend says, if the government will bring in the exemptions separately we shall be delighted to pass them; there would be no hold up in this House. We have asked the government time and time again to reduce the taxes levied on corporations and individuals, burdens which are tying this country in an economic knot. People talk about Canada being subservient in economic terms to Japan, the United States and the European Common Market. For Heaven's sake, turn the Canadian economy loose so that we can go in and produce jobs instead of binding our hands by policies which have proved to be wrong, policies which cannot work. This is all we ask. This is why we have brought in the amendment which is now before the House, not to impede but to plead with the government to change its policies so as to be in favour of the people of Canada who members opposite profess to serve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) made a few comments earlier this afternoon on the bill before us and I was somewhat provoked by one or two of

September 16, 1971
7878_______________________________
Income Tax Act
the remarks he made. He said, in the course of his speech, that we might well be greatly concerned, now that inflation has come back again, about the fact that expansion might return too quickly to the economy. I should like to hear him say this to some of the unemployed or to some of those who are in receipt of welfare. It surprises me that the parliamentary secretary should say such a thing.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps because there is an election coming up.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, it was probably because an election is coming up. In addition, the hon. member said we could blame a certain amount of the present high unemployment on the surtax imposed by the United States. Again, he might have said that because there is an election forthcoming-


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was explicit in saying that the figures for August were not affected one way or another by the United States surcharge. I do not think the hon. member can properly put the interpretation he did on anything I may have said.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am glad the hon. member has clarified that point. I think most hon. members gathered from his remarks the same implication as I did. Unemployment figures are structural and the surtax had nothing to do with the figures for August. When one looks at the industrial index for July one finds that the index figure has declined. Shipments of manufactured goods were down by .3 per cent for Canada and for Ontario they were down by 19.1 per cent. This, to some degree, explains the increase in unemployment during August.
Before us today is the huge bill amending the income tax laws. An hon. member who preceded me a few days ago contended that these proposals would not really inform the tax system. About the only people for whom the bill would provide jobs or incentives would be the printers or pulp manufacturers because this 700-page bill, is one of the largest ever presented to the House.
The history of tax reform in this country goes back to the time when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister in 1962. He appointed a royal commission to study the taxation system, and heading that commission was Mr. Kenneth Carter, a chartered accountant and former director of the Canadian Tax Foundation. After a great deal of study, the commission produced an elaborate and extensive report. It said the taxation system in Canada was among the most unfair in the world. It said that hundreds of millions of dollars reaped in profits was escaping taxation; that certain industries such as mining industries were paying scarcely any taxes at all under the existing tax arrangements. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) made reference to this situation when he spoke in Calgary some months ago. About two years ago a white paper on taxation was brought down. This embodied some of the recommendations made by the Carter Commission, though they had been watered down to a large extent. Later, hearings were held by the Finance Committee of the House and representations were made to that committee by various interested groups. Today we have before us Bill C-259, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

The first question I ask myself when I consider a measure such as this is: will it have any effect to redistribute income and wealth in this country? In this case, the answer is, obviously, no. It will not in any substantial way redistribute income and wealth so that the ordinary people, the ordinary farmers, workers and small businessmen will have any better chance. Contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has said, this is not a bill which will result in tax equity. This is one of the first things which becomes evident to us. We have now completed the circle and find ourselves back where we were before the Carter Commission was appointed to study taxation.
I think it was my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby who commented that the best thing he could say about the bill was that the average person would be no worse off as a result of its provisions than he was before it was introduced. I find myself asking the following questions: where is the great innovator who was elected in 1968? What has happened to this great innovator who talked about a just society and participatory democracy? Where is there evidence of these great changes based on equity? We were supposed to see these changes, but more than three years have gone by and there is evidence of very little change in our society of fundamental importance to the average person. Instead we are faced with the highest unemployment rate of any industrial country in the world. The inflationary trend has resumed, more people are living on welfare, the housing problem is still with us and the gap between the rich and the poor is just as wide as it was 20 years ago. For reasons of this kind, I am very much opposed to the type of bill now being presented.
I often wonder what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had in mind when he talked about the just society. Did he have in mind a society which was just for the rich? This is what he might have meant, because almost every piece of legislation brought down before the House is of greater benefit to those who have it made than to the person who is unemployed. When they talk about participatory democracy what do they have in mind? We were told at a meeting of the Committee on Finance that about two-thirds of the people who made representations were from the industrial or commercial sectors of our economy. Are these people the ones who can participate because they have power and wealth Jn this country? It is much easier for these people to participate because of their expense accounts and huge bank rolls than it is for the poor guy who is on welfare living on skid row. These are things they forget about when they throw around that beautiful Liberal rhetoric and talk about participatory democracy.
In answer to a question today the Prime Minister asked whether I had not read the speech of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) during which he referred to the matter I had in mind. I am not after that kind of rhetoric, I am looking for answers right here and now. In this bill we still find some lip service being paid to the concepts about which the Prime Minister has talked. This has been mentioned already by members of my party and those members of other parties who have spoken.
We note that the exemption of personal income tax has risen from $1,000 to $1,500 a year for single people and from $2,000 to $2,850 per year for a married couple. This is
September 16, 1971

one of the tokens or perhaps bribes the minister has thrown in to make this look even more attractive than it is. If we look at the basic things such as these, we find that once again they help the wealthy in the country more than they help the average person or working man. This increased exemption will probably save the average working man not more than $100, $200 or $300. If a man is making $100,000 a year, which I suggest is not really a poverty wage, we note that the increased exemption brought about in this bill will save him approximately $5,400 per year. Once again it is the wealthy person who gains the most by this type of an amendment.
We should be talking instead about tax credits under which a person receiving a middle or lower income would benefit even more than this bill suggests he should. Another little goody that has been thrown in is that item which allows a working man to deduct $150 a year as expenses. This is good, but again we see there is a ceiling for the working man. That ceiling does not apply to those who are directors of corporations or banks. Therd is no ceiling of $150 for people such as that. Again, we have the same double standard which our society has had ever since Confederation in Canada.
When this bill was brought in some people expressed a great deal of shock that it did not contain an amendment which would really change anything, and that there were no innovations. I am not surprised or shocked at all. I did not think this Parliament or that political party on the other side would do anything really serious to change the status quo in this country. I am not surprised because they just do not dare tinker with the system as it is in Canada.
The Carter commission report and the white paper on taxation created a lot of panic throughout the business communities of this country. It spread a great deal of panic and concern among the corporate leaders and the many people who are directing and managing large multinational corporations in Canada. As soon as these people expressed concern, a lot of the members stood in this House and defended them. The Leader of the Opposition and members of his party were there almost as certain as day follows night, and very shortly after we found the backbenchers on the Liberal side criticizing the Carter commission report and the white paper as well. They said we are taxing the big boys too much and we will destroy their initiative. This was the type of approach they took.
I am not surprised at all that we have a bill before us today which really does not change anything at all but keeps the status quo. It does not change anything of any importance to anybody in Canada. One of the concerns when the Carter commission report was made public was that if we acted on some of its recommendations, such as taxing the mining companies, those in the extractive industries and putting on a capital gains tax, we would destroy the initiative and the incentive of these people to develop the country. What kind of incentive or initiative do the unemployed or poor people have today when they have to carry the tax burden and are forced to foot the bill? We seem to be so concerned about protecting the huge financial institutions and the big boys in Canada, but we forget about the 80 per cent or 90 per cent of Canadian people who do not make a living or income from investment but have to work for a living.
Income Tax Act
We have in Canada what you might call a system of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. We have many protections in our society for those who are wealthy, but still we say to those who are not that they should get out, work hard and be successful. I am not surprised at all that the bill before us today is one that does not really change anything and does not challenge any of the fundamental beliefs our society has held sacred for so many years. In my position as a Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan and a member of the NDP, I owe nothing at all to the industrial or corporate sector, so I do not hesitate to rise in my place and ask that it be treated like ordinary Canadians and pay its own fair share. Most of the people in my constituency feel the same way about this. They feel it is about time we did put some fair tax on the mining industries and adopt a full capital gains tax. They feel it is time we did many of these things to lift the tax burden from the ordinary Canadian, thereby encouraging him to get more involved in the society and economy of this country. We do not seem to be doing that. We need some fundamental changes, but these changes do not seem to be forthcoming from this government or this Parliament.
In Canada we have from one-quarter to one-third of our population living in absolute poverty. What are we doing about this? We are now worried again about inflation and the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) says we have to make sure our economy does not expand too rapidly. What are we doing about those people who do not have jobs? We must consider their families and the tremendous effect it has on them. It is very easy for us in this Parliament to get up and throw around statistics and facts in respect of how well we are doing. It is easy for us to say we have increased our productivity a little bit over the last two years and we are going to expand, but we seem to forget about the real world outside and the people now living in poverty. Perhaps this is because Parliament is not really representative of the Canadian people. The people in this House are much wealthier by far than the average person in the country. As a result perhaps we do have a different perspective, different sensitivities and different ideas about solving the problems of the country. Perhaps it is all too easy for us to shrug off the problems of high unemployment and poverty in Canada.
We have literally millions and millions of people in Canada living in a state of absolute poverty. In the report written by the four staff members who left the Senate Committee on Poverty it is stated that the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada has not changed over the last 20 years. If we are to provide any real opportunities for these people who are among the poor in Canada we must begin by bringing in some real tax reforms. These people would really then have some opportunity.
The top 20 per cent of income earners in this country earn nearly 40 per cent of the total income. The bottom 20 per cent earn slightly less than 7 per cent. This, in itself, paints a very vivid picture of who is reaping the benefits of the society in which we live. It is not only the poor people who are suffering, but the whole country, because of the type of policies we consciously pursue in Canada. The Economic Council of Canada has suggested we have lost billions of dollars because we do not have full employment in this country and because we are not providing

September 16, 1971
Income Tax Act
opportunity for those people who would go to work if they were able to find jobs. The Economic Council of Canada has stated that we lost about $3 billion last year. Let me remind the House that if these people were working a great deal of that money would have found its way back to the treasuries of government, federal, provincial and municipal, in which case we could have initiated some plans, social and economic, of the kind all of us would like to see. But we seem to follow blindly the same old policies year in and year out.
There are many other things that could be said about the tax system that we have in this country which, as I have said, is one not based on equity but on inequity. Unless we do something soon, a lot of the people in this country are going to lose faith with the governmental system we have at the present time. For years we have been talking about the poor people, how sorry we are for them and how much our hearts bleed for them, yet we never seem to be able to do anything for them or to change this society that creates the conditions in which they have to live.
I was quite impressed by a speech made by Doris Power of the Just Society in Toronto to the Senate Committee on Poverty, and I should just like to quote a sentence or two. She said:
-the poor have been studied all too well, but nobody has yet told them why they were poor. We demand that the committee study the nature of oppression in this country, not the oppressed.
I think this statement is a very relevant one and illustrates how we should set about tackling some of the problems plaguing us in Canada. We can sympathize all we want with the unemployed, we can quote all the figures we want, but all to no avail; what we must do is change the society that has deliberately brought about unemployment and forced the poor to live the way they do.
There are a number of other matters with which I should like to deal, and one has to do with the way the legislation treats the resource industries of Canada. I am concerned, as are members on both sides of the House, about the favoured status that we give the resource industries of Canada. I suggest all of us should take note of the speech made in the House last week by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), who expressed a great deal of concern about the government's economic policies and how they were favouring the resource and extractive industries of Canada over the manufacturing industries. We must make changes in our taxing policy so that special incentives and tax concessions are withdrawn from the mining industry and other industries that today are reaping the benefits to the exclusion of the Canadian people. We should also implement a capital gains tax in the same way as income is taxed in Canada. Why go only half way? Let us have a capital gains tax on 100 per cent of the gain rather than on 50 per cent. Why does the government make the value judgment that income earned from investment or capital gain is more important than income earned from toiling in a factory or teaching at school? Yet this is the kind of value judgment that is made, capital gains being taxed at 50 per cent rather than at 100 per cent.
May I deal with one other matter before resuming my seat? I should like to add my voice to others who have already expressed concern over the affect the provisions of this bill will leave on co-operatives, credit unions and wheat pools in Canada. As most hon. members know, I come from Saskatchewan where the co-operative movement has played a very important part in our history and in the development of the province. People from all walks of life and political persuasion have involved themselves in the co-operative movement in Saskatchewan. The cooperative movement is important to these people because through it they are helping themselves. They are doing something to better themselves. I think that the co-operative movement has served a useful purpose not only to the members of the co-op but to communities in rural Saskatchewan. Therefore, I join with others in urging the government to reconsider its taxing proposals in regard to credit unions and co-operatives.
Once again, may I reiterate that this legislation is not tax reform. The bill before us does nothing except tinker with a few small changes, like raising exemptions and widening allowances for expense accounts. I say it is about time we stopped fooling around and playing games with each other and really got down to the business of changing our tax system, basing it on equity for everyone, regardless of how they earn their income, whether through investments, capital gain, or by working in a factory. Our tax system today is based on inequity. It is based on the premise that people are more valuable if they are rich, if they make their money from investments. Indeed, they are rewarded for doing so. This assumption is a wrong one, one that has to be changed if we are to do something meaningful for the ordinary citizens of this country. These are the people I am worried about, the average worker, farmer and small businessman. I have no concern at all for the millionaire, for directors of huge corporations or mining companies. It is about time that those boys started to pay their fair share. If they were to do so, the entire country would be better off. The ordinary citizen would then have a chance to reap some benefit from this country rather than just the selected few. It is about time that we discarded socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor and began to return to our senses.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, according to the information given in the speech made by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) at the outset of the debate on Bill C-259, one realizes that it took 10 years to prepare this reform.
Preliminary studies and research started as early as in the late 50s. Governments even changed during this period of reflection. The Carter Commission was instituted, hearings were held by this commission, debates took place, white papers and reports were published, which explains to some extent this voluminous bill of 710 pages. One regrets that a less complicated bill could not have been drafted. Most Canadian taxpayers, besides having to hand part of their earnings over to the Minister of National Revenue, will require the services of accountants, and

September 16, 1971

that at rather high expense, to learn that they must cede to the "taxers" part of their income.
If at least a realistic personal exemption of $1,500 for single persons and $2,850 for married couples had been established. As soon as it is recognized that an income of at least $3,000 for a single person and $5,000 for married couples is necessary to live decently, why take part of their income before they have earned what is considered absolutely necessary to live? That is sheer nonsense.
'
Here is what a Professor of Economics at the University of Montreal and former researcher for the Carter Commission on Taxation wrote in Montreal's daily La Presse on June 4, 1969, and I quote:
-the average Canadian, whether he is single, married or has dependants, whose annual income varies between $8,000 and $25,000, pays up to 36.6 per cent more income tax than the American resident in similar circumstances.
Paradoxically, income tax represents a smaller portion of the Canadian government's aggregate revenues, due to a lower per capita income, and because indirect taxes represent a larger part of the revenue than in the United States, the professor added-
He also said that "if we do not examine federal expenditures with a very critical eye, there is little which can be done to relieve the relatively excessive tax burden on the Canadian taxpayer."
A few days ago, several politicians were panicky as a result of an American decision to levy a 10 per cent surcharge to protect the American dollar. Some cartoonists even suggested-as in Le Devoir of September 7, 1971-that the usual smile of our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) had been slightly depreciated. I hope that the same minister who is responsible for the publication of "Canada 1971" will find enough space in the next edition to show the doubtful efficiency of the proposed remedy which will cost $80 million to the Canadian taxpayers, to reduce the effects of the American surcharge instead of approving the mistakes of inexperienced writers who try to disparage political movements under development.
As for Bill C-259, even if it has 710 pages, those who advocate the taxation system did not find the necessary space to include a provision aimed at lessening the burden of Canadian labourers working in the United States, especially Quebec lumberjacks who are compelled to file three income tax returns, one to the United States, one to Ottawa and another to Quebec. These workers travel several miles twice a week to reach their job in the forests of various American states and are allowed no deduction for travelling expenses, purchase of machinery such as chain saws and other expensive equipment. There is no provision in bill C-259, despite its 700-odd pages, for incentives to forest workers who earn a difficult living in different logging camps of Canada and the United States.
In January 1972, Canadians working in U.S. territory were to obtain unemployment benefits. However, here again the tax people have provided in the legislation that contributions may be deducted while benefits are taxable. They do not seem to have foreseen that tax officials will demand proof of amounts of contributions paid. There will be further complications in this field and, as usual, the worker will remain a victim of an over-sophisticated tax system.
_______________________________7881
Income Tax Act
Incidentally, let me point out that the government should definitely take into account that lumberjacks crossing the border to work in American logging camps contribute to lowering the rate of unemployment in Canada. Unfortunately, those who had a hand in drafting Bill C-259 were rather inclined to protect the "fund". Obviously, nobody likes to pay taxes. It is regrettable that most people accept them as a necessary evil in the present system. However, the government should try to alleviate part of the bad effects of the system.
As far as the co-operative movement is concerned, it clearly stated its position in briefs submitted earlier.
The provisions of Bill C-259 are unfair to co-operatives because they are not consistent with their judicial structure, their principles or their operating procedure.
The capital provided by a member to his co-op is not for a direct return on capital.
If this legislation was passed without any amendment, its effect would be to stop the normal growth of co-ops, and the Department of National Revenue would be deprived in the future of the sources of revenue that it seeks through taxation.
The savings of a credit union member are refundable at his request. The rate of return on these savings must therefore be competitive, in proportion to that of other financial institutions. The application of the principle of capital employed, so as to provide a return on capital, has no reason to be, where as the market on which the credit union is dealing requires a competitive return, itself taxable, to the member. Upholding the principle of capital employed cannot but result in administrative problems, without any predictable tax profitability.
The champions of the "just society" should not give us the evidence that they are changing it to the "punitive society".
I know very well that the supporters of the system could give us proof that the origin of taxation goes back a very long way. In England, during the feudal system, the collector who could levy the most taxes was allowed to use any means that seemed appropriate to him. This system resulted in abuses of all kinds to the point where some tax collectors became richer than the king.
The incomprehension demonstrated in tax collection caused the French and the American revolutions. In 1776, Adam Smith established the principles of taxation. He summed it up by saying:
The tax legislation must be clear, simple and fair in its incidence.
Taxes must be of general application and known to those who pay them. In other words, one must know how, when, why and how much he pays.
In our times, the tax collector performs under the present law a task which undoubtedly requires much specialization. His field of action involves direct and indirect taxation. In Canada, there are over 25 regional income tax offices and around 350 customs and excise offices. The Department of National Revenue has about 13,000 employees. I admit that most of them are dedicated to their country; but they are a team of well-paid men who are enforcing a bad law.

September 16, 1971
Income Tax Act
For a very long time now provincial and federal officials have been meeting to discover new tax fields instead of seeking means of distributing the real wealth of Canada. In order to point out the difficulties caused by an upside down system I would like to quote the view of a professor of constitutional law, Mr. Justice Maurice Allard, a former member of the House of Commons. About the various tax systems he made the following remarks:
Somewhat disturbing is the fact that before 1949 the Privy Council in London allowed in carefully prepared rulings essentially indirect taxes to be considered as direct taxes. The pretext invoked is that instead of being included in the bill linking the manufacturer with the retailer that indirect tax is being charged to the consumer who pays it. Thus that indirect levy becomes a direct tax. The sales tax is a typical example. But with such fiscal definitions and moods how can we know in Canada who is entitled to levy the indirect taxes, the direct taxes and the indirect taxes which became direct taxes through a fiction of the law?
This is a complex system.
In the report of the 1941 federal-provincial conference, Mr. Aberhart stated, and I quote:
We are here to make it possible at some near future date to formulate for Canadians a series of decisions which will give them security in old age and the right to enjoy, according to their needs, the abundance of food and clothing and the comforts of adequate and sanitary shelter which the limitless resources of this great dominion can provide.
We are here, I assert, to establish a heritage of education for those who seek to learn; of health for those who suffer pain or disease; of security and deliverance from debt for those who have builded homes in their prime of life and who may face eviction and the loss of their sacred firesides when the lean years descend.
We are here, I believe, to draft a scheme of things for the Canada of the future, a scheme of things which will bring to that Canada a standard of justice which shall place human values above dollar values, a scheme of things that will provide for our fighting heroes when they return a standard of national.
Unfortunately, the wise advice of Alberta's premier was ignored then. And we are still grappling with a tax, strike, debt and even revolution producing system.
There are even newspapermen who believe that they are well informed and write fairly perplexing editorials in LE DROIT, of which I have a copy here.
The title used for an editorial reads "Blessed debts". The editorialist would like the readers to believe that the interest payment on the debt means that money going back into circulation in Canada accelerates trade in this country and that if that money is reinvested in federal or provincial government or industrial bonds, it gives a new impulse to the national economy.
That the greatest part of the charges or service on the public debt serves to enrich the taxpayers seems a paradox to me. It would be quite a task to convince people like that of the benefits of creating money without debt.
To complete the picture, an article was published in the March 9, 1971 issue of La Presse under the title "Canadian Indebtedness is Increasing": five per cent more in 1970. It is reported that total consumer credit in 1970 stood at $11.3 billion.
With all the advertising that goes on and the example set by the government, which spurs them to get into debt, a

large percentage of the Canadian people can indulge in any extravagances, on credit.
On March 16, 1971, in an article written by Mr. Claude Beauchamp, and bearing a title appropriate to our time: "Flying Beggars",-we summarized the steps taken by some politicians seeking loans from the United States.
Another article, entitled: Taxes on Genius, under the signature of Maurice Huot and published in the newspaper Montreal-Matin, on December 14, 1970, referred to the fact that the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Graham Towers, stated in 1962 that the tax burden placed on the Canadian people by all levels of government was too heavy. The author had this to say:
Among the means to reduce unemployment, one that is evident, and all experts say so, is to induce the establishment of secondary industries creating employment. However, unless they enjoy a set of exemptions, industrialists are not inclined to initiate and develop industries whose profits taxes will eat up, leaving only the bones.
Jobs can derive only from an economy where profit is promoted in proportion to investments and risks. Nobody will work for the sole pleasure of paying more taxes to the country. When governments as a solution to all economic problems, resort to heavier and heavier taxes, they show little imagination and little know-how. But to stimulate the economy without additional burden would indicate that talent, if not genius, has come to Parliament; that is what we should expect from our leaders. Some of them seem convinced that words and speeches can be a substitute for action.
In our superstructured societies, one seems to endow economists with almost absolute infallibility. Many of them hold positions in the public service, take part here and there in a committee or an agency and are favourably looked upon by government. People listen to them. Some of them, though unfortunately very few to date, have begun to realize that order should prevail in the financial system.
Those who claim that planning-whether indicative or imperative-will put an end to all evils do nevertheless face the basic arithmetic problem that one plus one makes two. One cannot escape from it whatever theory is advanced, be it nationalism, marxism, socialism, planning or controlled economy. We are too much aware of administrative failures in other countries to forget arithmetic.
In conclusion, I will quote some excerpts from an editorial of La Presse of March 22, 1971:
False economic theories
-in the face of the extensive problems which inflation and unemployment have created lately, some specialists are now beginning to ask questions. Do economists deserve the reputation of infallibility attributed to them? Do their theories conform with reality? Is it not time to question some of their tenets?
These are not statements made by Creditistes! It is an editorial written by Mr. Jean Pellerin and published in La Presse.
I proceed with the quotation:
Mr. Andre Piettre, a French economist, a professor at the Paris Faculty of Law and Economic Sciences and a specialist of the economic theories expounded by the German school, has taken the liberty of initiating in the weekly edition of Le Monde of 4-10 March last, a serious review of the Anglo-Saxon school's economic doctrines. The following remarks are based on this review.
According to the Anglo-American school of economists, inflation has a beneficial aspect. It stimulates economic development. This, according to Mr. Piettre, is a pernicious and baseless theory
September 16, 1971

Income Tax Act
once it is known that "recession coupled with inflation" can happen, in other words a slackening of business activity, increased unemployment and high prices. This is what Great Britain, the United States and Canada are experiencing at the moment.
Another current theory is that of relationship between wages and unemployment. If unemployment goes up, say reputedly serious economists, the demand for higher wages goes down. The facts contradict that principle. The working class, which is not blind after all, demands bigger wages as prices go up, and this never ending pursuit between prices and salaries is cutting down the possibilities of increasing productivity. Consequently, profits decline, business slows down, factories close their doors, other quickly resort to automation, and unemployment goes up.
Another theory is that, in order to reach full employment there is no reason why the currencies should not go on the chopping block. That does not make sense, say some. The proof is that the devaluation of the pound sterling in 1967 brought no remedy to unemployment in Great Britain.
The editorialist goes on to say:
There are other barren theories that were refuted by Piettre and that only served in the final analysis to send the governments-
That is interesting. Look out, for this piece of advice should be well noted. And I continue:
-on the wrong tracks forcing them to improvise on an immediate basis rather than taking action with their eyes turned to the future.
Unemployment is a striking example. Quebec and Ottawa are quite naturally trying to fight unemployment but they are reduced to the point of resorting to public works-highways, subway, airports-to reach that goal. With a view to really fighting this plague, the authorities should temporarily forget the quite challengeable theories of their economists and consider in all humility the initiatives to be taken for the development of new structures likely to provide permanent jobs to the greatest possible number of Canadians. Obviously, the economic theories applicable at the frontier time are obsolete in our highly urbanized society. We must think in terms of a completely new social texture. Our theories are wrong.
[DOT]	(4:50 p.m.)
So, taking this situation into account and on the strength of our findings coupled with the many proofs which demonstrate that our current system is at fault and that our problems are due to a financial system in permanent disagreement with our current economic realities, it would be normal that the Creditiste suggestions and proposals submitted to the House on several occasions be considered more seriously if we truly want to eliminate this ridiculous social disorder which permits poverty to exist in the midst of affluence.
[DOT]	(4:50 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: One cannot help feeling that this debate has an air of fantasy about it, Mr. Speaker, a feeling which was confirmed by the outstanding speech of my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney), the hon. member for Calgary South. We could hardly believe our ears. Knowing the hon. member as I do, I am sure that he would have great difficulty in believing a lot of the material he placed on the record today. I am sure he was not convinced and still is not convinced. It was, nevertheless, an effort on the part of the hon. member having some responsibility and being on the periphery of government as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, to
try to justify the mess we are in today as a consequence of policies pursued by his minister and his government.
We are discussing inside this House the complex problems of the tax bill, while without the country suffers from industrial stagnation, plant lay-offs and an unemployment situation which can only be described as a prelude to an economic disaster of the first magnitude. Inflation is still with us, inflation which continues despite the policy of the government to erode the purchasing power of our dollar, to erode the consumer purchasing power where it hurts most. I need only refer to the cost of living index released today by Statistics Canada.
I say fantasy because in terms of the economic situation in this country we are not discussing meaningful tax reforms; we are discussing a measure introduced by this government which is as deceptive in style as it is in content. The position of this party is clear, Mr. Speaker. We believe this deceptive legislation will not in any way serve as one of the economic catalysts this nation so badly needs at this particular time. As the motion before us states, this government has reacted to Canada's serious economic plight with a tax program which does not provide sufficient tax cuts and incentives, nor does it contain, as the motion stresses, adequate tax exemptions to ensure a healthy growth of Canada's economy. This is deceptive legislation, Mr. Speaker. I say it is about time that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stopped evading their responsibilities and admitted that the unemployment and anti-inflationary strategies of this government are not only useless but in fact are harmful. If proof of that statement were needed one would have to look at the figures released today by Statistics Canada showing the rate of seasonally adjusted unemployment in this country, the highest rate of unemployment since records were kept, going back to 1946. As if this situation were not bad enough, coupled with it are the figures released on the consumer cost of living index in Canada. As one journalist has put it, Mr. Speaker, it is a bad day for the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: If the government persists in its present policies there will be worse days ahead. Let us look at the cost of living index which has jumped to a record level of 135, a rise of .7 per cent in one month. In real terms that figure represents hardship to the consumers of this country. Even the hon. member for Calgary South, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, is a consumer and even he must be feeling this increase in the cost of living. I think it is about time that the government of this country lived up to its responsibilities, to the onerous responsibility it has to the people of Canada. Here is a rise of .7 per cent in the cost of living. Inflation is still with us, Mr. Speaker, and not only do we have continuing inflation but we have the double jeopardy of continuing inflation and continuing unemployment, rising inflation and rising unemployment. Something is wrong. In other words, Mr. Speaker, according to the present strategy of the government, if you can call it that, inflation was to be curbed by placing a halter on the economy. They were going to slow down the economy and as a consequence deliberately create unemployment because that was necessary to cure inflation.
Private Bills

September 16, 1971
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. In view of the fact that the House will proceed to another item of business at eight o'clock tonight I think it would be appropriate at this time to put a motion to adjourn the debate. I wonder if the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) would put the motion for adjournment of the debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Tom H. Goode (for Mr. Sulatycky) moved:: That Bill S-16, respecting Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I inquire if the mover of this bill has the consent of the sponsor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair might ask the hon. member concerned at this time if he has permission from the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) to move this motion for him. Under the rules of this House we have to take the word of an hon. member. The motion having been put, I will call on the hon. member.


Thomas Henry Goode: Mr. Speaker, if another hon. member would like to make the speech, I will be pleased to let him. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) has been called away on urgent government business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Henry Goode: Consequently, the honour of carrying Bill S-16 in this House falls on my shoulders. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to issue letters patent continuing Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. as a company under the Canada Corporations Act, thus shifting the company from Alberta to the federal jurisdiction. When this has been done, it will be possible to merge or amalgamate Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. with Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited under the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act.
Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. is presently incorporated under the Alberta Companies Act and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited of

Calgary. It has an authorized capital of $15 million divided into 1,500,000 shares having par value of $10 each, and 1,496,473 shares have been issued and are outstanding. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, the parent, is a federal company incorporated by letters patent under the Canada Corporations Act. The parent company, together with two wholly-owned subsidiaries, one of which is Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd., holds varying interests in petroleum, natural gas and other mineral rights in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. The companies are primarily engaged in the exploration for and production of petroleum and natural gas in Canada, with their operations at present being largely carried on in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories, and off the east coast of Canada.
The parent and its subsidiary companies have largely integrated their operations and it is desirable to complete this integration by an amalgamation. However, as Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. is at present an Alberta Company, and the parent and other subsidiary companies are federal companies, such an amalgamation cannot now be effected. Section 158 of the Alberta Companies Act authorized an Alberta company, if authorized by a special resolution and by the laws of Canada, to become a federal company, and the purpose of the present bill is to authorize the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to issue the necessary letters patent under the federal statute to bring this about. Once Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. has become a federal company, it can amalgamate with its parent and the other subsidiary pursuant to the provisions of Section 128A of the Canada Corporations Act.
Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas was incorporated by letters patent in 1926. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas has outstanding 18,294,044 common shares with a par value of $2.50 each;
54.9	per cent of the outstanding shares are beneficially owned by Continental Oil Company of New York, and
21.9	per cent of the outstanding shares are beneficially owned by Hudson's Bay Company investments Limited of Winnipeg, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hudson's Bay Company. The balance of the outstanding shares are held by the general public.
By way of comparison, last fall Continental held roughly 67 per cent of the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas outstanding shares. That has been reduced to 54.9 per cent and Hudson's Bay Oil is now listed on the Montreal Stock Exchange, which hon. members I am sure will be pleased to learn. In addition to the common shares, there are 600,000 preferred shares outstanding which may be converted to 720,000 common shares. These preferred shares are 97 per cent Canadian in ownership. The President, D. C. Jones, is a Canadian.
The purpose of this bill should be kept in mind. Mic Mac is an Alberta company. It is subject to the Alberta Companies Act. That act allows Mic Mac-that is, gives Mic Mac permission- to broaden its place of operations by moving to the federal field. But the Alberta act only allows the company to go into a jurisdiction which is willing to accept control over the company. The words of Section 158 of the Alberta Corporations Act are. "-if authorized-by the laws of (the) other jurisdiction".
September 16, 1971

What this bill would do is create that authorization. The company would then be able to apply to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for letters patent for continuing the company under federal jurisdiction and under the control of the Canada Corporations Act. The bill would enable this House to take the reins of control out of the hands of Alberta.
Unlike the Central-Del Rio bill, Bill S-16 does not ask the House for permission to allow an amalgamation. Although an eventual amalgamation is presently contemplated, it will take some time to complete. In the event of an amalgamation, it would be under the control of the Canada Corporations Act. This bill simply allows the company to move under federal jurisdiction. Possible amalgamation under that jurisdiction is only one aspect of the company's operations over which the federal government will gain control.
It should also be stressed that this bill only enables an application to continue under letters patent. A discretion with respect to that application remains with the minister who works within the guidelines of the Canada Corporations Act.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it seems strange that the sponsor of the bill should at this time suffer from the same difficulties he suffered from when the bill was considered by the Senate Banking Committee. When the committee was called to order, it was suggested that somebody else should submit the bill to the committee. Counsel for Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. suggested that the sponsor of the bill was somewhere between his riding and this House. The chairman could not see why the sponsor was not present to introduce the bill. Possibly there is some reason for his absence today.
We have heard considerable debate in this House in the last while about surtaxes, foreign ownership and the employment within Canada of men working for foreign-owned corporations. The President of the United States has said that he would lift the tax load from corporations operating in the United States and enable them to increase their exports. Naturally, we realize that this move can do nothing but harm employment in Canada. This is the main reason that bills such as this should be given thorough consideration. Questions must be asked and answered. Unfortunately, the hon. member speaking for the sponsor did not suggest that this company would be prepared to abide by the amendment we have proposed to another bill pertaining to the Bank Act. That amendment, if accepted, would mean that Canadian ownership of companies would be retained.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member speaking for the sponsor suggest that the shares outstanding of this company are Canadian owned. The fact that the company at present is a Canadian company is not good enough, so far as I am concerned. I can only refer to another situation. We have tried to introduce an amendment to another bill, the effect of which would be that a clause relating to Canadian ownership would be included in every bill of this type that comes before the House. Unfortunately, as one of the witnesses before the committee said, there is no way of making sure that shares will remain in Canadians hands if they go on the stock market. That is the situation. If the hon. member can say that he has had an indication
Private Bills
from the people sponsoring this bill that they will adhere to the suggested provisions in the Bank Act amendment, I shall not object to passage of this bill. If the hon. member could say that, he could save a lot of discussion at this time.
If one looks at the background of the company one will see that Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. was formed on a merger of Consolidated Mic Mac Oils Ltd., Mac Oils Ltd., Mayfair Oil & Gas (1961) Ltd., Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd. and Twining Pipeline Ltd. We must ask ourselves whether mergers of this type are in the best interest of Canada, since they do away with the competitive spirit we have seen in the past. I need only refer to the recent increase in the cost of living index, particularly as it pertains to food. When the shopping centres were involved in a price war, the cost of food to the consumer went down. As an analogy to the bill before us, I suggest that if there are too many mergers you can expect the cost to the consumer to increase. There is no competition. This argument is borne out by what happened to food prices after the supermarkets agreed to discontinue the price war. Yesterday we saw the reports indicating what happened as far as food, other than fruits, was concerned. If we are concerned about the so-called protection to the consumer, protection to people dependent on food processing or, in this case, the results of the various consolidations of the companies we see before us, we must take this area into consideration.
When we look at the various aspects of the bill before us, we see that there is not too much to it. On checking the records, we find that there will be an increase in the holdings of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Limited. We must look at the situation to determine exactly what has happened in the past and why these companies merged. I do not suggest that certain mergers are not in the interests of the Canadian public. However, if these mergers result in control of the product being in the hands of a few large corporations, then we must write into this bill some protection for the Canadian consumer. We must somehow bring about a Canadian type of ownership.
We have recently read many observations, heard many debates in this House and listened to professors talk about Canadian ownership as well as the debate now going on with regard to the tax act. We realize more and more people are concerned about the ownership of those areas that should be Canadian controlled. Unfortunately, some members are not really concerned about what may happen to Canadian industry. In fact, this subject came up in a recent committee meeting. I quote:
On the point of order, first of all there is no government policy, no Canadian policy about foreign ownership as yet, and therefore I think Mr. Skoberg is out of order. He cannot force them to go into anything, or promise anything in that direction, unless there is some sort of a policy adopted by Parliament, and there is not such a thing yet.
Surely, the members of this House will not disagree with the idea of including in bills before us a provision that there be a majority Canadian ownership of any industry within our jurisdiction. There is considerable debate throughout the country as to whether we should insist on complete ownership of industry or whether regulations under the act will be sufficient. I suggest that this Parliament could pass those regulations. The companies

September 16, 1971
Private Bills
that would be affected by the passing of such regulations would be quite prepared to live within the bounds of the directions given by this House.
I saw a situation in a commonwealth African nation in which no company disagreed when that country took over the controlling interest in the copper mines in their area. They took over 51 per cent of the shares of the copper mines, and paid for these shares out of the profits from the sale of copper. When I visited there, I found that the company officials were happy to remain in that country and invest in it in spite of those regulations. We call those the developing nations, but they have developed much more quickly than Canada within the last decade.
The time has come to make some type of token offering to the generation who will be coming after us. We must ensure that ownership will remain in Canadian hands, even if it is only 51 per cent ownership. We will be at least somewhat relieved that it is still a Canadian owned corporation, even to that extent. There is a provision in the Bank Act that could be included in this particular bill which should be acceptable to any company coming before us to be federally incorporated. Sections 52 to 56 of the Bank Act could be applicable to this bill. With that application, there should be no need to worry about whether in the future Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas will be passing out of Canadian hands into the hands of some other country, whether it be our friends to the south or some other country.
The time has come to realize that we must have regulations. It is not good enough to say that there is a certain ownership today. We must be concerned about tomorrow. For those who come before us and say that everything will be balanced out and everything will be looked after in the future, we must tell them that we are concerned about future generations and cannot buy their arguments. We learn from the Financial Post survey on oils in 1971 that Mic Mac Oils are going to merge with Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. It will become part of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas because it wants to be federally incorporated.
Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas has quite a history in this country. Morgan Guaranty Trust Company in New York is involved in this situation. It has investments in various provinces of Canada. This company is involved with other carriers serving eastern and western Canada as well as portions of the United States. This fact indicates the kind of processing and where the gas processing plants are. This company also has certain investments in Alaska and, of course, across the border. We should look at the entire area and try to determine the desire behind the incorporation of this company with Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. The information brought before the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce seems strange. The introduction by the counsel for Mic Mac Oil followed directly upon that of Central Del-Rio Limited, which company we are also asking to go along with an amendment to their bill to include 51 per cent Canadian ownership under the Bank Act.
In the examination of this bill by the committee of the other place, they determined that Mic Mac holds petroleum interests in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the North-
(Mr. Skoberg.]
west Territories. I understand from the member who introduced this bill today that one of the reasons the company is asking for an act of incorporation is that it will, in effect, bring it within the realm and under the umbrella of Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas. In the testimony before the Senate Committee, certain areas were covered which should be covered in this House. If policy with respect to Canadian ownership is to be revised it should be initiated when bills of this kind are introduced in the other place. If this is not done it is further indication of a lack of concern for ownership of a type about which we have heard so much lately. My own opinion is that new regulations should be introduced which would allow the machinery of the Combines Investigation Act to apply to areas such as this, giving us an assurance that companies of the type in question are Canadian-owned. As long as we sit in this House and allow bills to go through unaccompanied by restrictions of the kind made pursuant to the Bank Act, no progress can be expected. If we are to do our duty in the House of Commons the least we can do is to introduce amendments in committee to bills such as the one before us, amendments which would be acceptable to all concerned, particularly to Canadians generally whose interests we are supposed to be safeguarding.
In the case of the other bill which was mentioned a short while ago, every effort was made to get the sponsor of the bill to tell us whether he was prepared to accept a condition requiring Canadian ownership. Unfortunately, the committee did not see fit to allow that gentleman to answer the question. I, myself, felt it was quite proper to ask whether or not the sponsor would object to the inclusion of a provision of that type in the bill, which could then have been accepted unanimously by the committee. But it appears that too many people in this House are more concerned with trying to pass bills than they are about the principles contained in those bills. If anything is to be done to bring about legislation to protect the interests of Canadians, this is where it should be done, in this House. It cannot be done in committee if witnesses are denied the right to answer questions put to them by committee members. In the case to which I am referring, it would appear that the value of committees is absolutely nil. It is a matter of regret when it is suggested that questions asked and remarks made with reference to a bill such as this are ruled out of order. It makes one wonder whether the committee system under which members of the House of Commons are called in to study bills in depth is of any use. It appears as though these discussions must increasingly take place on the floor of the House of Commons should members of the committee be denied the right to ask questions in cases when the witness himself does not object to the question being asked of him. I should point out that it was not the chairman who objected, it was the committee itself which took exception to the question though the witness was prepared, I believe, to accept an amendment providing for Canadian ownership.
Looking at the bill before us and going back into history a little we note that Mic Mac Oils was incorporated on September 22, 1951. It became Mac Oils and then in April 1963 it became Mic Mac Oils Limited. Then we reach the present stage at which application is made for incorporation under a federal charter. The head office of Mayfair
September 16, 1971

Oil and Gas is in Edmonton. When one tries to find out who really owns Mayfair Oil and Gas Limited, who controls the shares, it becomes difficult to sort out the corporate structure behind the scenes. The same applies to Consolidated Mic Mac Oils Limited. A lot of the exploration done by this company was carried out in western Canada, which is all to the good as long as a reasonable royalty is levied in respect of that exploration and its results. We all know that Canada receives the lowest payment from royalties of any country in the world today. Yet we sit back with our heads in our hands and cry about being hurt by some other country. We believe that if there were a greater degree of regulation the companies themselves would not object, and the Canadian people would benefit, but as long as we sit back and do absolutely nothing, the companies concerned will take the bull by the horns and behave as they darned well please as far as the Canadian economy is concerned.
As I understand some of the observations made by hon. members, they are not concerned about the question of regulations. I believe that by enforcing certain regulations we could bring into being a much better economic picture and improve employment opportunities considerably. I am sure that some of the companies concerned would be only too pleased to reinvest in this country on a scale which would lead to the creation of employment in secondary industries. Our whole approach to this bill should be whether or not it is likely to be in the best interests of the people. After all, it is the Canadian people who, in a sense, make up the economy, and they would stand to gain a great deal if we did not give everything away. In the bill before us, for example, there is nothing which spells out the need for any type of regulation which would keep ownership in Canada. If the sponsor or any other member opposite could give us some assurance that ownership would be retained here and a provision to that effect inserted in the bill if and when it goes to committee, I am sure no further debate would be necessary. But as I look opposite I cannot help feeling that the sponsor today is probably not in a position to give such an assurance.
However, if this were possible it seems to me there would be no question about the proposal going through and I am sure there would be no debate in committee. I suggest that if this does go to a committee this will be the situation we must consider. We will have to move amendments in committee to in fact guarantee there will be Canadian ownership for ever and a day. Unless we have that guarantee there will be no use considering this type of bill in the House of Commons, because companies will be able to do exactly what they want and no one will be able to protest the passage of special bills.


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


William Arnold Peters: September 16, 1971
7888________________________________
Private Bills
Hill area. It was connected with Texaco (Canada) Limited, which probably is not Canadian-owned. It operated there in 1961 with four wells, of which three were in production. The Texcan-Mic Mac-Mayfair group at this point formed a relationship under the Mayfair holding interest.
If you go over the list you will see it refers to holdings in the Queen Charlottes, and in each case these were mixed up with other very large oil companies, including Penfield and Richfield, many of which were United States companies. What bothers me is that in looking at the financial statements of these companies I find this is not a company in the true sense of the word but is, rather, a stock promotion operation. We have the Mic Mac operation as a holding company and Mic Mac is involved with other companies. You find it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hudson Bay Oil and Gas. That company holds a number of other companies with which we have been concerned. It wholly-owned Mic Mac Oil in 1963 as a subsidiary which was formed by the merger of Consolidated Mic Mac, Mic Mac and Mayfair Oil and Gas.
In 1963 Mic Mac owned Blue Flame Propane Limited, Rangeland Pipe Line Company and Aurora Pipe Line Company. Aurora Pipe Line Company was a very interesting development by some of the buccaneers in the oil industry. Hon. members will remember that a few years ago representatives of Aurora Pipe Line came before Parliament and received a very rough passage over two or three years. That pipeline was only half a mile in length. It joins the Canadian pipeline systems to the U.S. pipeline systems to handle condensates. Condensates are developed industrially from the raw products of gas and oil.
Why did Aurora Pipe Line connect it? It put all the industrial-potential products of the oil industry into the Chicago market rather than leaving them in Canada where we would have developed a highly integrated petroleum derivatives industry. These derivatives were piling up as partially processed products. They have to be disposed of as soon as possible because the longer they are held, the less use can be made of them and, obviously, the lower their price. Inevitably, Canada would have developed the condensates and the wealthy end of the oil industry or the United States would have set up a company in Canada to develop the condensates. In both cases the employment would have stayed in Canada. A great deal of pressure was applied to Members of Parliament and finally the House passed the bill. As a result, Chicago now has 10,000 to 15,000 jobs which went with the condensates industry.
Hudson Bay has been a very valuable company to Canada and has helped exploit it beneficially. It has made it possible for us to ensure we sell our oil. We have a larger trade balance with the United States as a result of selling this oil to them. But we have not done much for Canadians generally, particularly in those instances where the only people who gained, other than those at the industrial and financial end of the operation, were those directly connected with the drilling operations and production of gas and oil in western Canada. The Canadian public in general has received very little gain, and very little employment is being created by an industry that

probably has a greater potential for employment than any other industry or natural resource in the world.
There is a great similarity between Canada and the Arab countries. We have all seen the sheiks riding around in their air-conditioned Cadillacs, with a harem full of beauties, in the oil-rich states. Not long ago another bill was brought before this House and because of the sheiklike attitude of one of the heads of the companies concerned the government was reluctant to commit itself. The sheiks of the Near East have been copied by the sheiks of western Canada, and the peasants of both countries have not derived much benefit from the oil industry.
The oil industry produces, through its coal tar derivatives, a large number of byproducts. It produces paints, plastics, aspirins, all kinds of drugs, even soft drinks. An unlimited amount of byproducts are obtained from the petroleum industry. This company operates in every province in western Canada. In their submission to the Senate committee they bragged they had a company in each of the maritime provinces, both through Hudson Bay, their holding company, and through Mic Mac itself. But do we see aspirin factories here, paint factories there, and plastics factories somewhere else? We see very few factories in western Canada which produce these thousands and thousands of byproducts, from clothing material to dyes and all sorts of other products.
I suggest we do not owe any obligation to companies of this sort. Yet this company has come to Parliament and asked to extend its charter and become a federally chartered company. The reason for wanting this extension is so the company can merge with another. It seems to me rather like marriage between a mother and her son. Hudson Bay already owns Mic Mac, so why does it want to merge? The House sees that there is this kind of relationship.


John Gilbert: An incestuous one.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, and the shareholders will soon realize that. This kind of arrangement has no legitimate basis. If it had, when we passed the Canada Corporations Act we would have passed regulations to allow this kind of incestuous merger. But we did not.
Another company that came to Parliament with the same request was Central-Del Rio. In this case we are being asked to allow this company to do something which, although they do not state it, will obviously affect Canada and the government very seriously, because it will be related to Panarctic Oil and any investment it makes in that company.
There is a company in my area which has forsaken the people of the community who made it possible for them to accumulate a great deal of wealth. This company is deserting the area, as I am sure both Hudson Bay and Mic Mac will desert their communities, for the sake of expansion into new developments both through Panarctic and in the Arctic area itself.
If the purposes of this company were pure, it would have made an application under the new Companies Act, had it approved and gone about its business in the normal manner. But it has not done so, Mr. Speaker, and I think one of the reasons is this. I may not understand it, but those who are interested in this "shyster" business of
September 16, 1971

merges, amalgamations and other manipulations on the stock market will. This company wants to establish itself with a Canadian charter rather than a provincial charter as if that had been the fact prior to the time we passed the law which prohibited such action.
I do not know just what this does to the situation. I am not well versed in high finance and diddling your neighbour on the stock exchange, but obviously there is a reason behind it. If not, why would this company go to the expense and bother of coming to Parliament and asking this House and the Senate to pass a measure which most of us know is shady? Why would it ask us to make an exception in their case? Why would it ask Members of Parliament to sponsor a bill, or members of the Senate? They must take some responsibility in the matter. There must have been something to gain that could not have been gained in the normal course of business. These companies are not foolish. They have been able to make some wild mergers in the past. They have merged companies which held very large acreages of land without, in my opinion, any real shareholder participation.
In many cases there have been mergers by establishing companies which had no shareholder control at all. In many cases the shareholder was a holding company which they had established. But they have been able to establish Mic Mac (1963), Consolidated Mic Mac, United Mic Mac Limited and Texcan Mic Mac. They have changed the name, and they go in and out of business and operate very well.
I am sure that a little guy like you or me, Mr. Speaker, who went into the stock market would remember them because we would not be party to the success they have had from this type of manipulation. Now they come to Parliament and they ask us to legitimize their actions, which obviously cannot be legitimized in any other way.


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, whether or not, as the previous speaker suggested, this is an incestuous act I am not entirely sure; it depends on one's definition of the term. But it is a very clear example of the attitude of government members when Liberal legislation is brought before the House. We have in the House 13 members of the government party, including the members in the rump, either taking notes, yawning or reading the newspaper but not in the least paying attention to the measure that is being discussed, the subject matter of which has rather important implications.


Mr. Francis:: Why should we listen?


John Edward Broadbent: There, again, is a typical Liberal comment. One of the members from the Ottawa area asked, "Why should we listen?"-and this is their attitude at a time when Canada is experiencing the highest level of unemployment in a decade. I will let the people of the country judge the significance of that question.
This measure is about a small concern which will be merged with a large concern. But although the bill only involves one company taking on a new form, it is very important in terms of its significance. At no time in the
Private Bills
House in the past three years have we had a serious debate on the whole question of industrial development with specific reference to the resource industry: we have not had such a debate since the government was formed in June of 1968.
During this period we have seen a continual sell-out of our resources, predominantly to Americans, a completely unthinking continuation of policies begun a number of years ago by the Liberal Party in Canada, one consequence of which we saw in the middle of August of this year when the president of the U.S., for his own very legitimate interests and reasons, took a specific action which profoundly affected the economy of this country in a way that it affected no other country in the world. It did so precisely because of the almost full integration of our two economies. Such integration with the U.S. means, of course, pretty full control of our economy residing south of the border.
One would have hoped, following the events of this summer-events which we have discussed in the question period almost every day since the opening of the House last week-that there would be some policy announcement on the matter of resource development, with specific reference to the petroleum industry. Some time ago the government said they were going to look into the announced intention of Supertest to sell out to British Petroleum. Supertest, as hon. members may know, is the last remaining Canadian-owned oil firm. It is now in the process of being sold. The Liberal Party, the government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), say they will look into it. The minister said that he will report back on what the government plans to do. But we have heard nothing yet.
Recently a book was published in the United States, called "The Greening of America". What we are witnessing in this country is the "Greening" of Canada coming from the minister responsible for resource policy, Mr. Greene. The "Greening" of Canada really means the complete takeover of this country by financial interests which reside south of the border. Rather than supporting the present legislation I would like us first to have a debate on the whole question of resource development. If that is too much to ask of the government, at least let us have a debate on the petroleum industry; let us restrict it to one industry.
roWhy continue with the present merger policy? We have to ask and receive answers to these questions: Who has control of the industry or the particular firm? Who gets the profits? Who benefits in terms of jobs? Will more jobs be created by such a merger in Canada, or will they be created outside this country? I suggest that if we receive an answer to each of these questions we will find, first of all, that control resides outside of Canada, second, profits go outside of Canada and, third, most of the jobs created are outside of Canada.
One industry in this country which we should seriously consider bringing within public ownership is the petroleum industry. It is an industry in a modern economy that has amazing potential for growth, not only in the normal gasoline products area but in the whole petroleum field, the whole plastics industry that is emerging. Right now jobs in secondary industry in this field, which come from research and development, are outside of Canada.

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
They are not here because Shell, B.P. and Esso carry out their research and development in the United States, in France or in Great Britain and they develop their secondary industry in those countries.
All the jobs-and there are thousands of them-that are accruing in this industry do not benefit Canada at all but, rather, benefit other countries which have gained control of our industry. Therefore, if we began to move in a significant direction in regaining control of the petroleum industry, using public capital to get perhaps 50 per cent plus one of the shares, we could do three things simultaneously: first, we could stop the export of profits outside our country and thereby improve our balance of payments situation; second, we could put Canadian scientists to work doing research and development in Canada and, third, get the spin-off products in the petrochemical field which would lead to secondary industry being created here instead of outside the country. Thus we would improve our employment situation. Simultaneously, three worth while objectives could be achieved for Canadians.
Obviously, I do not have time to elaborate on each of these points, but I suggest that this kind of issue, this kind of general situation, should be receiving serious discussion when we have a bill of this nature before the House. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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 same at eight o'clock p.m. May I remind hon. members that at that time a motion to adjourn the House will be presented, pursuant to section 9 of Standing Order 26.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 26, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) seconded by the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, as the first speaker tonight I should like to put on record the motion I moved earlier today. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this was a motion for adjournment under Standing Order 26, where the Chair has sole jurisdiction in determining the importance of the debate in question.

The question we are now debating arises from the serious shortage of cash and income of the Canadian farmer, making it almost impossible for him, not only in western Canada but elsewhere, to continue farming operations and to make a living from farming. This situation has been aggravated by a decrease in the price per bushel of grain, caused by the failure of the Canadian Wheat Board to receive from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, which is the treasury, cash for the storage of grain for the crop year 1970-71 and that portion of the crop year 1971-72 to date.
As I have said, earlier today I moved:
That the House adjourn to discuss the serious cost squeeze and present economic plight of the farmer which has been further aggravated, and their income seriously reduced by the failure of the Canadian Wheat Board to receive moneys for storage of grain for the crop years 1970-71 and 1971-72 to date from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
At the outset I might say that is not solely a debate on the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has broken the law of Canada, that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) has acquiesced in the breaking of the law, plus the fact that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has even failed to print in the Revised Statutes of Canada the statute which spells out the law.
This debate has even more serious ramifications. I am sure that even the farmers who are concerned about their livelihood will appreciate that the debate centres around a more serious problem than the mere materialism involved in the storage of grain. This debate poses the rhetorical question: Is this institution of Parliament, which includes the House of Commons, the Senate and all the law-making processes, to be one that will be controlled by the executive? In brief, shall there be a law that shall apply to some and shall not apply to others? Shall the laws be obeyed by some of the people some of the time, or shall there be laws that will not be obeyed by some of the people all of the time-and here I mean the executive of the country?
Coming to the meat of what we are about to discuss, I wish to refer briefly to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, a statute of Canada passed by Parliament, the supreme law-making power in this country. It is an act which was passed in 1956 by a Liberal government. It has now been flaunted and the government of the day refuses to obey it. Here is what the act provides:
Where, after the 31st day of July, 1955, the stocks of wheat of the board exceed one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of a crop year, the Minister of Finance shall-
Not "may "
-out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, pay to the board for each day in that crop year an amount equal to the portion of the said stocks that exceeds one hundred and seventy-eight million bushels at the commencement of that crop year, multiplied by the carrying charge rate paid by the board at the end of the immediately preceding crop year.
What is that all about? There are two kinds of wheat storage. First there is wheat stored on the farm. In that case the storage is paid by the farmer. But when wheat is finally purchased by the Canadian Wheat Board it is stored in the country elevators which dot the landscape of western Canada, at the Great Lakes which is the shipping centre for sending wheat down the St. Lawrence waterway to Europe, at Vancouver from where it is sent to Asia,
September 16, 1971

or at Churchill from where it is sent both to Europe and Asia. The act provides that where the quantity of wheat stored in this manner exceeds 178 million bushels, the Minister of Finance shall pay out of the treasury so much money to the Canadian Wheat Board for that storage.
That is the law of Canada, which has not been repealed. That was the law which was made by this institution, approved by the Senate and received royal assent. That law is being flaunted today by none other than the Minister of Finance, acquiesced in by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. That is what the debate is about.
The Minister of Finance is not here. I am not making anything of that because we know he is attending an international meeting. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board was dean of the law school of the university from which I graduated in Saskatchewan. That university was founded in 1905. My father saw the brush cleared in Saskatoon and the foundations laid for that institution. This minister, a native son of western Canada, rose to his position because he is a Rhodes scholar. I have students in my own office whom he must have taught that the ethics of law is to understand and obey the law. I am astounded that the dean of that university would come into this institution, with all its traditions, and acquiesce in breaking the law of Canada in respect of the sum of $100 million, more or less.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is hard to grasp the significance of that action. If it had been the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who is merely a water boy to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or a water boy to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, I would understand and probably put it down to ignorance of the law, although that is no defence. But when it is a schooled and trained man who does not and will not accept the seriousness of obedience to the law, how can he ask the citizens of this country to obey the law? There is one law for some who obey and one law for some who do not obey, and I am afraid I have to put the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in the latter category.
We are not only debating tonight whether western Canada has been discriminated against or whether the minister has failed to carry out the terms and conditions of the law but, what is more important, whether this place will be supreme for the people of Canada, whether this place will always be supreme for the freedom of the people of Canada, and whether this place will remain supreme as the law-making institution in Canada and, above all-particularly with this government-whether this place will remain supreme against oppression. We might also ask whether this place will be supreme against law breakers, including the minister and the executive. When I mention the Minister of Finance and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board I might include, in passing, the Minister of Justice.
Tonight I say to the news media of Canada, check the new Statutes of Canada. Go through them. The Minister of Justice has an obligation to print in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, the statutes passed by this institution. Search as you will, you will not find an act called the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. You will have to refer to the old statutes, just as if the act had been repealed. I
Withholding of Grain Payments
must say it is as if they had mens rea-the feeling that they were going to break the law-in the first place, because they would not even print the law.


An hon. Member:: Premeditated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would remind him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that Mackenzie King made a great speech in which he said that the law should be such in Canada that Canadians should know it. A Canadian should be able to find it as he walks, runs, lies in bed or as he reads. How are Canadians to determine the law of this nation when it is hidden, when it is not even in the new statutes? To me that is even more important than what has been done to western Canada.
It will be interesting to see how the minister, a former dean of the law school of Saskatoon, a Rhodes scholar, a man who is supposed to be steeped-I should have said "stooped", because he stooped to break the law-in the law and jurisprudence, defends himself. There is no defence. Members from all over have stood in their place seeking answers. In particular, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has been most tenacious in trying to get answers. Let me put on the record the question he put to the minister after encountering some difficulty:
Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise the House why the federal government has refrained from making payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which is now on the statute books as Canadian law under which the payment of $61 million was to be made to Canadian farmers?
Here is the only answer we could get from the minister after days of probing by the hon. member for Vegreville. This member had moved motions similar to mine day after day, and finally the Speaker in his wisdom granted my motion so that we could have this debate as the people's representatives. The minister replied:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As was indicated to the House last October, it was the belief of the government it was a much better form to make payments directly to farmers of the $100 million rather than make payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act-
In other words he said, "Look, I belong to the cabinet. I never sat as a backbencher. When I came here I was like the bishop, I had a laying on of hands and I became the minister. In that position I do not care about the law; I supersede the law with my own knowledge." What the minister wants, and the new jurisprudence he has developed for Canada shows, is that Canada should be governed by the rule of people and not the rule of law. That must be the jurisprudence he wants; but if he taught it at the law school from which I graduated, it must have been after I left. I do not recall any professor teaching me that the executive rules the country. I do recall what the Nazis did in Germany. They burned down the Reichstag because they did not want a parliament.
If you are going to carry on this way you might as well lock the door, because you are treating us like children in a play-pen dancing to your tunes; you are a puppet of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I do not do this lightly, Mr. Speaker, but tonight I call for the resignation of the minister from

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
Saskatoon-Humboldt, a native son of western Canada, for his disobedience of the law and for running slipshod over this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe he had better take the Minister of Finance with him, Mr. Speaker. In reference to the white paper I once called him a small town bookkeeper. Perhaps he had better go too, because under the act it says that he shall pay. I leave the Minister of Justice to worry. He is a young man, well educated, steeped in jurisprudence and ambitious for the chair. I will allow him to sit with his own conscience tonight because if his ambition is what I think it is, the people will take a second look at him as Minister of Justice of this country because he will not even see his own ministers fulfil the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Progressive Conservative party can be proud of the legislation it has put on the statute books for western Canada and the western farmers. We were responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board under the premiership of Mr. Bennett. We introduced ARDA, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and, above all, the agricultural stabilization legislation which provided that the price of certain commodities should never fall below a ten-year average. These particular statutes, approved by Parliament, are the very foundation of the economics of the farm community of western Canada. They are the birthright of the farmers of western Canada, together with the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. That is what this party has done and we are proud of our record in that regard.
What is this government trying to do? They are trying to abolish storage payments. Not only are they trying to abolish the storage paid on grain in the amount I mentioned in my opening remarks, but they want to abolish or repeal the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which is basically a crop insurance measure. Actually, they want to abolish everything that may help the average man to remain on the family farm in western Canada. They have broken the law and, I repeat, that shows they are discriminating against western Canada.
I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, what he has against farmers. What has this government against the farmers of western Canada? Rural Canada may be disappearing because of urbanization, yet within the rural areas of Canada the heartbeat is strong. The pioneering spirit is there. The spirit of freedom moves, and it will move again when the votes are counted after the next election. I predict that the minister who is head of the Wheat Board and who represents part of the city of Saskatoon, a city which relies on the agricultural industry, will not be among those re-elected to this institution over which he has run so slipshod.


An hon. Member:: Resign.


An hon. Member:: Otto, go.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The amount of wheat in storage in the 1965 crop year was $33.5 million; in 1966 it was $36,802,-

000; in 1967 it was about $46 million and in 1968 it was about $79 million. We are the only wheat exporting nation in the world that does not subsidize this industry. At present we are considering the only small subsidy that is paid by the taxpayers of Canada for the storage of grain. It does not apply to grain on farms that is owned by farmers; it applies to grain that the Canadian Wheat Board buys. In addition to supporting the supremacy of Parliament and the principle of the supremacy of freedom, the government ought to obey the law relating to farmers. Never before in the history of Canada, not even in the depression, have the farmers of western Canada been so hard pressed to pay their bills.
May I conclude my speech-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -by referring to what the Prime Minister once said. I knew the hon. member over there would applaud. The Prime Minister said, "Go and sell your own wheat." He well knew that the Wheat Board, under the law, has the power to sell wheat, and that if the government does not act in co-operation and liaison with the Canadian Wheat Board wheat cannot be sold. Men have been fined and sent to jail in western Canada because they dared transport a bushel of wheat from one province to another and sell it.
Surely, if the law applies to the farmers of this nation, it should apply to the ministers of this nation. Perhaps the legal beagles of this nation should take a look at the situation and consider what the order of the courts might be. I read three authorities this afternoon which I am sure are familiar to the dean: I am sure he has read them carefully. One is "High's Extraordinary Legal Remedies"; another is on special remedies, "Mandamus and Prohibition", by Short; and the third is "Extraordinary Legal Remedies", by Ferris. These three-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member may continue only if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will not abuse my privilege; many hon. members wish to speak. May I say that when a minister of the Crown refuses to carry out the law, you can obtain an old remedy and get an order of mandamus forcing the minister or ministers to carry out the law. Perhaps the farmers of this nation should look at the law with legal counsel to see if they cannot get a writ of mandamus to force the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister, and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to carry out the law of Canada, before this institution disappears.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the previous speaker. He said that we should proceed in law to demand that a minister
September 16, 1971

or ministers of the Crown in this Parliament discharge the responsibilities which have been laid on them by Parliament and which go back as far as 1956.
During the summer recess I met farmers in my constituency who were concerned about this matter. They wired the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), asking for action in this matter. They did not receive satisfaction. So it has become necessary in this House to seek a remedy for the abuse of privilege which the government has exercised. The hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), seconded by myself, moved the adjournment of the House in order that the government might make-
-the payments to the Canadian Wheat Board specified in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956, so that an immediate improvement can be made in the economic position of western farmers.
In seeking justice under this act we seek justice for the western farmer. That justice must be sought in this House by members of the House no matter what party they represent. I say to hon. members: If you fail to carry out the provisions of a piece of legislation which' has been enacted in this House you will provide the basis for another segment of society to do the same thing tomorrow.
We could raise all sorts of arguments as to why these payments should be made to the Canadian Wheat Board, and from there to the western wheat farmer. A few days ago in this House I quoted figures put out by the president of the Alberta Wheat Pool, to show that the income of the western farmer has declined by 44 per cent and that the western farmer is lagging far behind in income and standard of living. Apart from the legal aspects of government action, or lack of action, the figures show that there is a callous disregard of the income situation which faces western farmers at this juncture of our history. It is within the context of the situation facing the western farmer that the enormity of the action of the federal government ought to be judged.
If the government were looking at an industry that was booming and wealthy, maybe then they could find some justification for the action they have taken. However, this is not what the government is looking at. They are looking at an industry that is in difficult circumstances. They have worked out a program that they hope will get them off the hook. In order to get them off the hook completely they are going to make it retroactive to 1970 so that they can save some money which legitimately they should have paid. According to the evidence given to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, this amounts to approximately $60 million. The figure, based on the payment to the farmers out of the last pool, would have been somewhere between 9 and 10 cents a bushel.
The government persisted in this approach despite the fact that the surcharge the United States put on certain products entering that country from Canada will aggravate an already difficult situation. They persist in this approach at a time when we are going to face increasingly tough competition overseas. The government is persisting in reducing the support which the western farmer now needs for entering export markets.
7893
Withholding of Grain Payments
According to an article in the September 9 edition of the Western Producer, with the exception of wheat all grains which we are selling on export markets have declined compared to this time last year. Rapeseed is $2.22 4 compared to $2.291 a year ago, rye is 88-7/8 cents compared to $1.09-1/4 a year ago, flax is $2.30-5/8 compared to $2.71-3/4 a year ago, barley is $1.03-3/4 compared to $1.19-3/8 a year ago, oats are 66-3/8 cents compared to 88-7/8 cents a year ago. The price of wheat is slightly higher, $1.73-5/8 compared to $1.70-5/8 a year ago.
It is in these circumstances that the minister and the government have persisted in their attitude toward the western farmer. It is in these circumstances that the government finds $85 million to assist industry in central Canada. Primarily, that assistance will go to central Canada. The government has set up a program and a pattern which, like the law of the Medes and the Persians, cannot be altered; it is sacrosanct.
The best advice that can be given this evening to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is that he reconsider Bill C-224. He should consider a real program for the grains industry in Canada that will enable it to survive and be a viable industry. But no, I expect he will defend what is essentially an indefensible bill and continue to say that we must repeal, retroactively, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and save the government the money it should have paid to the farmers under that act. I expect the minister to say that the government will repeal the PFAA, which has been of considerable assistance to farmers, so they can slough off western farmers every day of every year.
If the minister had come into this House with a program to replace or improve the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, it would have been examined. It could have been seriously considered by this House. But no, he wants to dump the total cost of the storage on the farmer and give him no assistance this year, despite the fact that the grain in that pipeline not only benefits the farmer but those who haul and load it. It benefits the whole economy of western Canada.
When the stabilization bill was questioned, the minister accused those on this side of the House of filibustering it. This first occurred in May when the bill had barely come to the floor of this House. The other day I asked him a question about this matter and he again said that those who chose to question him were filibustering the bill.
The minister brought in a bill of such doubtful value that all the farm organizations in western Canada which appeared before the standing committee called the bill into question and condemned it. We questioned representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canada Grains Council. We asked questions about how this bill would work. We asked what these payments were based upon, and figures were put before the committee to show how they were arrived at. We asked representatives of the grain co-operatives whether we could operate effectively without adequate amounts of grain in storage. The answer was no, we could not. In spite of all this, the minister plowed ahead. We asked him how the stabilization aspects of the bill would apply to co-operatives, partnerships and corporations which are now becoming common among farmers in western Canada. He did not have the answers, Mr. Speaker. Then he has the gall to

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
accuse those who question the effectiveness of his brainchild, of filibustering and obstruction.
The late C. D. Howe was not, perhaps, regarded as a great sugar-daddy in western Canada but he did appreciate the necessity of giving assistance in carrying the amount of grain which has to be carried if we are to market it effectively. The late Jimmy Gardiner saw the necessity for PFAA and put it into effect to meet the circumstances of the time.
This is all to be scrapped and in its place we are presented with the stabilization bill which will guarantee farmers the level of gross income of the last five years, a level which the president of the Alberta Wheat Pool says has dropped 44 per cent since 1967. We are to be guaranteed this level and we are to put up 2 per cent of the gross income of the western farmer to guarantee it: this is the trade-off.
The previous speaker discussed the legal aspects of what is now being done. I am talking also about the moral and economic aspects of these proposals. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he came to power talked of a just society-and this is the just society, a society in which they violate the moral and legal procedures of this country, a society in which they violate the moral economics of a large sector of this country!
At a time when there is a serious decline in income in part of the country they propose to remove the assistance which existed, and they do not propose to replace it. We have a Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) who stands in this House when we are asking what is the program for western farmers, or for all the farmers of Canada so far as that is concerned. When we ask what provision has been made for the producers of food as against the provision made for those who manufacture and process in this country, the Minister of Agriculture says this matter will be dealt with commodity by commodity.
He should listen to the radio or read the letters I am getting from producers of potatoes, of hogs, of apples. They are in a desperate situation because of the surcharge which the United States has placed on many of their commodities. The Minister of Agriculture says this question be dealt with commodity by commodity, but with regard to what single commodity has he come into the House and said, since the surcharge was imposed, "On this particular commodity we are going to act". This is the just society!


An hon. Member:: Just for Grits.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, just for Grits. If the government and the minister wanted to do something they would withdraw the stabilization bill. But even if the minister does not want to do that he should allow the payments which should have been made under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and distribute that money among the farmers. He has sent out a lovely lot of chits, little bits of paper, to all the farmers in western Canada. I have one. He said,
in effects, "If I had paid you, you would have got so much money". Some of the farmers there took him seriously. Some of them said to me, "When do we get it?" I replied, "I don't know when you will get it; and if you do get it, it will cost you more than the amount of the cheque that you receive. It will be a bad deal". But the minister and the government persist in their refusal to carry out the law of the land, first; and, second, to carry out their moral obligations to the farmers of western Canada. In order to get a debate in the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired unless he receives the unanimous consent of hon. members to continue. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member to resume his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. I have almost completed my remarks. I merely want to say that in order to get a forum in which this matter could be debated, the House had to accept a motion under Standing Order 26 and receive a favourable ruling from the Speaker. We had to do this before we could bring before the people of Canada the injustice which is being visited upon western farmers.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if the motion now under consideration is quite important for the western farming community, it is also for all Canadian farmers.
I would like to point out in the first place that both members, who moved the adjournment of the House in accordance with Standing Order 26, should be congratulated.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I am rising in this debate is that I want to show the solidarity which we should feel all across the country. In short, in view of the seriousness of this problem, we ought to make our contribution and urge the government to carry out these measures which have been voted by Parliament.
The Chair allowed this debate to take place because it recognized the seriousness of this problem, and this is the reason why tonight we have the opportunity to examine the situation which prevails in western Canada.
It will be remembered that Parliament passed an act intended to provide western grain producers with a guaranteed income, and that several million dollars were voted for that purpose. However, what is happening now? As a matter of fact the government is blamed for not carrying out that act, for not giving to the farmers, to the wheat producers of the Prairies the opportunity to benefit from that act. That is precisely the reason why the opposition has moved that motion in order to draw the attention of the government and of the public to the seriousness of that problem.
It seems more and more obvious to me that the farmers of the Prairie suffer from the fact that this act is not carried out. Indeed in a speech made on January 28, 1970
[Mr. Gleave.)
September 16, 1971

in Winnipeg at the annual meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the minister responsible for the Wheat Board announced a bright future for the western wheat growers.
At that time, if my memory does not fail me, the Canadian government had proposed acreage reductions in order to set up a quota system ensuring better control of the grain production in the West, and guaranteeing to grain producers not only decent prices but also incomes in relation with the amount of work they must spend on the operation of their farm.
At that time, this is what the minister told us:
The future prosperity of our grain producers in western Canada requires a significant reduction of our present wheat surplus and the only way of achieving this objective is to carry out acreage reductions, and while deducing our wheat surplus we must also make sure we do not have surpluses of other crops.
Mr. Speaker, all of us felt that this policy could be beneficial, at a certain time, but we have had to realize that it was not so for the western grain producers or the eastern milk producers, nor for the swine breeders or poultry farmers or egg producers. At present, the situation is tragic. I believe the federal cabinet as well as those who are concerned with agricultural problems, are in a position to find that the situation is the same in eastern Canada, in the Maritimes, in Quebec and in Ontario.
In fact, many hog farmers lose money producing pork meat or breeding piglets because of transportation problems while cereals are sold in the east at impossible prices, with the result that production costs increase in the eastern part of the country without at the same time and in a normal way favouring western cereal producers.
This means that eastern farmers do not get the share of the national income to which their activity entitles them while grain farmers in the west are also the victims of a situation detrimental to their interests.
That is why we must work hand in hand to make the situation known to the government and ask it to apply the policy in which it believes since it made the Canadian Parliament vote those bills by showing that Bill C-239 aimed at ensuring some stability in the income of western grain producers.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-244 brought before Parliament in 1970 contained the following provisions:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds; to provide for the calculation, authorization and rate of stabilization payments to actual producers resident in Canada; to establish the Prairie Grain Stabilization Account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund; to provide for a levy to be deducted from all grain sale proceeds; to provide for refunds of over-payments of levy and for the payment of the amount of any deficit including interest of the Canadian Wheat Board relating to the grain and pool period that closed or closes on or after July 31, 1970;...
Now, under the provisions of this bill introduced in the House as a prodigious means of assuring to western grain producers some guarantee of stability, we have deemed appropriate, as parliamentarians and after having received the proper explanations, to give it our agree-
24319-m
Withholding of Grain Payments
ment and, today, it is the producers themselves who complain about its non application.
Another legislation, Bill C-239, entitled "An Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act" was passed by this House, and I believe that it is the failure to implement this act which has incited the western grain producers to show their dissatisfaction with the situation, and with reason. In fact, the ministers concerned by the motion are directly responsible for this situation, and it is up to Parliament to seriously consider this problem so as to enlighten this government on this situation, so that a profitable solution be brought as soon as possible.
When there are farming problems concerning the western grain producers or the farmers in the Maritimes, in Quebec or Ontario-be it a matter of dairy products, egg production, fowl meat or pork-one would think that the Canadian government does not want to bother with it, and that is regrettable.
Mr. Speaker, we have recently seen conditions which could affect part of the Canadian people. I refer indeed to the American surcharge on Canadian imports. Now, the government immediately sought the advice of its legal advisers and of all its experts in order to develop a policy which would lessen the disastrous effects of that tax policy on Canadian imports.
I agree with the government that in such circumstances we must take very quick decisions and it is probably why the government introduced in the House the bill which we studied last week to ensure the stability of employment in Canada, as mentioned in the bill.
I agree with all that, but we must not neglect at the same time another form of economic activity in Canada, that is agriculture which not only affects the grain producers themselves, but also the organized trade, our cooperatives, our western and eastern beef producers as well as all other spheres of production in eastern Canada. In short, this policy could prove disastrous for the whole country if income security is not ensured all classes of our society.
I feel that in this debate, we should prove our sense of responsibility, and I trust that tomorrow perhaps the government will take the necessary steps to implement this measure and see to it that the western grain producers receive their due without delay.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a vast country, in which there are ten provinces, where various tongues are spoken. In eastern Canada, when Parliament passes measures favouring the western producers, we meet people who, perhaps for political reasons, take advantage of this situation and tell Quebecers or New Brunswickers: "All your tax money is going out to western Canada". And today, we see that western farmers make representations in this House and say to the government: "We have not received what we were entitled to under the law".
Western farmers are dissatisfied and at the same time eastern farmers are displeased because they were told that all the money is going to the west. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We have to lay our cards on the

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
table and prove to Canadians that we in Parliament are assuming our responsibilities towards both eastern and western Canada, and that we are trying to be wise, honest and fair towards all provinces. That is how we will achieve the unity which must prevail in Canada.
I for one, as a producer of eastern Canada and as a member, felt it my duty to support the demands contained in the motion and to associate myself with the hon. members who are willing to describe a disastrous situation for the producers of western Canada, without blaming nobody in that part of the country, but trying at the same time to make the government understand that there are also in eastern Canada problems which are generated by the prevailing situation in Western Canada.
Only last week I received representations from mill owners and co-op representatives who are unable to find supplies in a normal way and at competitive prices because of those that are set today on the international market. The result of this is increased production costs for eastern producers who in turn will have to turn to the federal government and ask for special legislation in order to get the protection that will allow them to derive reasonable income from their farm or herd operations.
If we all make a serious attempt here in Parliament to find the proper solutions to our agricultural problems, and this without discriminating against any area of this country, we will be known as men of responsibilities, and this is sure to be felt among the population. This will enable us to continue building a better country in which to live and where all social classes, the farmers included, will get their fair share of the national income.
For this reason I support the motion and I ask the government to take the necessary steps to bring justice to our grain producers in western Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker this debate began with a motion which re-cited, in the first place, a serious income problem among farmers in western Canada. There is no doubt at all about the seriousness of that problem. It is for that reason that I witness here tonight, with particular regret, a continuation of the attempt by hon. members opposite, particularly the prairie members among the Conservatives and NDP, to make political capital out of the plight of the western farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, ohl


Otto Emil Lang: They attempt in this House to block and filibuster every measure that is brought forward to help the prairie farmer, and in committee they do the same. Then out on the prairies they take credit, on the one hand, for stopping some imaginary plan of the government's and, on the other hand, they blame the government for not acting on and proceeding with the very legislation which they block in this House and prevent from going through. Prairie members among the Conservatives and NDP also make it a full-time occupation to

go among the farmers and spread gloom and doom in every way they know. The problems of the prairie farmer are very real in a world of low grain prices, subsidized competition and rising costs, without the doom and gloom spreaders working among the farmers to create additional feelings of despair.
I have nothing but contempt for those who, having heard the government time and time again say in this House that it is going to do everything it can to make the agricultural industry as efficient and as effective as possible for as many prairie farmers as possible, then go to the prairie regions and talk about some government plan for taking farmers off the farms. As I said, I have nothing but contempt for that kind of doom and gloom, this spreading of despair and deceit.
One of the things which caused the greatest difficulty for the prairie farmer was that over the years government after government had been afraid to tackle problems relating to agriculture. They had been afraid because they worked on a simple political maxim which was far too simple, namely, that doing nothing is far safer than trying to do something to correct a difficult problem.
Since my association with this government and my connection with this particular problem I have been determined-and my colleagues were ready, fully, to join with me in this-to try to tackle the problem and solve it, so that when we had finished the attempt the situation would be better than before, so that in legislating there might be left in years to come some improvements, whether in the quota system, the system of stabilization or the Market Development Fund, which would be permanent. What we want to do is to put the acreage of the prairies to better use.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) went through a litany of what the Conservatives had done for the prairie farmer over their many years in office. He found two items: the Wheat Board and cash advances. He did not remember to say that the Conservatives in their day had indeed set up the Wheat Board but had left it as a mere puff without power until the Liberal government gave it some power and gave it the ability to sell farmers' grain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: I quite agree with him about the merits of the cash advance system. In fact, the one thing that I can find in the Conservative record which remained to help the prairie farmer more than a year or so after it had been legislated and put into existence is the cash advance measure. Of course, in the case of the cash advance we found it and we doubled it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Otto Emil Lang: Members of the opposition in recent weeks have been reacting with surprise to the fact that it is the intention of this government to repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as of July 31, 1970. We indicated our
September 16, 1971

general approach to prairie farmers in October, 1970. The bill containing the formal proposal appeared in this House for first reading on April 29. The hon. member for Calgary North, who learned his law at a great law school, recited the statutes but he did not have the fairness to admit that the moment Bill C-244 is enacted into law, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is repealed effective July 31, 1970 and $100 million can be paid out to the farmers. Farmers would then be far better off than if anything else had been done in this area for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members opposite saw before this House three important pieces of legislation directly related to grain appearing for first reading, for second reading and for further processing during the course of April and May of last year. What did they do? In the case of the cash advance legislation, they spoke for something like three days of House time, valuable as it is, saying one after another that they agreed with the bill, but saying it for three days. That is the kind of approach that they take to House time in terms of delaying. They knew they were delaying the bill which was to come next, which was Bill C-244. Look at the record on Bill C-244-once again meandering speeches not dealing with the merits of the bill but dealing with the agricultural situation generally and going on for days. Then, in committee, we witnessed delaying tactics such as one had never seen before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vegreville wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Mazankowski:: I wonder if the minister would agree to point out to hon. members that a mere 12 hours was spent on Bill C-244 in the House and something like-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: I can only gather-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Downey:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering, Sir, if it is not within your power to protect the members of this House from this distortion of fact and this inconsequential drivel.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. With respect I might indicate to the hon. members who have risen on points of order that they are really questions of debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I think you must agree, Mr. Speaker, that this shows the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-
Withholding of Grain Payments
kowski) is not in the House often enough because he does not know how many days 12 hours makes.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Will the hon. member resume his seat, please.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of privilege. The dates are recorded here. I have them before me if the House would permit me to read the dates-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I think we are embarking on a debate on points of debate, and I know that the hon. member for Vegreville will have an opportunity to speak shortly. I now recognize the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: I know that hon. members will agree that sometimes when speaking about the problems of the prairie farmer I get carried away and excite a certain amount of reaction from the other side of the House. I apologize for doing that, although the cause deserves every bit of vigour that it can be given.
When Bill C-244 finally got through committee after having been held up, particularly by members of the NDP-not those from Saskatchewan who were busy campaigning but several others who remained here from other parts of the country to block the bill we tried to move it forward in every way we knew. A technical objection by an NDP member prevented it from coming on for first and second reading in its ordinary course. Then, when we finally got to the bill on June 22, unfortunately the night before a provincial election, we moved for an extension of time, and hon. members opposite, who say they are so concerned about prairie agriculture, stood and refused to allow an extension of time that night. They refused to let the bill be debated.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members opposite have not said yet, and I am waiting to hear from them, whether they would prefer the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act payment instead of the $100 million payment under Bill C-244 because the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act payment, at a cost of $60 million to the treasury, would have meant the transfer to the farmers of $40 million in June of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Put your feet on the floor and your head over the clouds.


Otto Emil Lang: The stabilization bill will mean a transfer of $100 million. The only farmers who would be better off by the payment of the $40 million which they would have received under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act instead of the $100 million they will get under Bill C-244 when it becomes law are those farmers who delivered in 1969-70 over 10,000 bushels of wheat. Only those with the

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments very largest farms, with whom members opposite often refuse to have anything to do, would have benefited. Those with smaller farms will get something like two to three times as much money under Bill C-244. I hope that we will soon again be dealing with Bill C-244 in this House. I only ask that hon. members allow the issues therein to come to a vote. It has been their tactic to avoid this happening, and this should not be allowed to happen again. The money can be paid out as soon as that bill becomes law.
As the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, I have been trying to do many things.


Some hon. Members:: Pay up.


Otto Emil Lang: I have been unwilling to stand pat. I have been unwilling to leave things alone for fear of the political consequences to me. Hon. members opposite regularly have been saying that in the next election I will be defeated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: They are now saying, under the leadership of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who would have made a fine house leader for Machiavelli, that I should be in jail. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that I am going to go on fighting for the western prairie farmer, trying to do things I know will help him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I am going to fight for his causes every way I know how. I am going to try to do things quickly, and sometimes take short cuts to do them instead of being held up in a legal morass. And, Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite cannot prevent me from doing everything that I know how to help the prairie farmer by frightening me with threats of jail or defeat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would gladly go to jail in the cause of the prairie farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what hon. members opposite will not refer to, what hon. members opposite are trying to cloud over is the fact that improvements are being made, and that last year we did accomplish a year of record grain exports from the prairie region.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Against their gloom and doom, I say that there are real problems which we must face and which we must tackle. I say that we must expand sales in every way we know how.
I am happy to say that to this point this year exports of Canadian grain are running ahead of the levels of last year, even though last year we set a record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on March 15, when I introduced the final statement for the year, which was the basis for the stabilization bill, I indicated to the House that in my view while we were taking vigorous action to promote sales, while we were doing a variety of specific things to put treasury money into the hands of the prairie farmers, notwithstanding all that, we must continually examine the question of whether the prairie farmers' income at that point in time at the end of any program is adequate. I believe that examination must go on, and I will fight for that examination to take place. I will fight for steps to be taken to help the prairie farmer in every case that this can be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, members of t* Conservative party from the Prairies met not long ago in Saskatoon and unanimously endorsed their support for the Canadian Wheat Board. But having done that, they moved a resolution which really effectively suggested that it have its legs and arms cut off, and that it go about the world as a eunuch.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: They said, "We want the Canadian Wheat Board, but take away all its powers. Let us retain the Canadian Wheat Board, but let it only deal with the quotas and the transportation system," which is the equivalent of saying, "Let it stop being a seller of Canadian wheat, let it go as a protector of the farmer in the orderly marketing of wheat."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister but I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The m ister may, of course, continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there-such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I much appreciate the indulgence of hon. members. I should very much like to review in full the many things we have done for the prairie farmer, but I will only touch briefly on some of the highlights. Hon. members opposite are not mentioning the fact that we have record sales.
The Conservative party does not mention the fact that last year's record compares with totals in the range or averaging just over the 400 million bushel sales they had during their years in office from 1957 to 1963. Last year, the figure was 696 million bushels, compared with their average of just above 400 million bushels, a fantastic difference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Otto Emil Lang: In the years when they had something to do with the government we saw, with respect to barley sales, our entry into the world feed grain market gradu-
September 16, 1971

ally dwindle into insignificance until, in the final year 1962-63, only 15 million bushels of barley were exported. Yet these are the people who say that we should be aggressive sellers. Mr. Speaker, the first thing we did was to say to the Canadian Wheat Board, "We will guarantee you credit as you sell grain throughout the world. We will assist you with a partial payment of interest if you have to reduce interest rates when iyou are selling to developing countries."
With that kind of help they moved into markets like Syria and Egypt, where they had never been previously, and back into Brazil, the Phillipines, and Peru where they had not been for years. That is the kind of action that contributed to record sales last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Otto Emil Lang: We were also being told by some observers, some of the experts, that there was no real place for Canadian feed grain in the markets of the world. We said that need not be so. We said to the Canadian Wheat Board, "You go out with all the vigour you can, and look for a barley market." They have gone after that market. In the very first year of doing so our exports went up to 84 million bushels, and last year moved up to 172 million bushels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


Otto Emil Lang: We need to be in the feed grain markets of the world, and we expect to assist in the additional research necessary to improve that grain or to develop other grains in order to keep ourselves in the forefront of those markets. For this reason, there was recently announced the establishment of the Crop Research Institute at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon to augment, as a result of fundamental support from the National Research Council, research into the kind of grain which can be grown for better markets in the world. At the same time, we set up the market development fund as a sales weapon leading to a flexible approach to selling which will allow us to support Canadian businesses wanting to go into flour milling or rapeseed milling abroad. By doing that, perhaps they can assure a better access to the market for Canadian grain and lead to a future of greater sales.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: What about wheat and the law? That is the question.


Otto Emil Lang: In the case of the handling and transportation system, we have launched a vigorous series of studies into the changes that may be necessary. We refused to sit still and say that it is a dangerous question to touch. I say that if there is a way to say to the prairie farmer that he can save a significant amount of money, I want to get at the facts even if the gloom and doom sayers over there will spread threats and notions of disaster from the very fact that we are trying to do something to make it possible for the prairie grain farmer to market his grain at lower cost. What we have said in connection with the studies, how this present
Withholding of Grain Payments handling system works and how alternatives can work- alternatives like cleaning more grain on the Prairies and shipping it to the coast by unit train-we have said in connection with those studies, and the government has taken the policy decision, that any change which could be made in that direction should be made only with the full support of the producers. We have also said that when such change is made the bulk of benefit must be allowed to go back to the producers. We said that in favour of the prairie farmer in terms of his grain deliveries-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is all irrelevant to the question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-244 will shortly be before the House again. When it is, I ask hon. members opposite to look at it fairly and to allow us full time to pass that bill and get the $100 million into the hands of the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Otto Emil Lang: There is no doubt, and there never has been any doubt, about the fact that what we have been doing with Bill C-244 was, in terms of 1970-71, attempting to take the $60 million which the Treasury might otherwise have spent under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, to add $40 million new money, and pay the total to the grain producers as $100 million instead of $60 million. As far as the rest of the program is concerned, it meant the assurance of a contribution by the Treasury of more money through the stabilization fund than would have been available to the farmer under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in future years.


William Arnold Peters: That is not true; you know it is not true.


Otto Emil Lang: It is certainly true.


William Arnold Peters: It is not. The maximum would be $40 million.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor.


Otto Emil Lang: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who was so busy blocking things in committee, obviously never found out that there is no limit to the government's contribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: There is a limit, and you know that.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if exports could be brought up to the one billion bushel level, which I think we have to start taking as our target before long, and if sales can amount to the $2 billion level, under the bill the government of Canada is committed to pay 4 per cent of 90 per cent of those marketings into the fund, however high that rises. In addition, if at any time the stabilization fund does not have enough money to bring the producers' income up to the previous five year average, under the bill the government of Canada is committed to lend to the fund, interest free, whatever amount of money is required to make that kind of payment. The Temporary

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
Wheat Reserves Act was going to become far less important to the farmer in the future because we were not going to allow wheat to block the elevator system to the extent that grain could not effectively be moved to market. Moving the grain to market is the prime function of the handling system, not being blocked with grain. That is why-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wonder if the hon. Minister would answer a question at this time, Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have some confidence that at the rate I am going I will answer all his questions before I am finished.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that a commitment?


Otto Emil Lang: It is because of our belief that the handling and transportation system must be allowed to get grain to market that we must be prepared for a maximum year. We cannot afford to have one bushel of grain standing in the way of the rapid movement of grain. Because of that, for the first time in a long period farmers in the prairie region found this year that they were able to deliver a little bit of grain once again from their combines to the elevators at harvest time instead of finding the system plugged with grain on August 1. I would like to explain to members from other parts of Canada what a nonsensical system that was. We used to find the elevators plugged with grain on August 1. Farmers would have a great crop ready to be harvested in the month of September and the elevator system would be plugged so that not an additional bushel of grain could be added. We said that there had to be some sensible approach to inventory. In saying that, in the Lift program we added $60 million to the income of the prairie farmer to help him make an adjustment to his inventory.
That was not an easy program, Mr. Speaker, and my advisers told me to take another year or two before doing that. I said that we could not wait, that we had to get our handling system into shape and supplies of grain into the proper place as rapidly as possible because of the tremendous need to get additional income into the hands of the prairie farmer. I told my advisers that there are only two places where the prairie farmer who sells his grain is going to get his income; one is from his sales and the other is from the Treasury. I said that try as any of us might, there is a finite and very real limit to what can be obtained for the prairie farmer from the Treasury at any time and that, therefore, the tremendous drive must be to sell more grain, to get our grain out into the world.
I am sorry to take so long, Mr. Speaker, and I pray the indulgence of all hon. members, but I should like to say a few words about why the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was therefore going to be worth so much less. Just by getting a little reduction of wheat in the system, a little space in the system, just by making a little room for rapeseed which was becoming a very important crop and
just by making a little room for barley which we said we had to market into the world, this year the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would have dropped in value to only $26 million and by next year the amount would have been very insignificant indeed. Against that we built in these commitments without limit-a commitment, I say to the hon. member for Timiskaming without limit-to 4 per cent of the 90 per cent of the crops marketed by the prairie farmer, into the stabilization fund to be paid out to the farmer in those years when he has his greatest difficulty. With regard to the bill that has been in the House and before the committee, I find that I owe a tremendous debt-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Pay up, Otto, pay up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Otto Emil Lang: -of gratitude to my colleagues on the Liberal side of the House who represent constituencies in the Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia as well as members from the prairie provinces. I am thinking particularly of those members from parts of the country other than the prairies, who sat through the irrelevancies of hon. members opposite in the House and in committee and who helped to get this bill to its present stage, the report stage. I thank them on behalf of the prairie farmers. I want to say to them that I will try to inform the prairie farmer of the efforts made on his behalf, of the attitude they have expressed towards his problem and of the growing understanding that they are helping to bring across this country regarding the real problems of the prairie farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Wellington has risen, I think, to ask a question. Other hon. members wish to be recognized. I will recognize first the hon. member. May I remind all hon. members in the chamber that the minister, of course, will have to indicate whether or not he is prepared to answer questions. That being so, I will recognize the hon. member for Wellington.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a question, if he will answer. Is he agreeable?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am not a prairie farmer but I wish to ask the minister this question. Does he not agree that legislation passed by this House and on the statute books of Canada should be enforced until such time as it is amended or repealed by other legislation?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is an easy, general question to answer in the affirmative. In this particular case, having announced the government's policy of repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act effective July 31,

September 16, 1971

1970, and substituting therefor the $100 million payment under the stabilization bill for that same crop year, we could fairly easily have in fact made the payment to the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not do it?


Otto Emil Lang: We could have done that with the intention that upon the enactment of the bill, the amount indicated would have to be repaid by the Wheat Board to the government of Canada, in which case the Wheat Board would have had to carry that in the contingency fund. If I had done that, I think some hon. members opposite might have dragged the Wheat Board into partisan political debate and I thought it might be better to have that partisan political debate aimed at myself rather than at the Wheat Board. I believe, above all that, with the hidden enemies of the Wheat Board which are located over there in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Otto Emil Lang: -that the Wheat Board should be protected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister wears the halo of a confused martyr with all that rectitude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Can he tell the House by what legal authority, order in council, minute of the Treasury Board, or what have you, the government has refrained from paying the money set out in the Temporary Reserves Wheat Act and, in particular, since he has referred to the fact that Bill C-244 was introduced on April 29, 1971, by what authority were those payments not made between August 1, 1970, and April, 1971, when they were required to be made on a monthly basis under the provisions of Chapter 2 of the statutes of 1956?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, when this House speaks in enacting Bill C-244, as it will presumably if the opposition will allow that to happen and as the government intends and proposes-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But the minister has no right to anticipate that.


Otto Emil Lang: -then the effect of that law will be the removal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as of July 31, 1970. It was on the prospective implementation, therefore, of this bill that the government acted to carry out what would be the proper result the moment that bill is passed. I indicated that we could, indeed, have made the payment and have held the money in trust for return, but I had good reason for thinking that that was not necessarily the most desirable course to recommend. I think the key question when this bill comes to this House again will be whether hon. members, who have seen it approved in this House on second reading and seen it approved in committee as we ran through it clause by
Withholding of Grain Payments
clause will allow the question on the bill to come to a vote, so that the $100 million can go to the farmers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That still is no answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems difficult for the minister to answer my specific question, namely, what authority the government has for its action. May I ask the minister if he is aware that in 1968 the government imposed and collected a 5 per cent surcharge, on the premise that Parliament would pass it, only to discover that Parliament defeated that bill? What position will the government be in if Bill C-244 does not pass?


James Aloysius McGrath: Try that one on for size.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am optimistic that before long we will have an answer to that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: If the hon. member's hypothesis were to materialize, I am sure he can imagine some of the answers which would follow. I expect, before long, that we will resolve the issue and answer the question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister did not have the right to assume what he assumed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that there will be a forum tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock in which questions might be asked. Having said that, I gather there is a general inclination among hon. members for this matter to be pursued. I think it would be fair if I were to recognize the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on a question only and then go to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), because he wants to participate in the debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if I could expect an honest and sensible answer, and I doubt that I could get it, I would ask a question. I have no intention of asking a question. I wish to engage in debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the hon. member wanted to ask a question. The hon. member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of seconding the motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Of course, I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate. The effort of bringing this matter before this distinguished chamber for consideration has been trying and exhaustive. It is not often that I have the opportunity of following the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: Where are you going, Otto?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister really did not enlighten us on this issue. He came up with the same old cliches about filibusters and obstructionism. It was obvious from the outset that he was fighting for his political life.


William Arnold Peters: And he lost.

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He avoided completely the issue outlined in the motion. He also reminded us of this government's arrogant acts in taking shortcuts at the expense of the farmer and at the expense of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I say, Mr. Speaker, let the minister bring forward legislation that will help the farmers and not the bureaucrats, and we will support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The farmers in my area are concerned about this matter. He should also tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that this is not the time for flowers and that it is not the time for kisses. The farmers are sick and tired of hearing grandiose, campaigning, misleading facts such as were completely distorted by the minister in his expose this evening. The minister talked about record sales. He again failed to tell the full story, because the producer marketings of wheat during this crop year were only 387 million bushels, the lowest total in 15 years and at the lowest price in 17 years.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Hon. members know very well the value of a dollar today compared to what it was 15 years ago. That is what matters; that is what is bothering the farmer. According to DBS figures, the net realized income in prairie Canada amounted to $1.12 billion in 1966. This figure has progressively declined. In 1970 the net realized income in prairie Canada, the prairie farm economy, amounted to $500 million. That is the kind of language the farmers understand, not the propaganda that this minister is spreading thoughout the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister talked about $60 million owing from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Here again there is an inaccuracy. It is $61,600,000 for the crop year 1970-71, plus an additional $26 million for the crop year 1971-72. That is closer to $90 million, Mr. Speaker. No wonder the minister is fighting for his political life and going about the country spreading stories of this kind.
I say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I commend you on your decision to allow this debate to take place. I appreciate the fact that you gave this matter very sincere consideration. I know that those who are affected by the inadequacies of this government and the failure to discharge its responsibility will very much appreciate your ruling. I know that Canadian grain farmers will be pleased. All Canadians, even Liberals, will be pleased, especially those who have fears of being trampled on and being ridden over roughshod by this government- because, Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have a very basic and fundamental issue to consider. That issue is the deliberate and calculated failure of this government to carry out its administrative responsibility pursuant to Canadian law. That is the fact of the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Over the past week or so I must admit that I have become somewhat perplexed and bewildered with the machinery of Parliament because every conceivable approach had to be taken before this matter could be brought before the House. Questions produced non-answers and attempts to adjourn in order to debate the problem were not allowed. One cannot help becoming frustrated when one understands the situation and is in touch with it every day on returning to his constituency.
If rules and procedures become so defined and so rigid that an issue of such magnitude cannot be ventilated and debated in this House, perhaps it is time for reassessment. I cannot help being reminded of the statement of a distinguished member at the Eighth Caribbean Commonwealth Conference which I had the privilege of attending. He quoted a former Speaker of the House of Commons as follows:
Today mankind has two alternatives, free and orderly discussion in Parliament with majority rule or fighting in the streets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If a question involving the administration of laws created by parliamentary democracy cannot be properly debated, it will be a sad day for Canada, for Parliament and for the system of parliamentary democracy. Throughout my experience in this chamber I, together with many other members of this House, have witnessed an increasing government disregard of laws established by Parliament. We have witnessed the deliberate downgrading of this institution. There are many examples of this. I am sure other members who will be participating in the debate will adequately deal with them.
Never have I seen, and never did I expect to see, a government so blatantly and contemptuously refusing to carijy out its administrative duty, a duty which is imposed by Canadian statute passed by Parliament, a law which remains in force and will continue to remain in force until Parliament in its wisdom sees fit to rescind it. That is the basic issue, Mr. Speaker-not the bunch of hogwash we hear from the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That fact is so elementary that one could never have conceived that this situation could occur. It is a disgrace and a shame. After all, if governments cannot conform with the law, how in heaven's name can anyone else in society be expected to do so? The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) stated that farmers were being penalized for the interprovincial movement of grains. They are being charged under the statutes covering the Canadian Wheat Board. The government is breaking its own law. How can society be expected to abide by laws if the government will not live up to them? This fact is so elementary, basic and fundamental that it is completely beyond my comprehension to understand the government's attitude.

September 16, 1971

The minister talked about the stabilization bill and filibustering. Those seem to be the only two words he knows. They are almost the only expressions he uses. He has failed to tell Parliament and the people of Canada that this stabilization bill is a measure that the farmers do not want. I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, how many letters he has received in support of the stabilization bill. Today I talked to a member of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. He said he has yet to receive one letter asking for expeditious passage of the stabilization bill. I personally have received 4,200 letters demanding that I oppose this measure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The farmers further state that if I allow Messrs. Lang and Olson to bamboozle me and other members of this House, I am not fit to be a Member of Parliament. That is the issue, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Calgary North outlined the legal obligations which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and this government have under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. What does the minister say about this? I heard him speaking on television the other day. He said it is nothing; he sloughed it off as nothing more than a trivial technicality. He said it is merely a simple bookkeeping entry. What a bunch of hogwash! As far as the farmers are concerned, this is a major flouting of the Canadian law. The payments should be made forthwith to the farmers, the producers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not want to bring officials of the Canadian Wheat Board into a partisan debate, but I owe it to the House to place on record some of the comments that were made by commissioners of the Wheat Board when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I quote from issue No. 58 of Thursday, June 10, 1971. In anticipation of the fact that perhaps through technical or mechanical difficulties Bill C-244 would not be passed prior to the adjournment of the House, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) put this question to Mr. Treleaven:


Mr. Horner:: How has the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act worked in the past? Has it always worked in retrospect like that?


Mr.   Treleaven@: Based on the commercial stocks of wheat on July 31, an accounting was submitted to the government and an invoice to the government, for the amount of the payment. Now that total payment would then be pro-rated over two pools, the one that was immediately finished and the one that was coming or the current pool. We have done that, of course, this year in the normal manner, but we have not received any funds from the government with respect to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
Another question asked by the hon. member for Crowfoot was:
If for some reason or another this House adjourns on June 30 and in light of other prominent and important government legislation and budget debate we do not proceed with passing Bill C-244 purely because of the mechanics of the time involved, and we did not get on to passing it until next fall, then the govem-
24319-12J
Withholding of Grain Payments
ment pretty well would be duty bound to pay that $60 million at the July 31 date. Am I oorrect in that? By the law of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, July 31 would go by and they would pretty well have to submit that $60 million to the final pool account or to the Wheat Board?


Mr.   Treleaven@: I do not know whether I can comment on the liability or the responsibility or the duty of the government in this respect, but under the existing legislation, yes, the money is due to the Board until such time as the legislation is repealed.
That is the crux of the matter. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is still law. It has not been rescinded and it will not be rescinded until Bill C-244 has been passed.
There is another quotation I should like to place on record from the proceedings of the same committee.


Mr. Korchinski:: So, in effect, if we reach July 31 without the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the government has no authority to withdraw that act, they would be obligated to pay, because it is an Act of Parliament that approved it and it would be expected. Would you have to make a supplementary payment then to cover up this amount that would normally not go out?


Mr.   Earl@: It is the only way we could do it. We would have to make another payment for that amount of money.
That is what the debate tonight is all about, the government's continued refusal to live up to its obligations morally and legally under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Now, the minister says it is perhaps better to pay out $100 million and call it a transitional payment rather than the $90 million. If this is what he would like to do, why does he not bring on legislation in that form and we will pass it. There will be no delay provided there are no strings attached as in the case of Bill C-244. If the payment under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act had been made to the Wheat Board, and subsequently distributed to farmers, it would have meant an additional 9J or 10 cents a bushel which farmers would have received for their grain and this would have raised the net income of the producers. This is what is troubling the farmer, not the question of the large wheat and barley sales at fire-sale prices. It is the question of net realized income which is striking at the very heart of our grain producers.
Instead, the minister proposes to push along with Bill C-244 and use this fund as a bribe to sell a piece of legislation which is the equivalent of a program of welfare assistance which would merely stabilize the incomes of farmers at poverty level. I use the word "bribe". It is not often that anyone is bribed with his own money but it is the case in connection with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. As I have said before, every Member of Parliament from western Canada who is associated with the Agriculture Committee has received literally thousands of letters demanding that we object to the passage of the stabilization bill because it is not what the farmers want or need, and this is what the opposition is trying to do. We are the ones who are trying to preserve the interests of the farmer and seeking to prevent Messrs. Olson and Lang from selling the farmers down the river.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I cannot understand why this government continues to perpetrate measures of this kind on

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
the farmers. Why does this government hate farmers? Why is it so blunt and so contemptuous? Farmers are not stupid today. They know very well that the money under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is due and payable to them. They know they are being forced into taking Bill C-244. Farmers also know that the two ministers concerned, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) are only playing politics. They also know that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is supposed to be the custodian of the farmers' interests when it comes to purchasing, shipping, storing and the marketing of wheat. But the present minister has sold the farmer down the river. The Wheat Board is supposed by statute to act in the best interest of the farmer. Under the present minister this has not been achieved. I say: what a shame.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), as my hon. friend from Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) pointed out, are both in the same boat. But certainly one would expect that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, coming as he does from the Province of Saskatchewan, would be more sympathetic towards farmers than he has shown himself to be tonight. He has acknowledged that farmers are critically short of cash, then he cripples them further by failing to distribute these funds. These funds should have been distributed last June. The Minister of Agriculture has not provided leadership either, as was apparent from the terms of the Employment Support Bill to which the House gave second reading last week. He knows very well that 1970-71 has been a bad year, yet all we hear are statements about the grandiose sales the ministers have been making. All that really matters is how much grain farmers have been able to market. Let me repeat statistics which have been prepared by the Alberta Wheat Pool which indicate that marketing for 1970-71 was the lowest in 15 years with the exception of one year, and at the lowest prices. It is no wonder we are experiencing a massive exodus of farmers from their land. They have to contend with the weather, with the depradations of insects and with the effects of international competition, yet the minister sits back and smiles and the Minister of Agriculture joins him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue, of course, if he has unanimous consent. Does the House give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Vegreville to pursue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members. I will conclude as quickly as I can. The minister of Agriculture and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board sit back in their places and smile because this is their way of solving the agriculture problem by removing two-thirds of the farmers from the land. I call it occupational genocide. I say that this government's farm programs are a total flop. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board knows this, the Minister of Agriculture
knows this and all the western Liberal members know this as well. I do not know why they do not admit it and scrap these socialistic and bureaucratic schemes created with the aid of bureaucratic economists sitting on high in their ivory towers. Why do they not scrap these programs? Let me tell you why they do not. They just do not care about the farmer, and neither does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Let me conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker. These two junior ministers are merely serving as puppets to the Trudeau regime.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, there are two issues in this debate we are engaged in tonight; one is the flouting of the law by the government and the other is the failure of the government to live up to its responsibilities to the prairie grain producers in respect of their income needs. I think this is reflected by the motion I moved today, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), on behalf of the NDP, in which we asked for consideration of this question, namely the urgent need for the government to make payments to the Canadian Wheat Board as specified in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956 so that an immediate improvement can be made in the economic position of western farmers.
Let me deal with the basic issue which is the first point I mentioned, the flouting of the law by the government. There can be little argument over the facts of the matter. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was passed in 1956 by the Parliament of Canada and was given Royal Assent. That act provides that the Minister of Transport shall, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, pay to the Canadian Wheat Board for each day in that crop year and in each crop year an amount equal to the portion of the said stocks that exceed 178 million bushels at the commencement of that crop year, multiplied by the carrying charge rate paid by the Board at the end of an immediately preceding crop year. The act goes on to provide in section 4 the moneys payable to the Board by the minister under this act shall be paid in a certain manner. It provides that the total amount payable for the crop year shall be paid in equal monthly instalments in such a crop year. There are absolutely no equivocations about the terms of the act, and there are no options or loopholes for the minister or the government.
We also have the acknowledgement by the government that it has indulged in this practice of evasion, and that in fact it has failed to make the necessary payments to the Canadian Wheat Board. The government has not even undertaken to defend its position. When I asked a question in the House of Commons whether or not these payments had been made to the Canadian Wheat Board, I was given the following answer to question No. 1,469 on the order paper:
Although funds were appropriated in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, expenditures have not been authorized because the government has a bill before the House to rescind the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act effective August 1, 1970.

September 16, 1971

We also have the testimony before the House of Commons Agriculture Committee. The commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board made it clear they had carried out their responsibility in informing the government as to what they expected from the government under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. They made it clear they considered that act still to be in force. Mr. Treleaven, the assistant chief commissioner, appeared before the committee on June 10 and stated, as recorded at page 8 of volume 58 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence:
Based on the commercial stocks of wheat on July 31, an accounting was submitted to the government and an invoice to the government, for the amount of the payment. Now that total payment would then be prorated over two pools. The one that was immediately finished and the one that was coming or the current pool. We have done that, of course, this year in the normal manner, but we have not received any funds from the government with respect to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
Later on he made other comments, making this perfectly clear, and I quote from page 58:10 of the same volume:
-at the beginning of each crop year we determine the amount of money payable by the government to the Wheat Board under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The government then pays that sum in 12 equal monthly instalments to us over the crop year.
He goes on to give some information about the mechanics of the operation of this act. We also have Bill C-244 before us at this time. Clause 33 of that bill provides for the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and it will be acknowledged that the bill is still before the House of Commons. It has not received the approval of the House or the other place, and it has not received Royal Assent. We are aware also of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board, in the absence of any payment under this act, has made a payment to the producers which it considers to be the final payment for the 1969-70 crop year, and this has occurred without any response from the government to the invoice submitted.
Of course, we all know what has taken place over the last week when this subject has been raised on a number of occasions by members of the opposition. First of all, on September 9 two motions were made under Standing Order 26, one by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the other by the member for Sas-katoon-Biggar. They both requested an emergency debate on the failure of the government to make necessary payments to the Canadian Wheat Board.
On Monday, September 13 a question of privilege was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Had his question of privilege been allowed, this matter would have been placed before the House of Commons, enabling the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to consider it and make a report. On that same day during the quest'on period, I asked a question of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. My question was:
Since the government is following a course of action which assumes that clause 33 of Bill C-244 providing for the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is now in effect, is the government considering following the same course of action
Withholding of Grain Payments
with respect to clause 32 of that bill by paying out the 100 million provided for transitional payments in that bill?
The minister said he could not make these payments until Bill C-244 had passed. It seems to me there is a need for the minister to be more consistent in his actions. If this situation applies to one clause of the bill, it should certainly apply to the other.
We then had an astounding statement from the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I asked him whether, in fact, a legal opinion had been obtained as to the propriety of the government's action and the minister answered as recorded at page 7748 of Hansard:
We have obtained an opinion on the question of the requirement to repay the money should it have been paid and should Bill C-244 subsequently be passed.
It is amazing that a former law professor and a dean of law did not ask for a legal opinion on the question of whether a payment should still be made to the Canadian Wheat Board, taking into account the fact that the act is still in effect.
On Friday, September 9 other questions were directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I asked him whether he had obtained a legal opinion on the question of whether he should make payments to the Canadian Wheat Board, as required under that act. He indicated that there would be no such legal opinion obtained or asked for in this regard. He answered in a very flippant manner by saying:
Not to me, no, Mr. Speaker.
And later he said:
Not for me personally, Mr. Speaker, but I shall inquire.
The latter, when I asked a further question about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board had invoiced the government for this amount, his answer indicated that he did not know what was going on in his own department. I think this is indicated by the fact he hase not made the payments required under the act, so the Minister of Finance should resign forthwith. I think the Minister of Finance long ago outlived any possible usefulness of service to the people of Canada.
Many questions are being raised in western Canada about the present situation. I could quote at length an editorial that appeared in the Western Producer on Thursday, August 12, which outlined the situation very fully and put forward a course of action for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would recommend this article for his consideration and wonder whether he has in fact read it. Part of this editorial reads as follows:
The government's course of action seems clear enough: pay out the entire $61 million now to the Canadian Wheat Board, in accordance with the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Then, when the House goes back into session, separate the $100 million from Bill C-244 and pay that out with all possible haste in line with the acreage payment proposed.
The next move should be another hard look at C-244 as it stands, and more discussion on some of its terms that have

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
been worrying farmers and their organizations ever since the legislation was first brought into the House.
I think that throughout this entire affair we have seen an example of government arrogance such as we have never before witnessed in Canada's history. This is the performance of a sick government, a government that has outlived any usefulness it may have had. We have a government that sorely needs to be replaced on the Canadian scene, a government that is prepared to show its contempt for Parliament and the laws of this country.
1 suggest that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and all other ministers should very seriously reflect on the question: What will the activities of the government which are under discussion tonight do to our democratic institutions? On the other hand, there has been a notable lack of willingness by the government to do anything concrete in terms of introducing agricultural policies which involve any substantial expenditure of moneys. This is the crux of the matter. When the government unpegged the dollar they said they would assist any export industry that suffered as a result. But nothing has been done in this regard. Now that other problems in the economy have arisen we find there is all kinds of help for industry. Some of this help is justified and certainly the need exists, even though the policy of the government is sometimes inadequate. Although the need is now, there is a notable absence of policies which involve substantial or adequate expenditure of funds.
I think that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board needs to reflect on the question: What does this do to the Wheat Board itself? He claims to be the defender of the Canadian Wheat Board. He wants it to be held up as a sound institution for western Canada. If that is the case, I can think of nothing more likely to undermine the Wheat Board and confidence in its operations than what we have been witnessing over the last few months.
The minister should have a somewhat different attitude to this question in view of his acknowledged respect for and knowledge of the law. Here we have a minister who was dean of law at the University of Saskatchewan, who held a high position of trust at that university. He is now a minister of the Crown with a responsibility to his constituency, his province and the people of Canada. Tonight he participated in the debate, and I must say I have never seen such a pathetic sight, with the minister thrashing wildly about and throwing out charges left and right about all the things that were wrong with the opposition.
The minister said he was fighting for the farmers. I suggest that if what he has been doing is fighting for the farmers, a more appropriate phrase to use might be that he is going to fight for the west to the last farmer; and if he continues in office very long we will see the last farmer in the west.
The minister then made an interesting comment; he said he would take shortcuts. I should like to know what these shortcuts are. Are they the sort of activities that we are discussing tonight which involve the failure of the government to make payment under the Temporary

Wheat Reserves Act? I notice that while the minister defended the government's action under this act-he has every right, of course, to defend the government's stand on the question-he said not one word about the failure of the government to carry out the provisions of the act while it was still in effect. There was not one word from the minister about whether the government did the right thing in not paying out this money, in view of the fact that the legislation is still on the statute books of Canada and is in force.
Then the minister made a very curious statement. He said he would gladly go to jail in the interests of the prairie farmers, or words to that effect; I believe I have quoted him accurately. I suggest that he should be very careful about making statements like that, because more and more farmers in western Canada are beginning to feel the same way. They are beginning to feel that if the minister were given a comfortable, well-padded and upholstered cell in jail, their interests would be well served.
To indicate just how badly mixed-up the minister is in dealing with the present situation, he referred to a statement emanating from a recent conference held by the Progressive Conservative party in Saskatoon which was discussing the Wheat Board and the changes that party would like to see made. As a matter of fact, I was inclined to agree with some of the minister's observations concerning the suggestions which came from that particular Conservative conference, and that in fact they would harm the Wheat Board. Then the minister suggested that the Conservative party's proposals amounted to cutting the legs and arms off the Wheat Board and making it something of a eunuch. I think this is a little difficult to imagine. I know of no creature, alive or otherwise, the legs and arms of which you could cut off and turn into a eunuch.
I think the minister has lost all credibility in the present situation. He has become irrelevant to the political scene of western Canada and Canada as a whole. Otherwise, I cannot see how the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board could stay in the cabinet and condone the action of the government in not making these payments. Perhaps his presence in the cabinet really does not count for much.
It is also suggested that the minister should resign from the government, though I do not think this would matter a great deal. I would be inclined to leave the minister where he is for the balance of this Parliament. I think that the voters of Saskatoon-Humboldt will do a very good weeding-out job at the next federal election. Really, I feel a little sympathy for the minister.
Questions are asked in the House from time to time about when the leave of absence of the minister from the University of Saskatchewan, where as I say he was dean of law, expires. I know that some time ago the University of Saskatchewan appointed a new dean of law, a very good one I might add, so that the minister has no job to go back to anyway. In all honesty, I cannot imagine any self-respecting school of law or university appointing him to its faculty when he has served as a minister in a
September 16, 1971

government that has taken the kind of action we are debating this evening. Either he condoned or approved this action, or he did not have the guts to stand up and resign.
Another crucial part of this debate concerns farm income. The minister acknowledged in his remarks that we are facing a serious situation. But if we look at farm net income in the province of Saskatchewan, for example, the decline that has taken place in the last three years is catastrophic. In 1968, farm net income in Saskatchewan was $462 million, in 1969, that dropped to $402 million and in 1970 it dropped by more than 50 per cent to just under $195 million. That, I think, indicates how serious the situation is. I think it also indicates the very urgent need for a better government response and a more adequate response to the income needs of farmers in western Canada.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, in its presentation to the government and to the House of Commons committee on the subject of Bill C-244, pointed out that their studies show that the grain industry in western Canada is operating at a net loss right now. The only net income coming to agriculture in the prairie regions is from livestock-thank God, cattle prices have held up reasonably well-and from income in kind, the stuff you grow and use yourself. This indicates the extent of the problem that exists. My colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar pointed out how prices have declined in recent months and years, in spite of the movement of grain indicated by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The minister pointed out the record movement of grain in western Canada.
The Acting Speaker {Mr. Laniel): Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired, unless he receives the unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: Thank you. I assure you I will bring my remarks to a rapid conclusion. The minister has been citing this record movement of grain. If he adds together wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed, he can come up with a record figure, but it is rather like the old adage about adding together apples, oranges and tomatoes because it does not reflect the true situation. Also, it does not reflect the fact that we are presently selling our grain at reduced prices, at lower prices than was the case a few years ago. There is a need for action now.
Bill C-244 is simply not good enough; it does not meet the needs. We have suggested to the minister on many occasions that if the government will pay out the $100 million by separating that provision from the rest of the bill, we on the opposition side will give it immediate passage. If he says he wants to get it into the hands of the western farmers, we are prepared to do this at any time. I think this fact was made clear. He has come up with other fanciful tales suggesting how the bill has been
Withholding of Grain Payments
delayed. This is simply not in accordance with the facts. We do need an ever normal granary policy. We have to recognize the need for some overhaul of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, but Bill C-244 does nothing; it simply eliminated the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. There are reasons for providing for an ever normal granary policy. There are reasons for a greater infusion of money into the western grain industry. The government can find money for just about any other sector of the economy that finds itself with problems, but they are going to set up limits on the assistance available to prairie grain producers.
In conclusion, I think the crux of the debate tonight is that farmers want the money from the temporary wheat reserves, and they want it now. Farmers need that money, and they need it now. I think also that we have to keep in mind that there is a concern with Canada's future. We are concerned with regional disparities, and among those disparities we are concerned with a host of problems in western Canada. These cannot be ignored; they are part of the over-all Canadian problem and flouting the law does not help build Canada's future. The people of Canada want the law of the land observed as it should be, and promptly. Certainly, they will deal harshly with any government which ignores the laws that have been placed on the statute books.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in tonight's debate on the opposition motion of censure concerning the agricultural policies of the government, I cannot refrain from thinking how greatly our farmers can be harmed by the partisan battles waged within these walls.
Today again, we are given a striking instance of the insincerity of some opposition members, much more concerned with petty politics than with the true interest of the farmers they claim to represent in this House.
My remarks will be brief as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) has accurately and clearly described the situation and I feel it would be superfluous to add lengthy comments to what he said.
But since this government has been in office, I have with several colleagues taken part in almost all the meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Except on very few occasions, it has been a continuing battle at the expense of farmers by some members of the opposition, among whom the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
Tonight, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) blames the governement for doing nothing to help the western farmer. Far from me, Mr. Speaker, the idea of underestimating the problems that have experienced and continue to experience the Canadian farmers, and particularly the grain producers of western Canada, because that would evidence utter ignorance not to say real dishonesty, to claim that the situation is caused through the action or lack of action of the government. I believe that any sensible person will admit that the

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
international situation is far more responsible, and the government has no control over that.
Who is responsible for the collapse of grain prices and for the accumulation of stocks in Canada? Plagued with production surplus, several countries forgot the agreements they had signed in order to maintain a minimum price for grain and they reduced prices to sell on export markets.
On the other hand, supported by members of the opposition and urged by farmers to resist the price war, Canada maintained its prices. But after a few months, we had lost the markets we had gained and the government had to pay storage costs for more than a billion bushels of unsold grain.
When 80 per cent of a production as important as that of grain rely on international market conditions because it is mostly exported, one can only expect instability and the government took measures to encourage reduction of wheat acreage in order to balance production and opportunities to sell at the reasonable price farmers would be ready to accept. In fact, we cannot secure a price for the producers when it is not possible to find a buyer at a reasonable price. There cannot be forever government grants to support prices when there is absolutely nobody to buy those commodities.
Let us have a look at the job done by the Canadian Dairy Commission. It took four years to clean up the market, to balance supply and demand and I recognize that now, in spite of some difficulties, the Canadian milk producers can at least rely on stability and on a better income. Since the beginning of this year there have already been four improvements in the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission and we hope there will be some more before th end of the present dairy year. This results from the application of discipline to production, which has enabled us to strengthen markets and therefore to get better prices for producers.
We shall get the same results in the grain industry, if ever the opposition stops stirring up the population, western producers especially-I even dare say telling direct lies to farmers-by making them believe that we are against them and want to destroy them.
The facts are quite different. There is a sizable number of us here, all equally convinced of the need to protect the western grain industry as well as the dairy industry of the East, and as an hon. member from eastern Canada, I can assure the House that we are just as interested in the success of the western farmers, since the Canadian economy is such that if the West is doing well the East will also be prosperous. The fact that western farmers have not been altogether as prosperous as we would have wished in the past years has had very deep repercussions on the agricultural industry of the east; this is why we show today surplus of several types of goods, and why we must seek formulas likely to restore the balance.
Mr. Speaker, I dare the members of the opposition to show sincerity for once and I ask them to put an end to

their filibustering of Bill C-244, and even Bill C-176, so that we pass them as quickly as possible.
I suggest that we put an end to this debate and that, with unanimous consent, we may tomorrow consider Bill C-244, so as to pass it as quickly as possible, so that the western farmers may benefit from it. It is pointed out that this bill only provides for the allotment of $40 million and it is a fact. The minister said so. But if such is the case, it means at least an additional amount of $40 million and consequently, we would be ill-advised not to pass that legislation, even if some find it defective. Moreover, if anyone feels that it is bad, let him vote against it. We should be left to assume the responsibility of passing a bad piece of legislation, which would be agreeable to those who are dissatisfied. We are ready to accept that responsibility, if you really think that this is bad legislation. As for us, we believe that it is good and we will assume our responsibilities before our constituents at the next election. However, if the legislation is bad, the better it will be for you, since you will be more easily elected and we will thus be judged and rejected. You will then assume leadership of the government and the country, if you think you can do better.
If you do not accept this proposal-and I see that several members agree with me-this will be evidence of your lack of sincerity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is not going to let the hon. member know that his time is up, but simply to ask him to please follow the normal procedure and address his remarks to the Chair rather than directly to hon. members.


Marcel Lessard: I apologize for losing my temper a bit, it is not my habit.
If the opposition does not approve that proposal, it shows in my view a lack of sincerity. On the one hand, it says to the government: You are doing nothing to help farmers and, on the other hand, when the government proposes through the cabinet measures designed to benefit agriculture, this same opposition hastens to unite against the government to denounce it and systematically check the adoption of those efficient laws.
I wonder if one cannot call such behaviour if not dishonesty, at least sadism. I think that the hold outs thus add to the difficulties of the western farmers by opposing adequate measures to help them at last.
As to myself, I have the duty to defend these measures in favour of eastern Canada, because federal members are accused of not representing sufficiently precisely that part of the country and of passing all votes in favour of western farmers. I do not agree. Indeed, my eastern friends are wrong in claiming that; when I meet farmers in my area, I stick up for the present federal policy which they consider as clearly unfair to the eastern farmers. They claim that we give all the government's money to the people out West, that we do nothing to help the Easterners. I assure them that what we are now doing is necessary for the Canadian agriculture as a whole, that to the extent where we help the farmers in western Canada, we also help those in eastern Canada.
September 16, 1971

To the extent that the western farmer can find good markets and good prices for his products, his eastern counterpart can also have fine markets for his.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to support, along with my colleagues, the government in the policy it is now putting forward, because in the absence of a better policy, I recognize that this one, though not perfect, at least proves that we are trying.
When we count the number of opposition members who are in the House tonight, we see that those members who charged us so often with not doing anything are not even here to take part in the debate. They are probably out west harvesting crops, which I think they had permission for.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind hon. members that legislations are now being proposed. They have already been introduced in the House, and if the opposition wants to give us proof that it is willing to cooperate, we will see to it that they are placed on the orders of the day as soon as possible. I am sure that the minister, if supported by hon. members, would obtain that these bills be discussed tomorrow, in order to pass Bill C-244 and enable western farmers to receive as quickly as possible the monies which can be placed at their disposal.
Therefore, I reckon on the opposition's cooperation and I hope it will stop this filibustering which in my view is totally unwarranted.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I must agree with this motion because the government has not followed the letter of the law in the payment of moneys under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act to the Canadian Wheat Board. The action of the government in not making these moneys available to the Wheat Board in accordance with the law has created grave financial hardship for our farmers in western Canada. The minister expressed it so aptly when he said that he owed a tremendous debt. He owes that debt to the western farmers.
The government has shown complete disregard for the needs of western farmers in their time of adversity. In the finance committee we are now rushing through a bill providing $80 million in grants to manufacturing industries which may be affected by the American surtax. At the most, the U.S. action represents $300 million in surtax, whereas western farmers, with a much smaller population base, have seen their income diminish in real terms by about $600 million during the past three years.
I have no quarrel with the swift passage of the employment support bill in face of the American action, but it would seem more in keeping with a government that pretends to be national in scope had the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act been followed or alternatively, had the $100 million promised by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board been paid out. Surely this is one time the minister could have talked to his cabinet colleagues, got them to see the inequity of the situation and persuaded them to carry out the proper course of action.
Withholding of Grain Payments
Evidence given before the agricultural committee indicated that in 1965-66 the value of grain marketing was approximately $1,191 million; in 1966-67, $1,417 million; in 1967-68, $908 million; in 1968-69, $742 million and in 1969-70, $682 million. I have not seen the figures for 1970-71, but the minister's own admission it will be in the $1 billion range. This alone represents a great loss of income for the prairie farmer and it is made worse when one considers it is for gross sales, not taking into account the fact that the cost of production has risen steadily over the years. Certainly, all the support mechanisms that have been built in for the prairie producers should have been used to their maximum.
The reason for this unhappy situation rests squarely on the shoulders of the minister and the government. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board, having decided in his wisdom that a new form of price stabilization should be embarked on for the prairie grains industry, brought forward in October of last year some papers which might be called a skimpy white paper to deal with the situation. But no legislation was brought down until the session was well on in in the spring-I believe April 29. The minister proposed to phase-out the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and in its place give out $100 million. The minister had a joker in the deck, though; that was the complicated stabilization formula of a 2 per cent deduction on all grains in order to build up the fund.
However, the minister failed to get his legislation through the House though the $100 million could well have been split off from the grain stabilization bill and paid out, and there would have been no opposition or questioning of this move. Instead, he chose to hold it over the summer and the payout will be some indefinite time in the future. When one considers that over $70 million of the $100 million would have been paid out to the producers long ago, the action of the government is inexcusable. It is like saying to a drowning man, "I will throw you a lifeline by and by, when I get around to it".
If the individual farmer was to receive the maximum benefit of this payout, it should have been made in the spring when he needed the money. The minister should impress upon his cabinet colleagues that the payment should be made in accordance with existing regulations and that the government should not renege on its legal obligation to pay the Wheat Board at the stated time. Only when the legislation is passed or the $100 million paid out as promised should this turning over the moneys to the Wheat Board be discontinued. Why was this payment held back? With regard to the stabilization money, farmers are saying they would perhaps be better off to receive no money than to be bound into this plan.
The nature of the plan is such that the government can wash its hands of any substantial payment in the next five years. There is no possibility of having to pay more than $20 million unless complete disaster strikes, because the limit will be so low. It is probably with this action in mind that the minister did not want to pay out $100 million. He wanted to impose the 2 per cent deduction

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments because it would mean the government would be free of any payout to western farmers for an indefinite period unless a disaster occurred.
Prospects for the coming crop year do not appear very bright for Canadian grain sales. The minister made a statement about record sales of grain, but they are at record low prices. A quarter of our wheat has been sold on extended credit, which is valuable and useful, but it is not an assured market. Barley sales, which made up the vast bulk of the bushel increase, have had to be made at an extremely low price. We are glad they were made at all, but the impression should not be left that the dollar value of these sales is anything like the value it has been during the last 20 years. In the announcement of the sale to China the day before yesterday there was no indication of price. We do not know at what price sales are being made to these countries.
The enormous Canadian barley crop together with the enormous American corn crop leads to the possibility of a very depressed feed grain market. Almost certainly the same situation will arise wherein barley and other feed grain will be sold in the so-called blackmarket by farmers needing cash. It would seem advisable that we remove the restrictions on the movement of feed grains between provinces. I believe they should be eliminated in all the provinces which make up the Wheat Board's designated area. If the removal of the restrictions to the free flow of feed grains across provincial boundaries at first created hardship and dislocation, it could be done gradually. The removal of this artificial restriction on the movement of feed grains in all of Canada would lessen the demand for the protection of eastern meat producers through restrictive bills such as C-176. The member whom we just heard mentioned that this legislation helped the dairy industry. I hope it has helped someone; it has moved the dairy industry out of western Canada and, presumably, into his province. It may have helped his province but it did not help the over-all dairy industry in western Canada. That is what a political board will always have to do.
The ability of the eastern feeder to obtain feed grain at a price that is competitive with his western counterpart should lessen the fear that he will be deluged by hogs, eggs, broilers and turkeys from western Canada in times of a feed grain glut. Such a move would counter the latest attempt to solve the chicken-and-egg war where the proposed solution calls for marketing boards in each province to put tight controls on production and divide up Canada's market by agreement. In effect, this new effort will achieve the very thing, that the Supreme Court ruling called illegal, namely, restrict the movement of poultry products across provincial boundaries and chop up Canada's domestic market into ten political pieces.
The implications of the agreement could be far reaching indeed. The agreement means that the federal government has virtually abandoned its responsibilities to provide leadership to Canada's poultry industry, and apparently the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has assured producers that U.S. eggs will be kept out of Canada. So in effect provincial marketing boards will
control and restrict all producers, so that Canada will no longer be a single poultry market and provincial governments will control the industry. The end result of this move seems bleak. It would deny Canada's poultry access to the huge United States market and condemn the producers to live in an inward-looking industry. It would commit them to an endless hassle in dividing up a market that is already too small. This development places the farmer in an unenviable position and makes him doubt the value of attempting to improve production marketing. If Canadian agriculture is forced to look only to the Canadian market for growth, it will indeed be restricted.
Mr. Speaker, the whole of this government's agricultural policy has been restrictive in nature. It has earned for the minister the title "Ottoman emperor of the Wheat Board," because of its restrictions and quotas. Payment of the $100 million should have been made through the farm stabilization program or to the Wheat Board so that it could be distributed to our farmers.
A final point, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that the government was looking at the movement of grain out of Canada through west coast ports. I shall read a news release issued by the Palliser Wheat Growers Association:
Belle Plaine, August 17-Grain cleaning is still the big holdup at west coast terminal elevators, says Gordon Brooks, a Belle Plaine district farmer after a trip to Vancouver last week.
"We spoke to workers at one of the largest terminals," Mr. Brooks said "and asked them to tell us what sets the limit on the amount of grain that can be loaded on ships in a day. They told us it was because the grain had to be cleaned."
Mr. Brooks and his family also talked to the crew of a Greek ship loading wheat for China, and asked one of them, who could speak a bit of English, how long they had had to wait before they started loading. They were told that the ship had been in harbour for five days before getting to the loading dock, and "didn't like to come to Vancouver" because they always had to wait.
Terminal workmen said that there were plenty of boxcars to unload, and no shortage of ships waiting for Canadian grain, and that although the cleaning operations were running 24 hours a day, the loading crews only worked two shifts.
I commend that release to the minister. I hope he looks into this and does all he can to improve grain handling facilities. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to debate this urgent and important issue that affects not hundreds but thousands of people in my riding.


Richard Russell Southam: Little did I dream that I would live to see the day that any government would become so arrogant, so dictatorial and have such a callous disregard for the laws of Canada as this present government. Its failure to pay out moneys under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act to the account of the Canadian Wheat Board in the interests of the financially hard pressed wheat farmers of western Canada leaves this government completely indicted in the eyes of all Canadians.

September 16, 1971

In view of this flagrant disregard of our law, I must join with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams), who made such an eloquent speech a few minutes ago in his plea for the preservation of our democratic rights, in asking for the resignation of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. This, Mr. Speaker, is a harsh demand, especially when it involves a fellow Member of Parliament from my home province of Saskatchewan. But, in light of his dereliction of duty to the farmers of western Canada, he has no alternative but to resign and take the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who must be aiding and abetting him, with him.
A few minutes ago, the minister did his best to persuade his Liberal colleagues that we in the opposition are only "doomsters". He has misrepresented the facts as they really are, beyond any stretch of our imagination. What is the picture? Let us look at the record for the benefit of our many new government members who are not familiar with the true facts.
When our Conservative government of 1957 and 1958 took over, what did we find? We found wheat in every farmer's bin, every country elevator and in every terminal elevator. Even the skating rinks in the west were full of it. There were 850 million bushels of it. The Progressive Conservative government sold the wheat in every market of the world and made the largest sale ever made, some $428 million worth to China in 1961. There were millions of dollars of sales to every other importing country. This put the grain farmers finally back on their feet.
Our government brought in crop insurance, the Farm Credit Corporation, the agricultural stabilization bill, the ARDA program, cash advances, $125 million of acreage payments for crop under the snow and for drought stricken farmers, as well as many amendments to farm legislation that had already been on the statute books. What has happened since then? Liberals took office in 1963 and rode along on our good stewardship until they were party to the collapse of the International Wheat Agreement at the Kennedy Round in Geneva in April and May of 1967. This agreement was the farmers Magna Carta, and since its collapse the farmers have been in dire trouble.
Since then, wheat sales have gone down to their lowest ebb, as pointed out just now by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Prices have gone down steadily as well. Two years ago the initial price of wheat to farmers was $1.70 per bushel. Last year it was reduced to $1.50 per bushel. This year it is down to $1.45 per bushel. So, the story goes. Two years ago the net income of Saskatchewan farmers was approximately $416 million; last year this net went down to $195 million. Putting it another way, three years ago average farm income was about $4,800. Today it is less than $1,200. That is the income of the average farmer. Some farmers have no dollar income at all; they are below that level and live off the depreciation on their machinery. It is the more successful farmers who help to keep the net average up at $1,200. This unprecedented act of the present government in not meeting their obligation under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is unbelievable.
Withholding of Grain Payments
In the meantime, the interest that the farmer has to pay on loans is going up. His taxes are going up and his machinery and repair costs are the highest in history. Inflation is hitting the farmer at every turn. The high cost of living hits the farmer even more badly than it hits the average Canadian. A labourer can go on strike for higher wages to overcome higher living costs, but the farmer cannot do that. The latest blow to our agricultural industry will be the effect of the recently applied 10 per cent United States surcharge. To emphasize the seriousness of the problem, I do not think I could do better than read a few excerpts from the text of a Saskatchewan Pool Radio Broadcast on September 15. It refers to what Mr. E. K. Turner, president of the Pool said. The text reads:
Canadian farmers deserve financial compensation as a result of injury from recent U.S. economic policies, contends E. K. Turner, President of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
Mr. Turner has written to Prime Minister Trudeau to request that a payment be made.
The U.S. has announced a series of new economic policies designed to reduce the United States balance of payments deficit to improve her trade imbalance with the rest of the world and combat inflation at home.
A number of the proposals have direct implications for Canadians, especially the proposed 10-per-cent import surcharge on a number of Canadian exports to the U.S.
In his letter to Mr. Trudeau, the Pool President noted that Parliament has, under consideration, legislation to provide compensation to industries that are hurt by the American action.
Two or three days ago during a debate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) indicated in a nebulous manner that the government would take action. We have been getting promises, more promises and nothing but promises from the government front benches ever since this government took office eight years ago. We want something concrete, Mr. Speaker. May I continue quoting from the broadcast text:
'In reviewing the figures of value of commodities affected,' he said, 'it would appear that of the $2.7 billion total, some $422 million, or 15 per cent, is animal and vegetable products. Therefore, a case can be made for a payment of about $12 million of the $80 million fund to agriculture, and hopefully passed on to the primary producer.'
I hope that part of the $80 million which is to compensate Canadian industry will also be paid to the agricultural industry. Somebody said a few days ago, "That is only a peanut effort." I think the agricultural industry will be hurt by the United States measure. I continue quoting from the text:
Mr. Turner also noted that freeing of the Canadian dollar last year resulted in the loss of millions of dollars to Western grain producers, because the net result was an immediate reduction in the price received for Canadian grain traded in world markets.
'Actions by other countries, and also our internal policies, have tended seriously to reduce the revenue farmers receive from their grain products,' Mr. Turner said. 'With production costs rising year by year, the net income position has been steadily deteriorating. Government cannot ignore its responsibility to correct the situation.'
The text continues:
Pool President E. K. Turner was among a number of Canadian business representatives that met with Trade Minister Pepin

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
recently to discuss the implications of the United States surtax against imports entering that country.
He said many businessmen expressed concern about the profit squeeze and its effect on the Canadian economy-
Many of the businessmen talked about the profit squeeze that is evident and that this is forcing. So I took the opportunity to talk about a profit squeeze that some 400,000 individual farm units have been experiencing for several years and that if the American action in fact has a net effect of putting more pressure on the revenues that farmers receive, it could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It is a serious situation and anything that removes a dollar of income from a farm in Canada, has serious consequences when the situation is so tender to start with.
In bringing my remarks to a close, I want to put a few observations on the record as to what that infamous brainchild of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the brainchild known as the Lift program, did to the lagging western economy. Here was a minister who was quite inexperienced. The hon. member for Calgary North pointed out that in 1968 the minister was without any government experience at all. He took this brainchild, which possibly had been developed by bureaucrats in Ottawa, and implemented it or forced it, through a system of coercion, discrimination and almost blackmail, on the western farmer. If the western farmer did not accept this proposition he lost the quota, in other words, the right to sell grain.
Let us consider the facts in this regard. They are on record. In announcing his policy to the House, the minister said that approximately $140 million would be injected into the western economy. When he took another look at it he cut that estimate down to approximately $100 million. After the program had been in effect for part of the year, and before the House opened last October; he stated that in all probability the Lift program would inject about $80 million into the farm economy.
When the figure of the final net payment under the Lift program was released it was $57 million or $58 million. Let us compare that with the amount we lost in gross farm income which could have been utilized by the farmer had he stayed in production. The figures indicate that approximately 12 million acres were taken out of wheat production a year ago this past crop year. The fact is that it was put into summerfallow which has the highest productivity and an average estimate of 30 bushels per acre of production, which amounts to 360 million bushels of wheat. Taking the very modest figure of the average of the last crop year, which I think is correct within a cent or two, we sold our grain to world markets at $1.37J. Multiplying 360 million bushels of grain we did not grow on 12 million acres by $1,374 we come up with a figure of half a billion dollars worth of wheat we did not grow.
Compare that potential income which the farmer would have received from the productivity of the 12 million acres to the $57 million he received, you can see how the farmers in western Canada have been in a declining net or gross income position. It was the most negative program ever imposed on western Canada in
history. Even if the grain was not sold, the farmers could have taken advantage of the Conservative legislation put on the books years ago and carried on by the present government, which we insisted they maintain and increase, and got along with the cash advance. Instead, he received a mere $6 for each acre he took out of production. It did not cover the cost of the gas, oil and wear and tear on his machinery.
This is an example of the mismanagement, the staggering from pillar to post and incompetence of this government as far as western agriculture is concerned. This is why we are having this emergency debate about the government's failure to pay the money owing to the farmers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. This $89 million should have been paid when it became due.
In conclusion, I implore the government to abide by the laws of this land and pay the farmers of western Canada the $89 million owing to them in order to give some semblance of honesty and maintain the democratic principles this House and the people of Canada deserve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to be brief. We are supposed to be debating an issue that is specific and important. I believe that it is a very important issue. I notice that the attendance on the other side of the House has now increased by 150 per cent. For a long time there were only two members opposite, and there are now five members on that side.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Where is the mover of the motion?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have two concerns about the issue we are debating. First and foremost is a legal concern about whether the government should have the right to avoid making the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. My second is an economic concern. I will try to be brief on the second point as we have all gone over the situation many times.
The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was passed by this Parliament in 1956. It is the law of Canada. It is still on the statute books as the law of this country. The government has made no payments to the Wheat Board under this act for the year 1970-71 and for the first portion of this year. That, in a nutshell, is what this debate is all about.
Does the government unilaterally in a dictatorial way have the right to disregard the law of Canada and the law of this Parliament? They got themselves in a bind by introducing the stabilization bill, C-244. One of the clauses in that bill will remove the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act from the Statutes of Canada. The minister in charge of the wheat board is anticipating that Parliament will pass Bill C-244. Once that bill is passed, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is rescinded, but that act has not as yet been rescinded. The minister is very presumptuous. I know that the leader of the government party is a very autocratic and presumptuous man, but I hope that the minister in charge of the wheat board is not quite so presumptuous.
tMr. Southam.]
September 16, 1971

When an issue like this arises in the House, it concerns us all. It is really an issue of privilege. It is a law of Parliament, a law of the people of Canada that is being disregarded and ignored unilaterally by the government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This is no small matter. We are talking about well over $60 million. I think the Conservative House leader said that something like $90 million is involved in payments which have not been made to the Wheat Board that should have been made. These payments are due to the Wheat Board and, in turn, due to the farmers of this country for the storage of grain.
There are three ministers who are directly at fault. Under this act, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is obliged to make payment of this money to the Wheat Board. He has not made that payment. His parliamentary secretary, who is in the chamber tonight, has not seen fit to rise in his place and speak. I wonder why? How can he treat this matter so lightly? It is something that no member should do, regardless of which party he is a member. If the parliamentary secretary wants to make a speech, I hope he will go back to his seat and rise. We will be happy to hear from him. We would like to have his comments on record as we now have those of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I am sure that the minister would not go to Assiniboia and say those things. We would like to have the parliamentary secretary on record as well. The minister in charge of the wheat board is also at fault. He should ensure that the wheat board is able to collect those funds. He is not fulfilling his duties and should be severely reprimanded.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is also at fault. He is in charge of implementing justice in this country and seeing that the acts of Parliament are carried out by everyone in this country, regardless of who he may be. Just because we have three cabinet ministers in seats of power, that does not mean they should not carry out the laws of this Parliament. If a farmer in Saskatchewan decided to withhold paying his income tax, he would soon be brought before the courts and charged. What happens when we have cabinet ministers in this House who hold back money that is legitimately due to the farmers of this country?


Mr. Alkenbrack:: That is the Trudeau version of the just society.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Regardless of whether the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is good or bad, and regardless of whether we pass Bill C-244 at some time, this Act is law. Until that act is rescinded, this money, is owing to the Wheat Board for storage and the farmers, in turn, should be getting some benefit. I have already asked whether the government possesses the authority to refuse unilaterally to make this payment. This is not what I call a just society where you have so much beautiful, participatory democracy. It is more like an autocracy where one man, or two or three, makes all the decisions. It infringes upon the privileges of every member of the House. Today it is the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. What will it be
Withholding of Grain Payments
tomorrow or the day after? Shall we continue to ignore laws that Parliament passes? I am sure this is not the type of precedent which I or anyone else wants to see.
Each individual member here has the right and the privilege to express his views. All of us have different points of view. But when a bill is passed by this Parliament all of us, regardless of the views we have expressed, expect its terms to be carried out until it is amended or abolished by another act of Parliament. That is the only issue which is of concern tonight. I am very disappointed that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board did not deal with this issue when he spoke. He took the opportunity to talk about different things this government was doing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard) spoke in the same vein.
When the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was questioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and asked who had given him the authority, whether there had been an Order in Council, he declined to answer. Is this the attitude the minister takes toward the western farmer? I begin to wonder. I may disagree with him, we can all disagree with him, but when he shows this type of insensitivity and lack of compassion I begin to wonder. Just because he occupies a seat of power does not make him an almighty god who can ignore the rules and the laws of this country. This is the main question at issue and these are the things the minister will have to answer for.
During the time the War Measures Act was invoked, when all the laws of the country were rescinded, I remember an old fellow coming up to me. He said, "Is it ture that under this act the government has absolute power? Is it true they can do anything without consulting Parliament?" I replied, "Sure they can. But they would not do it; they would not go that far." I trusted them not to go that far. Now I do not know. We do not have the War Measures Act in force, yet we find them ignoring the laws of Parliament.
I should like to throw out a challenge to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to go into Assiniboia between now and November 8 and say some of the things he said tonight to the people of that constituency. Why does he not go into Assiniboia, into some kind of open forum, some kind of bear-pit session and let the farmers throw their questions at him? The farmers have many questions they want to throw at the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: May I ask a question? Is the hon. member aware that within the last few weeks I have been in bear-pit sessions in the Assiniboia area and in Gravelbourg?


An hon. Member:: Do a little work on your job.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am very glad to hear that the minister has been in some bear-pits there, and I hope he will go back now the election is on, because I am sure the things he said tonight will be of great interest to the people in

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
that riding and it will give a chance for them to pass judgment on the policies he is sponsoring in the House. The minister has said he is willing to go to jail for the farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am just saying I hope he is willing to go out to Assiniboia on that campaign trail. I think he will learn a lot, if it is possible for him to learn any more. I think he believes he already knows it all. What strikes me is that he is insensitive to what the farmers really want and are saying. Very few ministers are like this. This is not a question of whether I disagree with him or not. He has a right to say what he wishes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may of course continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I shall be very brief. In conclusion, I hope that every member of this House will pay very close attention to the issue we are debating tonight, that is, whether or not the government has the right to act upon a bill or withhold payment for which provision is made by a law of Parliament before the bill has been rescinded. That is a very serious matter which we cannot take lightly.
I could, like others, talk about economic conditions in the west. We all know they are bad, and perhaps this is what makes the government's attitude all the more harmful to the farmer. We know farm income is down. The Bureau of Statistics said it was down by 56 per cent in my own province between 1968 and 1970. It is about time we stopped playing games of legalities; it is about time all of us got down to serious business.
If we want to help the farmer, the thing to do is split Bill C-244 and send the $100 million out right away. Then we shall debate the rest of the bill. I make this suggestion seriously. Why do they not listen to the farmers, the spokesmen for the wheat pools, farmers unions and the representatives of the Federation of Agriculture. They want the $100 million now. But they do not want the stabilization bill. That is only a part of democracy. Why not listen to the farmers and their organizations? That is all we are asking. Surely they can give the farmers at least that much. That is what participatory democracy really is. Let us start right now.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us tonight, moved by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), is a tragic and sad indictment of this Parliament and of the minister who has appeared before us here tonight, and of ministers who are not here, namely, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
When the minister stood on his feet tonight he delivered a great discourse on economic conditions and said the farmers in the west would have had the $100 million were it not for the opposition. In one session of Parliament since I have been a member there were changes to the rules. Rule 75C provided that if the government of which the minister is a part felt that the opposition were holding up this bill unduly, the stabilization program, they had the recourse, in all legality, of bringing forth closure under 75C, cutting off debate, passing the stabilization program and giving the $100 million to the people without breaking the laws of the land and of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cliff Downey: That is the situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He knew it was wrong and that is why he would not do it.


Cliff Downey: Instead, you garbled the facts. You did not mention that these payments could have been made in accordance with the law. This is not the real tragedy. We must consider the fact that this man was a professor of law at one of Canada's universities. He was the dean of law at the University of Saskatchewan. Let us remember the tragedy of those pupils at this university looking up to you as their law professor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would respectfully request that the hon. member address his remarks to the minister through the Chair.


Cliff Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I offer you my apology. I think of the image these students have of this Parliament and other Canadian institutions. I cannot help but think of what these students feel about their professor. They must wonder about this place when they see how their former professor can flout the law, throw it down and trample on it. How can we expect these young people to go through life with respect for Parliament when we know they are aware of the disrespect this minister of the Crown has for the law?


Mr. Dinsdale:: No wonder they are going to pot.


Cliff Downey: This is the real tragedy. We are not talking about the economics of farming, but the tragedy created by a minister of the Crown breaking the law of this country when he had available to him a means through which he could have made the $100 million available to the people. Did the minister inform Canadians of this fact when he was interviewed in the lobby tonight on television? Did he indicate how he had distorted the facts in this Parliament?


Mr. Bigg:: He has already corrected his blues.


Cliff Downey: That is the tragedy of the matter. We all know about those farmers who are prosecuted because they transport grain across provincial boundaries. One farmer in my riding was fined $300 for violating this law. How can anyone stand in court again and prosecute one

September 16, 1971___________________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________________________7915
of these farmers who commits this offence in an effort to make a living when he knows that a minister of the Crown is breaking the law of this land?
When we first come to Parliament many of us have a certain amount of idealism. After members are here for a while this disappears. I was never so ashamed in my life as I was when I discovered that in the latest issue of the Canadian statutes the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act had been left out. It has not been rescinded by Parliament but it cannot be found in that latest issue. This act is still in force, but it is not on the statute books. This government is not concerned with economics or the plight of farmers. But their situation is completely irrelevant to this discussion. If this institution means anything it should be safeguarded by those who are here. This debate should not be another meaningless debate only with one day coverage in the newspapers tomorrow. It should mean a great deal more than that.
I was talking recently to one of my constituents. I spoke of the possibility of an election this fall. He said he did not really believe there would be an election but that the government would stay in office for a full five-year period. He suggested that a general election would then be postponed by the government as a result of an incident such as that which precipitated the invocation of the War Measures Act. He said he would be surjfrised if there were ever another democratic election in this country. The more I think about his statement, keeping in mind what has taken place in the last few days, the more 1 am inclined to agree with him.
I have never been as concerned about the future of our democracy as I have been in the last day or two. I do not intend to continue my remarks because I know other speakers wish to take part in the debate tonight, but I remind hon. members that this is the main issue.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this debate when the motion was introduced in the House this afternoon. Tonight I listened to a number of speeches and all the remarks I heard made me feel like making a contribution.
I have always felt somewhat at ease when discussing bills, especially these last three months, because of my position which permits me, quite objectively, to study and listen to sometimes serious, sometimes not so serious and sometimes regrettably partisan speeches made in this House.
However, I had several opportunities to require better objectivity than what we have tonight. Once again, tonight, it seems that some hon. members do not know what objectivity means. They have taken a negative attitude, an attitude they have used either in committee, or in the House, while demanding justice and a pattern of behaviour which they have forgotten themselves.
As previous speakers did, I realize how serious this motion is. There are legal and practical problems. If we sincerely want to help our producers or farmers throughout the country, I am quite in agreement with all those willing to do so. I listened to the excellent speech of the
Withholding of Grain Payments
member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) and I have also appreciated some remarks by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard). And yet I realize, after several members of the opposition have blamed the government, that objectivity is lacking.
I wish, as the member for Bellechasse said, that western and eastern farmers would enjoy Parliament's consideration, provided that once and for all we could be in agreement and that it is not suggested that the government is granting more to a certain area of the country than to another. We have listened to a number of speeches from wheat producers over the last few years. I quite realize also how important wheat production is in our economic system.
This motion is extremely important since it appears that the government has not paid what they owed. Having attended quite regularly the meetings of the committee on agriculture, I know that this bill has been extensively discussed. I also know that it would be unfair to say that the government has not tried to look favourably upon farmers, during the last three years. Were the government's proposals inadequate? It is evident that we will always suggest they were. Still, we have to admit that certain efforts were made. We have to admit it, and taking into account our commitments and the responsibility it behoves us to show in this House towards all segments of society, including farmers, we have nevertheless to admit that the government has made efforts which some will praise, while others will show lesser appreciation; but it would be certainly unfair to say that the government has done nothing. Besides nobody in the House did anything.
We should often ask ourselves the following question: Has the member, has the minister or has the government done enough? Could they do better? All members here could ask themselves this question: Could we do better than the government? If so, resorting to obstruction, to an attitude likely to thwart the government on all sides or to delay the passage of bills, then rejoicing in accusing the government of having failed to introduce a measure to give millions of dollars to the western producers, as suggested in this motion, is certainly not the way to do it.
I do not wish to engage in a legal discussion as to whether the government failed to assume its responsibilities by withholding certain payments. There was a fairly fierce and negative opposition, and on the part of some members, there was an opposition I could describe as a filibuster. I do not believe I am going too far in saying that attempts were made to prevent the passage of Bill C-244 for reasons related, I think, to some provincial directives.
1 am not a westerner, but I heard about certain tilings. I can certainly not approve of the attitude of members who blame the government today for having failed to pay grants. The government attempted, with a new bill, to provide important benefits. One was justified in believing that the opposition would willingly approve of the bill, would discuss it surely in a normal way. The member who knows what he has to do, in the opposition,

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
should assume the responsibility of discussing a bill and attempting to move amendments that are likely to improve it. The first duty of an opposition member, like that of any hon. member, is to have no hesitation in supporting a sensible bill, as we must all have guts enough to oppose a senseless bill.
In my opinion, Bill C-244 was acceptable, since it aimed at correcting some weaknesses in Bill C-239. The government not only was making a commendable effort, but also was showing enough goodwill toward the farmers of western Canada. However, for the reasons I have already mentioned and which especially the opposition members know better than I, there was opposition to passage this bill and, today, some hon. members are happy about it. In fact, they are bent on blaming the government, which they charge with not having in due course made the payments owing to the farmers, thus indulging in petty politics and in the meantime telling the farmers that the government is refusing to pay the amounts they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I feel bound to take part in this debate in order to ask hon. members for the tenth time, or the fifteenth time, perhaps, to be a little more practical, a little more honest. If some want to play politics in order to fight the government, that is possible since our present system allows it. However, I believe it is important that the farmers of this country be well aware of the position taken by some hon. members. I would not say that the majority of the hon. members are dishonest with respect to their constituents, but I consider most important for the farmers to know that some hon. members tried in committee to interfere with the government for the sole pleasure of inconveniencing it, as usual, of course, I must say, in all honesty, that when the government members sat in the opposition, they probably made the same mistake. However, this is no reason to say that when the members of this government were sitting in the opposition they were resorting to that practice. This attitude that I have been rejecting for a long time, even before entering politics, is a great source of disappointment to me.
Tonight, I hear comments about principles, liberty, injustice, but perhaps we forget to ask ourselves if we really play the part we should as opposition members. I know how disappointed the population would feel if they were more aware of the attitude of certain members who make fun out of politics when millions are at stake and the producers in need are waiting for those millions.
I am under the clear impression that the government is prepared to pay those producers. If only the members of the opposition were open-minded enough to accept that a limited period of time be set for third reading of this bill; I am convinced that the government would be prepared within 24 hours to pay the farmers who happen to be the constituents of several members who today harsly reprimand the government. Let us be honest about our responsibilities.
It has been said a while ago that this is a tragedy. The tragedy does not arise from the fact that the government has not yet paid those producers. I think that the government is prepared to pass Bill C-244 without any delay, even if they have to bring in certain improvements. The tragedy is that within these very walls there is too much politics going on, and that is the sad side of the story. All members should be objective and not resort to petty politics for we know very well that it is the people of Canada who will be paying for this.
I urge hon. members to be more consciencious in carrying out their responsibilities. I believe the Canadian people have lost confidence in politicians because of some petty politicians who produce all kinds of arguments, too often forgetting their primary responsibilities.
I could wish Canadians to be better informed of debates taking place in this House, which would lead them to invite their representatives to be more objective and to carry out more fruitful work.
The tragedy is not that the government has not paid the money, because it proved that it wanted to do so. I bring up that argument, not to save the face of the government-I recognize it must pay it and that the matter is urgent-but because it can only do so with better co-operation from the members of the opposition. I feel the government is justified in claiming it did not have that co-operation, and I would ask the members of the opposition, those who really want to prove their integrity toward their electors, to tell the government that they are willing to accept a limited debate that those payments might be made as soon as possible. I am convinced the government will then act quickly, in the interest of the producers.
Mr. Speaker, the tragedy is surely not the one which was described a while ago. In conclusion, I would invite the hon. members opposite to show such objectivity. As for those who quoted Standing Order 75C, which I call the muzzle of the House, I would say to them that if the government had imposed closure during the debate in committee, I clearly feel that the members who objected to the bill would have deserved it. I am one of those who believe, that is I have for the past two years, that debate in the House should be restricted since the system enables the opposition-that has always been so-to go too far and then the Canadian people must pay for it.
It is urgent for hon. members to consider this matter and accept the limitation of debates, which would allow them to express themselves sufficiently, while allowing the government to act faster, and taking into account the interests of society. Consequently, we must not prolong debates, take advantage of the system to embarrass the government for the sake of it, but serve our constituents in an objective manner. When one considers the waste of time resulting from these sterile debates such as that of tonight and those which have been taking place for the past three years, that is since I have taken my seat in this House, it will be agreed that all the reasons that I am bringing out make me believe more and more that the limitation of debates must be initiated, that a well ordered legislative program must be introduced at the beginning of each session, so that we know that a debate

September 16, 1971

will last a certain time and that each member of the opposition will be able to express himself while limiting himself objectively. The people will thus benefit from an improved service from their government.
So, I invite all hon. members to become more objective than ever, not only to let western producers benefit from subsidies which are theirs, but also to let Parliament work as it should have done for a very long time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Roch La Salle: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming may ask a question only if it is accepted by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


Roch La Salle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask the hon. member, and I am aware of his knowledge of the Committee on Agriculture on which we both served for some time, whether he is not of the opinion that the act that we are discussing, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, provided for the farmer a payment of something like $60 million, with an additional $26 million owing as of July 31? Is he not of the opinion that, in the light of the fact the farmer is entitled to that money, it should be paid and the government should reconsider the amount that is in the stabilization bill and talk about the stabilization bill in terms of stabilization rather than a winding up of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act? Is he not of the opinion that the law should be enforced today and that we should discuss the matter of stabilization in the light of present circumstances?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I admit the question is justified, but I think that if Bill C-244 had been supported by the opposition, the problem would be solved. I presume it was very difficult for the government to make regular payments, considering the existing legislation, since the changes instituted in the new bill would surely have given the government much trouble. Since the government had the right to believe that the opposition would not be so dead set against the measure, I acknowledge its good will in trying to help western farmers through the new bill.
If the opposition continues to fight the bill, it seems to me that legally the government will have to pay in accordance to an existing act, but I wonder if objectively opposition members would not achieve more by helping the government to get Bill C-244 passed quickly. Then we shall have really served the people, allowed the government to pay the money and opposition members will be given credit for having contributed in this useful way to the payments that will be made.
Withholding of Grain Payments


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I hear some denigrations about potato growing. I know that the people over there have no interest in potatoes, but they need not say so so impolitely. I should like to say that I am neither a farmer nor a westerner. None of my constituents are customers of the Wheat Board, so perhaps I will be a little more considerate and not indulge in the harsh criticism that has been laid upon this minister tonight. I will say that he has been no worse in his conduct of the Wheat Board than he has in his conduct of Manpower.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This debate underlines the gravity of agricultural problems throughout the country, and the very commodity that one of the gentlemen from Toronto was sneering at, potatoes, was terribly hurt by the surtax, but there has been no sign of any corrective measure taken by this government. All the other things that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) indicated, are a part of this debate, namely the continuing and crying problems of agriculture with which this government fails to cope. This is just one minister who is culpable and inadequate in this field.
There is, however, another aspect. We realize, and it has been made abundantly clear in the fine speeches that have been made tonight, that a part of the citizen body of this country is being victimized by the impropriety of the government in not obeying the laws of the land, and that body is the farming community in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This is abundantly clear, and if it were ever made clear it was revealed by the non-answer which the minister gave to the very precise question directed by the venerable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the chancellor of a certain institution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At this time of night we are all venerable.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But what is more important-and I say this with all due respect to those who represent the agricultural communities-is that the parliamentary structure itself is under attack. So, it becomes not just a matter of concern for those members who represent the farmers, who represent the constituencies which have heavy dealings with the Canadian Wheat Board, but it becomes a matter of concern for all Canadians and for all of us who represent the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That is why, Sir, at this atrocious hour, I as a dour Presbyterian, am taking part in this midnight debate. For the last hour or two I have been looking up some authorities from Mcllwain and Dicey and even Lang. I have read through a good many of

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
them, but I have come to the conclusion that the very-best quote I could get is one from Lewis Carroll. When Alice asked Humpty Dumpty a question he, very irrelevantly but perhaps significantly, replied: "The question is who is master". I think that that is what is the problem, this recurring excess of the executive in this country, the present executive, over the people of this country and the people's representatives in this chamber. The problem is who is to be master, and it is the eternally burning question in a democracy. Who is master? Is it the people and those who represent the people or is it someone who has temporarily the keys to the administration? That is what we must ask ourselves. It was long ago that that great man said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". That question is more pertinent and more porten-tious today than it ever was, Sir. Lord Bryce wrote in a great classic "Modern Democracies":
Liberty is a good thing, because it develops the character of the individual, and conduces to the welfare of the community. When one man, or a few men, rule over others, some of the subjects are sure to resent control and rebel against it, troubling the general peace. No one is good enough to be trusted with unlimited power. Unless he be a saint-perhaps even if he be a saint-he is sure to abuse it.
midnight)
Although I am as kindly as I can be to a former academic, I am not going to canonize him tonight. We are living in a time when the people's representatives, the House of Commons, in the eyes of the executive are becoming less and less important and irrelevant. Indeed the chief of the executive asks, and indeed he does not ask, he declares-he does not go in much for asking-they are nobodies. So, we have to be eternally watchful, eternally assertive.
Do I hear the sounding brass and tinkling cymbal from Calgary South? If he would de-orchestrate himself and take his turn in the debate it might be amusing if not revealing.
But where is the role of the House of Commons here? Why is the House of Commons important? There is only one answer, as there has always been only one answer down through the history of parliamentary democracy. It is because we represent the people. Before there was responsible government, before there was an administrative procedure for responsible government, there had to be a representative democracy, and we are here because collectively we represent the people of this country. And this why this is a very important evening. Because the regular routine has been set aside, and the people's representatives are here on a matter of great concern to the people. And they are not nobodies. When we forget that representative democracy and the representative aspect of our whole system are the keystone of our democratic system, then we are in great danger of sliding down the path that some would love to push us down. I am glad that there are many vigorous people tonight who have resisted this terrible tendency.
Tonight the minister said certain sharp things. I think he is basically a more polite man than his master, the Prime Minister. He did not call us nobodies, but he said some things that were a bit disturbing. I wrote down his
expression "prospective implementation of an act"- something we are going to do in the future.
The Canadian people were told some many months ago about participatory democracy, but tonight we have anticipatory autocracy-"We, the executive, are going to do something. We have said so. Perhaps next year, perhaps next session. We have said we are going to do it, and so the law of the land is unimportant because we have declared that something is going to be different." Seemingly the body that makes that intention law, the Parliament, is not a factor at all, and so you get back to the nobody syndrome. This is the great problem in this country today. This is why it is terribly important that lovers of liberty get across to the people of this country the great danger the country is facing in this kind of arrogant, autocratic attitude towards the dispatch of public business.
Then, I heard the minister later in his speech speaking about taking short cuts to do certain things. How many times has liberty been set aside by the efficient tyrant? "Don't worry about the laws. Get it done, because the processes of democracy and discussion are too slow." So, you cut through them; you tear them down. Then, he revealed himself I think a little more clearly later on when he was discussing the opposition. I heard him use these words, "they kept saying it for three days." How outrageous, how terrible for people representing the Canadian populace to dare to talk for three days on a measure which he and his colleagues have declared is coming into law! Even before a bill becomes law, they are acting as if the law does not exist.


Otto Emil Lang: It is a different law.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: You had your chance to defend yourself.


Otto Emil Lang: Just get your facts right. I don't mind your pomposity but just get your facts straight.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, if this incompetent minister wishes to ask me questions, he can do so when I have finished. He made a tremendous fiasco of his speech and he is not going to assist me to do the same thing. He is the colleague of some ministers who, because they did not like the word "dominion" called it something else even though they have not mustered up the initiative to have the House of Commons deal with the statute to declare that a certain day is not Dominion Day. In other words, if the law is embarrassing, circumvent it. But we are supposed to be law-makers, not law-breakers. Is it not the ultimate irony that we become law-breakers? We are here because we are law-makers. But the government's motto is "To Hell with the law, it is our will that prevails".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This minister, in a more happy environment, used to write books, as some of us do. He edited one, and I will just read the first sentence: "Justice in Canada is administered in accordance with the law".

September 16, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: Why don't you give the reference?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This is the first sentence of the book which the hon. minister edited some years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A "Lang" time ago.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: There has been talk about the minister's legal background, Mr. Speaker. I do not hold that against him but no member of this Parliament, no person nurtured in the tradition of parliamentary democracy, has to be told that our system can only work when we have a government of laws and not of men; that the temporary administrators cannot set aside the law and ex' _et that the system will work. I would advise this .minister to remember that. [DOT]


An hon. Member:: For Auld "Lang" Syne.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is a government of laws and not of men; however confident the men may be, however filled with their own importance they may be, the law is what prevails.
In his speech the minister did make a very fine statement when he said "I owe a tremendous debt". This government does, so let them pay it. I hope he will forget politics and not engage further in this-some said "offensive" but I did not think it was offensive, I think it was defensive-tirade. I think he saw the same public opinion poll as I did which shows that in Assiniboia, the Conservatives are leading, the Liberals are second and the New Democratic Party third. But this is not what we are talking about tonight, Mr. Speaker.
I would say to the minister: recall this important debate and what was said by eloquent members like the hon. member for Calgary North and those who followed him. Let the minister remember that with all his troubles, and he is in a troubled portfolio whichever way he turns, he has an obligation to pay the Wheat Board and the farmers. He has to obey the law and function in this House as one who knows that this House is supreme. The power which he exercises rests upon the power of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult task to follow the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). The words that he had for the House, and for the hon. Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, should be taken to heart. When he speaks about the law, surely the minister will realize that the hon. member is referring to him. I suggest that when the minister gave his discourse he was talking about contemptible action on the part of the opposition. If any contemptible action was taken by any elected member of the House, I suggest it was taken by the minister in May. The Leader-Post of May 29 reported:
Otto Lang, minister In charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, said Friday he expects the grains income stabilization plan will become law before June 23.
Withholding of Grain Payments
I suggest that the magic date, June 23, meant something to the minister. He was not concerned about what happened under the stabilization plan; he only wanted to get cash into the pockets of some farmers and he thought some of the money would go to farmers in the province from which he and I come. I think every organization representing the farming population has opposed this bill, and the minister is well aware of that. He knows that the three wheat pools, the Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the United Grain Growers and the Unifarm organization in Alberta have opposed the bill in its entirety and will oppose it until there is clarification of its provisions.
The minister suggested we are trying to filibuster the bill. We have only tried to obtain answers from him. There is one area we ought to be concerned about. The government is encouraging the exodus of the farm population from the land and the amalgamation of farm units into more efficient sizes. Repeatedly we have asked the government what its plans are for changing the present farm units to units of more efficient size, and what this will mean to the farming population. The government has not said what this program will mean. It means that farmers will be moved off the small family farm, and the minister knows it.
As recently as last week I asked people in the farming community to put themselves in my place as a Member of Parliament and to say whether or not they would vote for the stabilization plan. The answer was a resounding no; they would not vote for it until they had information as to what the minister means when he says that he wishes to encourage farm units to become units of a more efficient size.
The minister should know that the so-called grain payments and the carrots being held in front of producers' noses will do little to ease the grain space situation. We need measures to offset any lack of elevator space. Nobody wants to plug the pipeline, as the elevator system is known. At the same time, no substitute has been put forward for the storage of grain. There has been no answer as to who will bear the cost of the extra storage which is necessary or what will replace payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which paid for part of the storage available in elevators.
This evening the minister spoke about the opposition being obstructionist. Back on May 10 I placed on the order paper the following question concerning the Wheat Board and the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act:
1)	Are payments being made on a monthly basis to the Canadian Wheat Board under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act?
2)	If so, are the payments still being made?
3)	If not, why not?
That question was placed on the order paper on May 10 last. On September 8 the minister's department saw fit to answer it. No action of the government could be more contemptible than that, because the attempt was made, I suggest, to deceive producers completely. The government's action, or lack of it, consisted in no answer being forthcoming until then to a simple question. I am concerned, as are the producers. We want answers from the

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments minister. They want to know exactly what he is talking
about and why he is not obeying the law as laid down in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. We are all well aware that it did not take the minister long to get out that seven cent payment. It was announced one day and in the mail the next. Now he has suggested that he is prepared to go to jail for the farmers. At the time he put the payment out he realized that wheat had dropped 20 cents a bushel compared with two years earlier. In fact, on August 1 it was 3 cents a bushel less.
To try to suggest that we on this side are playing politics when the government introduces that type of operation is a defamation of the word, to say the least. I am sure that all members on this side of the House are concerned about what is happening to the farm economy. We are also concerned about the fact that cash is needed on the farm. We on this side have tried our utmost to have this so-called stabilization plan based on net income. In no way will the government accept that type of proposal. The government is well aware that in the whole of the post-war period we have the lowest net income ever on the farm.
We have tried to get the government to take action on the price of farm machinery. Tonight the minister said that he would go to jail for the farm population, but he still will not initiate an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into the price of farm machinery. He knows the farmer is being completely fleeced in this respect. If this government were concerned about the farmer and the farm economy it would do something to improve the situation.
I had to laugh when the minister congratulated the members on his side of the House who come from the Atlantic provinces and the west coast for putting up with this debate. Surely the minister must realize that the agricultural and fishing economies are the most important industries in this country. They are the backbone of the Canadian economy. Surely the minister realizes that over 80 per cent of the people are directly or indirectly connected with these two industries. He thanked the members from other parts of the country for putting up with a debate on one of the two most important industries in this country, farming and fishing. The members on this side from Atlantic Canada are fully aware of the problems in their industry. They are very similar to the problems affecting the agricultural industry in the western provinces.
Those who are sincere about this situation know that the laws made in this House of Commons should not be broken. This is my first session here. I did not think it was possible for a government to say that even though a law is on the statute books of Canada, they can break that law and nothing will happen to them. The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) dealt with that point. I did not think it was possible to take shortcuts in order to accomplish something.
The money that is now owing to the farmers of this country should be paid immediately. There is no use arguing with this government. If the government is prepared to break the law, the people of this nation
will stand up and be counted at the next election; they will let the government know what they think of these so-called shortcuts. The minister said that he is prepared to go to jail because he is taking this shortcut in order to help the farmers. This is more than a cheap political trick. These people should be going to jail because of the situation they have created.
If we look at the publications of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other organizations we realize that our agricultural economy is worthy of support. The minister talks about what he has done for agriculture, but Canada is the only wheat exporting nation in the world that has to subsidize the treasuries of other nations. The minister brags about the great increase in farm production and export sales, but we know about the government's hesitation. Because of the cutback in concessional sales we lost markets. We realize that there are now some credit sales, but after a period of time they will be charged back to the pool. Other countries look after agricultural producers and provide protection for the people who are part of this industry.
They consider agriculture to be an asset to their countries, but not this government. They just do what they want and pretend they are helping the producers. Surely, the government realizes it has an obligation to live up to these laws. Surely it realizes that what it is doing right now can only be considered one of the worst things that can happen to a nation. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) stand in his place and say what he did. Surely, he was not suggesting we do away with existing statutes. If this is the situation it becomes truly dangerous to allow any bill to be given first reading, since it might have an effect on existing statutes and in this case it could have an effect on various areas throughout the country.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As an eastern member, it has not been my custom to speak on matters relating to western agriculture. In the case of my hon. friend from Hillsborough, not only does he not usually speak on western agriculture, he does not represent what is normally considered to be an agricultural riding. But there are two factors which compel me to take part in this important debate. One is that I do represent an agricultural riding. And I believe the problems of western agriculture are indivisible from those of agriculture generally across this country.
It is an obvious fact, that the government has proved both unable and unwilling to face the real problems of agriculture and is continuing in many cases to turn toward its own plans and programs, which in most instances have little to do with the real needs which pertain in the agricultural industry. It is high time members from all parts of the country and on all sides of the House expressed themselves openly and directly with regard to this subject. The cost-price squeeze and other difficulties affecting western agriculture can be repeated time and again with respect to the agriculture situation in eastern Canada.
In addressing the House this evening, I rise not just because agriculture is affected but because there is a

September 16, 1971

principle at stake which concerns the very moral fibre of the country itself, that is, the right of any group of individuals acting as the government of a country or province to arrogate to itself a decision to act against the law. I think this debate may well prove to be one of the most important, if not the most important, to have been held in this chamber for many years, because it deals with a question of fundamental principle. We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not a great deal of respect for the institution of Parliament. He has already indicated clearly both inside and outside the House that he regards much if not all of what happens here as either a nuisance or a bore. Some of us have been deeply offended, and by "some of us" I do not mean just the members of this House but the people of this country. They have been deeply offended by that attitude particularly on the part of one with such a high place of responsibility. But because this is a democracy we have had to tolerate that point of view. It seems now that the government has made a new departure for not only does it consider Parliament to be a nuisance and a bore but it considers itself to be above the law and this is something which members of this House totally refuse to accept.
The government may be fabricating some new morality. It may be simply willing to overlook facts in favour of its own priorities, whatever that may mean, but the fact is that there is a clear-cut statute which pertains to the administration of money with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board in this instance.
Members of this House and many members of the public, particularly those directly affected, will not overlook or accept the government's action in this regard. This government may be more interested in its own plans and policies than in the people involved in agriculture or the principle at stake, but the reason we are having this debate is to point up the fact that a country cannot long tolerate that kind of arrogance and repudia-ion of the basic structure on which democracy exists.
I trust that after tonight's debate in this House hundreds of thousands of people in this country will let the government know where they stand, because only through the free voice of the people can we continue to maintain respect for democratic institutions and the function of laws which protect both liberties and opportunities in a free society.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the Parliament of Canada remains in session after midnight and it has been my experience that on the occasions it has occurred a fundamental issue has been involved. I have discovered during the course of the discussions on those occasions that members make statements of basic importance to the well-being of this institution of Parliament. All hon. members will agree that the speech made tonight by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) was that kind of statement.
I could not help but make a mental note of the contrast between the reaction of members of the House to the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough and the
Withholding of Grain Payments
speech of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister had a great gallery behind him-all farmers from Montreal, Toronto and places of that nature! There was a lot of hooting and hollering because the minister's speech was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing and quite irrelevant to the essence of this debate. The speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough did not cause a vociferous response from the bleachers. Instead, a profound hush and silence descended over the House. I think the measure of its importance was in terms of what is sometimes called a pregnant silence.
Over the years I have had the privilege of sitting in this place during post-midnight debates. My mind goes back to the first occasion I experienced an extended debate on an issue of this kind. The issue concerned the breaking of the law by a minister of the Crown. That minister was a member of a former Liberal administration that had been in power far too long for its own good as well as for the good of the country. I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is following this debate very closely tonight, will recall the circumstances.
[DOT]
The minister concerned failed to discharge his obligation under the law of Canada. Nothing happened until the official, the civil servant, who was responsible resigned in protest. Then, the cat was out of the bag and debate began in this House of Commons. I was a new Member of Parliament trying to become accustomed to the mysteries of this august chamber, and I can still remember the speech of burning and righteous indignation given by a Presbyterian Scot-I do not think that Presbyterians have any monopoly on speeches of burning and righteous indignation-the late Alistair Stewart who was then representing the constituency of Winnipeg North.
One of his ringing phrases still remains indelibly imprinted on my mind. The occasion was just before Christmas of 1951 and he said that he did not know whether the minister would be spending Christmas in the bosom of his family or in the bowels of a penitentiary. As it happened, the minister spent Christmas in the bosom of his family rather than in the bowels of a penitentiary, but the issue was fundamentally the same as this. The minister concerned was one of some considerable political experience in the public life of this country and perhaps, under those circumstances, a little bit of arrogance has to be tolerated.
The intolerable part of the issue now before the House is that we have a minister who is responsible for the Wheat Board deliberately circumventing the law of the country and justifying it with a speech that was quite specious in nature and content; a minister who has been in public life only since 1968. I would say the present Liberal administration is taking on the attributes of arrogance that brought on its downfall in 1957 much too soon for its own good.

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
I sat in incredulity and heard the minister deliberately digging his own political grave in the sort of speech he made tonight. I remember the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who made many contributions to this country during the dark days of World War II, coming out with a statement that indicated how arrogant the Liberal administration of which he was a member in the latter days of the regime had become. In a debate on a very important issue he said: "If we are not careful this discussion is going to degenerate into a debate". The implications of that statement, of course, have much in common with some of the points that were made by the government spokesman in this House tonight. I see that the Whip of the government party has something to say, but unfortunately I did not catch what he said.


Otto Emil Lang: He said that that won't happen now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps he intends to take part in this debate, because not many of his troops are left this evening. The point I want to make in this debate is to bring before the minister the situation existing in western Canada of which he is apparently completely ignorant or for which he has utter disregard. He was trying to point out in his defence of the indefensible here tonight that if the Parliament of Canada would only pass Bill C-244, all the problems that beset the western economy at the present time would melt away in the morning sunshine.


Otto Emil Lang: I did not say that.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But this was the implication of the remarks, and we will be very pleased to have this point clarified because the only justification he gave for failing to discharge the responsibilities of the government under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was that we were delaying the passage of Bill C-244 which is designed to solve these basic problems. It happens to be the opinion of a substantial group in this House, and of most of the farmers and the people of western Canada, that Bill C-244 would worsen the situation that has already been seriously worsened by the actions or lack of actions of this government.
Bill C-244, as I understand it after having discussed the issue with my farmers, would not stabilize the prairie agricultural industry but would stagnate the industry and reduce it to the poverty level. How a minister of the Crown with responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board which has been one of the mainstays of the prairie grain industry over the years ever since it was first conceived by a Conservative administration can take this attitude of trying to foist upon the people of western Canada a bill, a government policy and an initiative that would cause profound disturbances in the prairie economy, an economy that is already at a disastrously low level, is beyond the comprehension of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Otto Emil Lang: So is the bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The point at issue with reference to the defence of the minister is that apparently he fails to
appreciate that the farmers of western Canada are now confronted with a situation where even those with long experience who would normally be thought of as having been firmly established in the prairie economy are finding it impossible to survive. Others who have spoken here tonight have pointed out the reason. The minister does not seem to understand the cost-price squeeze, the decline of grain prices with the collapse of the International Wheat Agreement because of the failure of the government to seize the initiative in these matters, and also the fact that even though grain sales are up-and this is one of the arguments that the minister used ad nauseum here tonight-this is doing nothing to increase the prosperity of the prairie wheat farmer. He is deeply in debt from cash advances and other last resort financial measures that he has been assuming in order to survive in the tragic economic situation in the prairies. The farmer is in a position where his cash flow has been completely cut off, and this year he will not likely have access to cash advances in order to help himself in the struggle against encroaching poverty.
To bring these brief remarks to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I quote a former member of this House who is now a distinguished member of the press gallery. From time to time he comments on agriculture and other western matters. I refer to Mr. Douglas Fisher who on several occasions has attempted to regain his place in this House. About a year ago he lost his bid for the NDP nomination in Selkirk, Manitoba, and summed up the reason for his failure to make a strong showing, according to a Canadian Press story dated February 23, 1970, as follows:
As a resident of Ottawa X was under the Trudeau curse. The sentiment is so strong against Ottawa that it goes against someone who even lives there.
From the stubborn, almost obtuse attitude of the minister I can only conclude that he too is under the Trudeau curse or spell, because the position he has taken with regard to this important matter is so completely incomprehensible to the people of western Canada. It is one of the reasons why we have witnessed in recent months a disturbing growth in the feeling of alienation on the Prairies.
When I refer to the Trudeau curse I recall that the right hon. gentleman who is the leader of the government, during an appearance before a farm audience in the city of Winnipeg made this strange and incomprehensible statement with reference to declining grain sales, "Don't expect us to sell your wheat." Obviously he did not even realize that under the Canadian Wheat Board Act the farmer has no other recourse than to sell his wheat through the board.
Confidence is important for the general economic wellbeing of the country. As the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) said a moment ago, prosperity is indivisible. The sort of defense that the minister made tonight is a disservice to the people he represents in his constituency in Saskatchewan. It is reminiscent of the defence he tried to make as recently as yesterday in face of

September 16, 1971

startling unemployment figures and a shocking increase in the cost of living, unemployment figures in reference to the situation that existed in August before the impact of the American surtax, and an increase in the cost of living amounting to 3.6 per cent, the largest increase we have seen during the whole period of increasing inflation in this country. This was also an increase that occurred before the impact of the American surcharge began to be felt on the Canadian economy.
The most tragic aspect of all is that the group most seriously affected by the chronic unemployment figure of 6.5 per cent is composed of the young people of Canada aged 14 to 25 years. What the minister is trying to do is perpetuate a myth. It is a myth that has been sold by what has been referred to as "Trudeaumania".


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The just society.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The just society, or participatory democracy. Talking about participatory democracy, as I look over at the government side of the House tonight, I see that we have only three members of the government participating in this important debate.


An hon. Member:: Not a member of the cabinet.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. minister is behind the curtain and I can well understand his desire to get out from under an embarrassing situation.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: It gets a little dull after a while.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, what the government has been trying to do to this and other important matters. I have here a quotation from something said by the late John F. Kennedy.
For the greatest enemy of the truth Is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived and dishonest-but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
That sums up in much better words than I could find, exactly the exercise undertaken by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board in his defence of the indefensible. I can assure the minister that it will not go over with the farmers of western Canada who are deeply concerned about the situation.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, we have
listened to a lot of words this evening. We have probably listened to so many because it is absolutely impossible for us to discover the words necessary to describe precisely how reprehensible is the government's failure to make to the Canadian Wheat Board the payments it is required to make under the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956. The government has told us that it is withholding the 9J cents a bushel, the $60 million owing to Canadian farmers, because there is a bill on the order paper which would repeal that provision for the payment of storage and carrying charges contained in the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. This is money urgently required by a western economy already staggering, not to mention the need of farmers whose income is already marginal.
Withholding of Grain Payments
There is absolutely no justification for the government action, either legal or moral. The government simply does not have a legal leg on which to stand. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956 is the law of the land. It requires that certain payments, estimated at approximately $60 million for the crop year 1970-71 be paid on a monthly basis to the Wheat Board beginning August 1, 1970. The payments have not been made. That is a breach of the law. It is a breach of the law knowingly- and I say knowingly advisedly-undertaken by ministers of the Crown. These are the same ministers of the Crown who paraded their virtue, their respect for the law, their desire for public order and their love of democratic institutions so sanctimoniously during the crisis last October. What is their justification for holding this money, so urgently required by the western economy? Their justification is that there is a bill on the order paper, Bill C-244, which has as one of its provisions the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act retroactive to July 31, 1970. This is, I submit, no justification at all. Anyone with even a marginal acquaintance with the procedures of a parliamentary democracy knows that a bill is nothing more than a piece of paper containing some words until Parliament sees fit to enact it into law. Bill C-244 is not yet law, nor can the government assume that it ever will be law. The government must wait until Parliament has made manifest its will. If the government is not willing to take my word for it I should like to cite a passage or two from "The Law of the Constitution" by A. V. Dicey, Tenth Edition. At page "xxxv" appears the statement:
No person or body is recognized by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.
The same principle applies in our Canadian parliamentary democracy. On page "cx" Dicey says:
-it is fundamental that there must exist some technique for forcing the government to submit to law; if such a technique does not exist, the government itself becomes the means whereby the law is achieved. This is the antithesis of the rule of law.
As I said earlier, the government has no legal leg to stand on in this instance. Indeed, it is the opposition which has the weight of legal opinion behind it and, as may shortly be demonstrated, the weight of legal procedure as well. Even if there is any legal justification for the government's action in withholding $60 million of badly needed money from the western farmer, we should look at the moral position.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board is arguing that none of this would have happened if the opposition had let Bill C-244 go through. Indeed, the minister says not only that the government would not now be embarrassed but that the farmer also would have received $100 million in acreage payments which would more than have replaced the lost revenue represented by the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. In addition, farmers would have received the benefits of an income support program based on gross farm income.

Withholding of Grain Payments
To begin with, such a position is nothing less than blackmail. The minister in effect is saying to the opposition, "Either you allow the legislation, which you consider to be bad legislation and which many farm organizations consider to be bad legislation, to pass or we will starve the farmers by withholding urgently required income and we will blame it on you."


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Douglas Charles Rowland: The minister tonight is being told where he can get off, and deservedly so. There is a great deal of noise being made these days about the responsibility of the government, about its accountability to the people and about the need for allowing it to get on with the work of fulfilling its mandate. One can hardly disagree with any of these concepts. However, there is another side to the coin. It is the responsibility of the opposition to see that the government does not ramrod through bad legislation. The opposition is accountable to the people for its actions in that respect.
If the opposition has the "temerity" to delay government legislation-and here, referring to Bill C-244 I might say, as someone said earlier, that it has only been before this House for 12 hours and before the committee for 24 hours-the mere fact that the opposition is also engaged in electoral politics and must seek the approval of the voters means either that in all likelihood there is overwhelming opposition to the idea, that there is a great division of public opinion, or that public opinion has not yet become clear. Surely in the case of any one of these three eventualities delay is justifiable. If the opposition is wrong in its assessment of public opinion, then it will suffer for its mistakes at the polls. This, as I said, is the other side of the coin to government responsibility; it is the side of opposition responsibility, a side too seldom seen and seldom understood. Surely the government has no justification, moral or otherwise, to employ blackmail in an attempt to get the opposition to avoid its responsibilities. Beyond that, the minister's assertion that the opposition is at fault in delaying the flow of cash to farmers is simply untrue. We on this side of the House have frequently suggested to the minister that he split Bill C-244 so that we might deal rapidly with its provisions for $100 million in acreage payments, something which all of us on this side of the House would agree to. But the minister will not do that. That is his decision, not ours. We have made the offer. As a separate measure, the acreage payments could have been put through the House before we rose for the summer. That measure could be put through very quickly right now. The cheques could soon be in the hands of the farmers of the country. The minister, however, was simply too stiff-necked to co-operate. Even the minister must understand that the other provisions of Bill C-244 are, to say the least, extremely controversial and required detailed examination.
Without giving a speech which might be more properly made during consideration of the grain stabilization bill, Bill C-244, let me mention a few areas that cry out for detailed consideration. First there is the provision for the cessation of payments to offset storage and carrying
September 16, 1971
charges for unsold wheat. We ask: Is it legitimate to require the farmer to bear this cost on his own, since reserves of grain are requisite to Canada's being able to supply customers on orders and thus favourably affect the balance of payments of the country?
Another example, is it realistic to base an income support program on the gross income of a farm? Would it not make much more sense to base the program on net farm income? Gross income can be high, but so are overhead costs which could make real income marginal if not non-existent. Yet another example, is it legitimate to require farmers to contribute 2 per cent of their gross earnings to such a plan when their real earnings are so marginal that 2 per cent off the top might mean the difference between survival and failure? Surely, these are legitimate questions requiring the most careful examination. Who is the minister to demand that we in the opposition cast aside our obligation to give it that examination?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, even if the minister were right in his assertion that this is all the fault of the opposition, a point which I do not concede for reasons I have given earlier, what does that have to do with the substance of the argument before us? Absolutely nothing. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is the law. The government has not abided by the law. In 1968 when the opposition defeated a proposal for a 5 per cent surcharge on income tax, the government did not like it, but they paid back the money collected. They obeyed the law then, and they should do so now.
Sheer bloody-mindedness has placed the government in the position in which it now finds itself. It is time it acknowledged that fact and carried out its obligations under the law, if for no other reason than that the western economy needs the money which they are withholding.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I was born and raised on a farm in western Canada, but that does not mean the farm problems which face us in Canada today are not shared by everyone who loves the land in this country. I wish this bill, and this problem which we face, related only to agriculture. If it did, I would be content to go home, take to my bed and perhaps settle this another day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: A good idea.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not think there will be any applause coming from the other side of the House when I finish my remarks. I am shocked that a debate of this importance and magnitude is not attended as it should be. This House should be jammed. I wish the gallery were jammed as well.
It is not the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act that is on trial today, it is democracy itself. I wonder where the cheering ranks are that were here an hour or two ago when the minister was defending the indefensible. I call him a minister with my tongue in my cheek. No minister of the Crown worthy of the name could stand up in this

September 16, 1971

House and say what the minister said, except in jest. It would be a very poor jest, indeed, to turn back a glorious period of a thousand years of history and development of democracy in the western world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: This minister of the Crown cares little, if anything, for the rights of the people in a democracy. He is a man chosen by the people, a man raised in western Canada, near the land itself and given the great benefits of Cecil Rhodes generosity. He should have his brains sharpened; they need to be sharpened. What did they do to his head at Oxford? It was not far from Oxford that they cut off the head of a king for doing a great deal less than the minister did in this House tonight. Charles I was the victim of a worn out creed, the divine right of kings. What man dare stand in this House today and say there is a divine right of prime ministers or minister of the Crown to run their ideas down our throats and say, "You will like it"?
You can read in Hansard the report of a great debate after we had voted an arrogant government out of office in a proper, democratic way. What did the then Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) have to say? He said, "We shall decide"-he did not mean even the whole Liberal party, but the inner clique of that party-"during, before and after debate, what is to be done in this country." It is on the record. This is not the first time I have stood in this House and told hon. members to read the record, to read the books that were written, the books in which he says where he is going and in which the path is outlined.
About 40 years ago another man wrote a book, Mein Kampf, and stated where he was going. Isit not a strange coincidence that exactly 31 years before this motion was put before the House, on September 15, 1940, the allies had to shoot down 285 German planes to prove that we would defend to the bitter end our right to determine in our way, at grass roots level, what would be done before, during and after debate.
When I heard those arrogant words spoken more than three years ago in this House I expected every backbench Liberal Member of Parliament to do what some of our greatest members have done since, though only one or two-thank God there are one or two left in this country who have the guts to stand up and face the non-party, the non-dictatorship which is rapidly taking over-that is, say, "If you don't like the way I run this country, go home, preach revolution and grow radishes." Did you ever hear those words before? I did. Were they said in jest? Grow radishes? Well, it is no good growing wheat any more because if you do you will not get $2 a bushel as was promised once by the great Liberal party. The good times of the Liberal party have become the tough times of Pierre Trudeau and his mob-you cannot call them a government, you cannot call them a cabinet.
The hands are the hands of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, but the policies are those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I think he must have told the 24319-13
Withholding of Grain Payments
minister that he would kick his derriere, the same as he said he would kick the small boy in Saskatchewan, if he dared oppose this demigod. I will kick your derriere, Mr. Minister. I hope I am kicking it now. How would you like to manger la merde? That is the advice our glorious Prime Minister gave hardworking men from Montreal who want to earn their living driving trucks. Is that the kind of democracy we support? Yes, point to him and give him his orders; he does not have to take them. I am being very relevant to this debate, and you know it. How would you like to fuddle-duddle? Resign. That is what that means in the Prime Minister's language-fuddle-duddle just as fast as you can.
There is more than one coincidence this week. Prince Alberta, Saskatchewan, was at one time the political home of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the great Liberals of this country, one of the great leaders of this country, a Canadian who did not have to hyphenate his name. We still have the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er) whose birthday is tomorrow. He has spent many, many years fighting for this country. I wish he were here tonight, because I know he would do a much better job of kicking your derriere than I am able to do.
The only support the minister received was from a man who could not stand the heat on this side of the House and had to get out of the kitchen. Is he preaching for a call? I believe he could do a great deal better because in his ignorance he is better than those trained in the chicanery of Oxford. This is one place where we do not have to be careful. One can talk treason in this chamber if he wants, and it has been done in my presence more than once. I have sat here nice and quiet and listened to it. After 23 years as a policeman sworn to obey the law, I have never been as shocked as I have been in the last 24 hours. I wish to God the Attorney General of Canada would sign a warrant; I would enjoy serving it.
This government has run out of ideas. It has wasted our money and is now vaguely looking for other sources of income-and I am not referring to the wonderful tax expectations. It has dipped into money set aside for agriculture but is now looking for an excuse not to spend it. This government should offset some of the economic nationalism being practised by the United States. Much too much has been said in the House about this matter, keeping in mind that this young nation is trying to get along with its neighbour. Some of our international wisdom is coming home to roost. The long-range plan outlined in the Prime Minister's book is beginning to misfire. He told us in his book how to take over Canada step by step. He says we do not have to worry about the federal system because it works beautifully. He says we can gain more by democratic means than we can with guns; all we have to do is take away democratic procedures.
Sir John A. Macdonald signed a very important document in 1873. He set up the Northwest Mounted Police Force now the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 16, 1971
Withholding oj Grain Payments


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You may cheer, but let me ask those who are cheering this rhetorical question: Can you promise me that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will remain in its present position even until 1973? Or will it be part of a non-force with a non-commissioner fitting into a plan for non-freedom? I was not only a policeman and a soldier I was trained in the law. If the Attorney General of Canada does not know the law of Canada let me presume to tell him. Everybody in this country is subject to the law which we make and which we alone have the right to alter.
I hope I never again hear about shortcuts. A shortcut in the law of Canada should be a shortcut to the penitentiary, and the flouting of Canadian law as in this case, represents a breaking of the oath of office of a cabinet minister. I do not know what name to put to it, but thinking of the sacrifice made by our boys 30 years ago I am led to wonder how many cabinet ministers shot down German planes? Think of the contribution of those soldiers compared to that of those who would legalize abortion or allow pot to be used everywhere?
We have come a long way during the last 30 years. Our heroes have new faces, but they are not faces that would ever convince me I should bow down and worship them. If my leader on this side of the House tried to do to the people of Canada what is being done openly and brazenly through this legislation, then I would condemn him. Not only do I not hesitate to take that stand but I would be ashamed to do anything else. Tell that to the rest of your boys.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There are not many here tonight.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The plan has misfired and those behind closed doors are looking for an election excuse. They are not satisfied with 150 seats; they have to manufacture an excuse to go to the people of Canada and ask them for an extended mandate. Why do they do this when they could not do less than they have done in the last three years?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They promised nothing and delivered it.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Yes, they promised nothing and sure lived up to their promise. Now, they are trying to panic the country into a premature election. They have another two years to go and they have a majority. If they have the brains, the sharpened wits and all the answers, then let them come up with a little action.


Otto Emil Lang: Do you want us to go five years?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not want you to go one more day. Liberal times are good times-for Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You live and learn, Mr. Speaker. These hon. members applaud too soon. The wheat farmers of western Canada do not think Liberal times are good times. The average net income of a prairie farmer three years
ago was $4,800 a year in round figures. In the year 1969-70, it was $1,200 in round figures. This does not take into consideration the drop in purchasing power of the dollar.
During the last year we have been told inflation has been beaten. It may be beaten for the Liberals, but it is not beaten for anyone else in this country. Perhaps the 7 per cent increase is sufficient for some people, but I am not one of them. I want to know when these good times are going to come and when participatory democracy will mean something. When will the Liberal cabinet consult its own backbenchers? I want to know how it is that this arrogant minister can predict that Bill C-244 will go through this House. He must have resurrected Mr. Pick-ersgill's crystal ball. Let me tell him that Bill C-244 is not going to go through this House unamended, any more than the former bill C-197, now resurrected as Bill C-176, will go through.
Ministers of the Crown are now boasting about this amended bill and how helpful it is going to be. It is hardly palatable amended as it is, yet they are already boasting about it.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said to me in this House: "Trust us to pass the bill and everything will be fine". How can we trust this ministry when a minister of the Crown says that although the law contains a certain provision if the government wants to do otherwise they can take little shortcuts? Is that not what the minister said? Have the "blues" been corrected? That statement should appear in Hansard or I will be up in the question period tomorrow asking why the minister did not leave it in. He said it and we all heard it. It had better be there. In my opinion, to allow him to resign would be a miscarriage of justice. He should be impeached. He is an Oxonian and he knows his history. He would not have dared to do this in the days of Burke and Pitt, and I would like to think that when history is written historians will be able to say he did not dare do it in the days of Woolliams and Mazankowski either. This may well go into the history books as a very historic occasion. I would like to think that we will win this debate and that members on the other side have enough guts to come over here and join us, because if the standards which we have heard expressed in the House tonight are the standards of the Liberal party there should not be an election. They should be ashamed to be members of the House. If that is an exaggeration, you will hear about it and I suppose I will hear about it. However, I will tell you something about the people of Pembina. They like clear, unvarnished truth and they will get it from me.
It is a big game we are playing here tonight; it is a serious game. I have spent my whole life preparing myself for it, and the chips are blue and the stakes are high. The stakes are the future of democracy and freedom in Canada, because if we let this thing go, what will it be tomorrow? There will be another little short-cut through the tax act, another little effort at the emasculation of the mounted police through the creation of a non-force? How do you protect yourself from that sort of

September 16, 1971

thing? Everybody within the sound of my voice knows and every Canadian knows, that if you take the task of protecting the security of Canada from the mounted police and put it into the hands of a non-force, it will be the death of freedom in this country. I can speak from 23 years of personal experience and say to you that it did not matter what your politics were, you were safe in my hands and those of my boys. I would protect the home of a Liberal, a Conservative, an NDP or that of anybody else in this country, and the very Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself who has brought a great deal of this about is safe in my hands. I wish I thought I could be safe in the hands of the non-force with a non-commissioner, run by the non-cabinet of a non-party. It is the height of nonsense, and it is certainly another great mis judgment of the people of this country if he thinks he will get away with it.
The biggest mistake Hitler made 40 years ago was in thinking that the western world did not believe in freedom, and there were 11 million or 12 million people who showed him in no uncertain way that the only way for him was to die by his own hand. His friend, Mussolini, was hung upside down outside a forgotten gate on an Italian hill. The same fate will befall anyone who pursues this method far enough. The first step toward dictatorship was to burn down the Reichstag. You do not have to burn it down if you can get the people in this chamber to act in a cowardly and disgraceful manner, that is to allow any man, be he minister or prime minister, to stand in this House and say he will make the rules. All they have to do is to say: "We, the little group, will make the rules because we have a few fellows scared into doing what they are told".
It has been my dream since boyhood to come to this House. I achieved an ambition. But if I am to be here when democracy in Canada dies, then I wish I had never been born; I wish my mother had never brought me up on the plains of Saskatchewan. I warn you that this battle is not going to be won easily. There is a democratic way of getting rid of this sort of treatment. If you want to call an election, if you think this little piece of blackmail will work, saying we are filibustering this $100 million that you are supposed to be giving the farmers, stealing three-quarters of it out of one pocket and poking it back into another, let me tell you that it will not go over with the people.
You cannot tell the people that you are going to run the country your way, whether they like it or not. You cannot predict that you are going to ram Bill C-244 through this House. Will your next election promises be better then the promise of $2 wheat or the promise the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made when he said, "We will make the rules"?


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.
Withholding of Grain Payments


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. member continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Thanks, all three of you.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: All four. At this hour, Jack, you can't count.


Roch La Salle: Three Liberals and one independent; you made a mistake.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I apologize to the hon. member. I did not see him there.


Roch La Salle: I am always here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Right in the middle of the Liberal caucus!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Perhaps I have deviated from what I usually do, because I always try to make my remarks entirely positive. Have I got any advice for you? Yes. I want you to obey the laws of Canada, to pay the farmers that which is justly theirs. I want you to stop this double-talk and give them the $60 million plus the $26 million that should be added to it. They need it very badly. Let us forget that they should be getting $2 for their wheat. Let us say it is $1.45 wheat; let us cut it down 55 cents. Let us let you off the hook.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Address the Chair, Jack.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I will be very pleased to hear from the hon. member who has just spoken from his seat.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the rules call for hon. members to address the Chair.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Has the hon. gentleman got the floor?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is rising on a point of order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is well established according to our rules. Our rules say that remarks must be addressed to the Chair.


William Arnold Peters: Where does it say that?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think there is no question about the direction of the Standing Orders and precedents. Remarks should be addressed to the Chair, and I am sure the hon. member for Pembina is going to do that.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I don't want to get into a lawyer's discussion with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, but he was addressing me from his seat, which is one of the most flagrant breaches of discipline and decorum in the House. If he is to rise on a point of order, I wish he would rise in the proper manner and address the Chair, and then Your Honour could put me in my place. I thought I was speaking to the whole House through you, Mr. Speaker.
243X9-131

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
My advice is that the minister should obey the laws of Canada. If he does, he will have no complaint from us. Pay the farmers of Canada their just dues. I wish the minister would take his own advice in respect of trying to shelve the responsibility for his own delinquency by blaming the opposition, telling us that we have failed the government again in their hour of need.
We want the government to obey the law of Canada and give the farmers what is justly theirs. If the minister wants to do that by splitting Bill C-244, I cannot speak for the whole party but I can say for myself that I am willing to give my support to any bill which gives the farmers what is due to them. There is no doubt about their need. The price of machinery is high and costs of all kinds are increasing. Their overhead is not going down. Wages, gasoline and taxes are all increasing and the farmer is stuck in the middle. Just pay your honest bills, and that will be a good start.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a feeling that, as the hon. member who spoke previously said, this is an historic debate. As a new member I feel privileged to be able to take part in it. Many fine speeches have been made here tonight. I have neither the rhetorical brilliance of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) nor the rhetorical and legal standing of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). However, I should like to say that in the constituency I represent we have an historic respect for the traditions of Parliament. We pay our bills and we respect the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: As a new member, perhaps I have come to this House full of idealism. This is natural when coming to such a hallowed institution, as was stated so ably by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale). I was quite shocked, therefore, when I realized today for the first time that this administration does not seem to share the sentiments I thought I would find here of paying your bills and respecting the law. It seems to me that these two qualities I have mentioned are fundamental to the traditional qualities of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I am shocked that they are absent from this most hallowed of all institutions in this country. I think it was Oscar Wilde, that famous English humourist, who once said in respect of the habit of the English gentry of hunting the fox, it was a case of the unspeakable pursuing the inedible. Here I seem to detect traces of the indefensible being justified by the irresponsible. I suggest, with all deference and respect to the hon. minister, that he is irresponsible, because he knows better. As a man who is an academic of some renown, a minister of the Crown and a man with legal training, I am sure that in his heart he knows better than this. I am disappointed to find this attitude here. But I wonder, Mr. Speaker, after digging back in my memory to the 1956 pipeline and other contentious issues that have arisen to capture the attention of this country in the meantime, if this is not the hallmark of Liberal administrations.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here tonight is basically a simple issue, as was brought out so ably by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We have a Canadian statute, duly passed by the Parliament of this country, calling upon the government to pay moneys justly due to large numbers of citizens of this country. That has not been done.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in his great experience and wisdom questioned the minister about why it was not done. What did we get? We got irrelevancy and evasion. One need not be very astute to recognize these for what they are. We did not come here tonight to listen to a history of the Wheat Board or to politically-expedient statements from the minister about what this administration has done in the past, about great wheat sales that they ostensibly have made and hope to make in the future. We came to get answers. Unfortunately, we did not get many answers tonight from the other side of the House.
The Coutts Hallmark people have a saying, "We care enough to send the best." It seems to me that the Liberal administration which is governing this country did not care enough to send the best tonight. Indeed, they did not care to send very many people at all. Much of what I should like to say tonight has been said by hon. members more experienced and talented than me. I would be remiss in my responsibilities to my constituents if I did not go on record this evening as supporting the efforts made by my colleagues and compatriots from the western part of the country who seek justice for their constituents who are affected by this situation. As many hon. members have said, beyond that there is a question of fundamental principle, the principle that those who are instrumental in creating the law and in imposing the law should also be instrumental in obeying the law.
It seems to me, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has said, that any government anticipating that a certain important legislative measure will be passed and carrying out what will be the end result of the legislation is presumptuous to the highest degree. "Anticipatory autocracy" seems to be a far more accurate description of the government's attitude than the much heralded term "participatory democracy".
It seems to me that statistics can support almost anything-especially statisticians. I think the government has refined the art of juggling statistics, forecasts and figures to an unparallelled degree. Indeed, they have refined their talents in this regard to a far greater extent than they have refined their talents for governing this nation in perilous times.
I do not intend to say much more, since the hour grows late. I would say, with all deference, that the important message has already been put across to the people of this country. I wish to echo the sentiments of the hon. member who preceded me and advise the minister to not delay any longer and to pay to the people of this country what is justly theirs under legislation passed for their benefit by their representatives.
[Mr. Bigg.)
September 16, 1971


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to delay the House. I have enjoyed listening to the speeches which have been made. Much interest in democracy has been shown by many hon. members. I personally participated in what the minister called a filibuster. I was one of those who believed that the legislation was poor and could be improved. I was one of those who advocated the splitting into two parts of that piece of legislation. On the one hand there was the money that was to be paid on July 31 for storage payments; on the other hand, and separate from that measure, there was the other proposition. The government was not too clear about it; it changed its mind a number of times last year. I am talking about the legislation that came out of the task force that the government set up.
The task force report was augmented by discussions which took place with farm groups as to what percentage the farmer should pay and the government should pay in arriving at a formula respecting the stabilization of income. I make no apology for using Parliamentary methods of supporting these two things. I might suggest that there was a great deal of chance in this. I assured my colleagues I would hold the fort while they went out and fought the election in Saskatchewan. I did not think that I would get so much help from the situation that developed. I took advantage of the situation mentioned earlier. I said to my House leader that we have now changed the bill and that the government has to make this payment on July 31 because that is the law. I said that when we reassemble, we will face a new stabilization bill which will only involve itself with the stabilization of agricultural income. I did not expect there would be a way to circumvent this.
The minister can accuse me of being devious or using all types of strategy to accomplish my end, but I usually look in the book and see whether it is legitimate before I do it. I was playing the rules. I think that I accomplished exactly what I set out to do, namely to support these two parts of the bill. The minister has done something which I do not consider to be playing the ballgame. He changed the rules. In my opinion, he does not have the right to change the rules. I depended on the law being supreme. The minister says the bill is going to pass anyway. I am not sure that is true, Mr. Speaker.
I do not come from western Canada, but I received 3,000 letters from westerners asking that this bill be killed. I may find some way to help do that and the bill will not be passed. If the bill does not pass by Christmas, will the minister then let the law apply? Will he then pay the $60 million plus the $29 million that will be involved? If he does not, we will find a way. Is this going to be done at the time of the election? Do we have to participate in a donnybrook to handle that situation? There must be some way that the law can be made effective. If the minister changes the rules, he cannot blame me for changing the rules in whatever ways appear to be appropriate and taking advantage of situations that may develop. At least this is playing the ball-game as it is laid out by our Parliamentary practice and tradition.
Withholding of Grain Payments
I think the payment has to be made. I do not believe you can retroactively decide something. The minister has a legal and moral obligation to make that payment. If it means there is only $40 million in the stabilization fund, we should talk about that. I do not think $40 million is going to settle the problem in so far as the farmers are concerned. I think the farmers have already spent the nine cents or 10 cents a bushel they expected to receive as a rebate for the storage costs. If they have to pay that nine cents or 10 cents per bushel, they are going to demand it in another form.
The minister can save himself, the government and Parliament a lot of trouble. If he does not honour the law, we are probably going to circumvent his intention anyway. The minister certainly knows and understands the law. I am sure he has a great deal of moral conviction. I am sure he is very upset about what has happened in the past three days. I honestly cannot understand his reason for not making the payment to the Wheat Board, taking whatever money is left and asking the committee to look at the stabilization factor that all members and farm organizations want to have. However, the minister does not care.
The farmer says he will have to pay the 2 per cent out of his net and the government will pay the 4 per cent. His percentage will be calculated on his gross, but he will have to pay out of the net. That will make his net income so much less. Originally, the argument did not involve the figures two and four, but another set of figures. It is possible that some arrangement can be made but I honestly believe the minister will do something for himself, something for his government and something for this Parliament. I do not know how else the minister can be forced into it if he does not want to be. The Liberals have a great tendency to fall back on the proposition that they have a large majority and can do what they like. In another country, in the United States, for example, this matter would be determined by a simple recourse to the Supreme Court. But in Canada I am sure no one could refer this to the Supreme Court and hope for any satisfaction, because a Supreme Court Judge would say: Parliament is supreme and parliament will have to do it. If Parliament does not have the machinery to enforce the operation of the law, I suggest we are in extreme difficulty.
I have listened to the arguments of the minister. I have listened to the arguments put forward in committee. I really cannot see the advantage, either from the minister's point of view in a political sense or from the viewpoint of the amount of money the farmer will get, of flouting the law and maintaining that the $100 million is to be kept as a set figure as against paying the money under the present law and using whatever balance there may be to institute a reform of the income structure of western Canada by in some way guaranteeing a minimum income over a period of time. It may take some $40 million. The minister indicated that I was wrong in saying the amount could be over $40 million. The minister said it could be a lot more. He is probably right,

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
except it means we have to increase production to a great extent. I am using the actual figure over a 15-year past average and it comes out to about $29 million.


Otto Emil Lang: Forty million dollars.


William Arnold Peters: I don't believe it comes to $40 million. That is the high end. In any case, if we were to triple production in western Canada, we would be raising the total figure. The argument in the committee was always in relation to the last 15 years of production. I believe this is the context in which the $40 million was mentioned. There is nothing this House can do to force the minister and the government to live up to the law, I know of no way or technique to accomplish this.
A debate such as this is a means of letting off steam, but it does not come to a conclusion because we do not vote. I hope the minister has listened to the arguments, all of which have been sincere. Surely he has come to the conclusion that ministers of the Crown must live up to the law and that he as the minister responsible for the Wheat Board must obey and uphold these laws.
I am sure that members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture are prepared to consider the stabilization bill with a view to developing stability of farm income in western Canada. In this way there will be no threat in respect of the use of the $100 million. Surely this Parliament can do no more than make such an appeal to ministers of the Crown. If it were necessary to have an election every time the opposition or people in the country felt the Crown had not lived up to its responsibilities, we would find ourselves in a very serious position. We have always had very outstanding parliamentarians in this country. We have had very few reasons either here or in England to institute impeachment proceedings. That has taken place very rarely in the United Kingdom and to my knowledge has never taken place here. It is a piece of legislation we have not used and will not use in the foreseeable future. Whether democracy will continue to function and whether the law will be observed by ministers of the Crown depends entirely on the ministers who respect the wishes of this country.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the hon. member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member knows that under the Standing Order he can put a question only with the hon. member's consent.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Courtesy demands, I believe, that I put a question to the hon. member, since he put one to me.
Later today I intend to present a motion for adoption of the motion for third reading of the bill within a time limit, for the benefit of western producers. I would therefore ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to support the motion I intend to present.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker. Any type of agreement would require hon. members justifying what the minister has done. If we were to ask now for co-operation or agreement in respect of Bill C-244, we would in effect be saying that what the minister suggests is correct and that when this bill is passed, whatever he has done is legitimate. Most members have agreed that in respect of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act the House of Commons has supported it, the Senate has supported it and it has received royal assent.
I would be prepared to accept the $100 million proposition, but once the obligation of the government has been met we should bring forward the stabilization bill and consider it separately as a method of guaranteeing the stability of farm income rather than as a partial method for the fulfilment of the purposes of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and economic stabilization.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place at one hour and fifty minutes past the hour of midnight with mixed feelings. I have a sad feeling because we have to debate this type of issue in a country that prides itself on its democratic system. But I am proud that we have on the opposition side of the house a number of members who have been willing, after a hard day's work, to stay here until almost 2 a.m. to debate an issue that will go down in Canadian history as a major event in the protection of the rights of the Canadian people.
We have heard from across the way tonight a variety of members. On one occasion we heard the "grey eminence" of the Liberal party who sat there lonely in his seat, at one time the only member of that party in the House. Then we had an attempt, which the whip of the Liberal party will want to deny, to reduce the House below the level of a quorum when several members were behind the curtain, in order to try to show us up as a group of individuals who were not prepared to carry on the debate. This occurred several hours earlier. I am proud to be able to stand here with at least a solid quorum of members of the opposition who have carried on this debate and will do so until every last word has been said.
This is the second time I have taken part in a debate past midnight in this House. Last time I was here until a quarter to one. That was in the fall of 1970 in a debate on what is now referred to as the October crisis, when the War Measures Act was invoked. Having listened to that debate on the Saturday, into the Saturday night and early Sunday morning, I can say that I do not know whether I felt sadder then than I do now.
This issue is not one of wheat. Wheat has been mentioned hundreds of times this evening, and I have seen the leadership shown by the hon. member from Calgary and listened to the speech of my colleague to my left, from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Other hon. members have also made outstanding speeches. These members were not talking about wheat. I do not think you will get members from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or

September 16, 1971

Newfoundland staying here until two o'clock in the morning to talk on the issue of wheat, about which they are not knowledgeable and perhaps do not have the same commitment as members from western Canada. It is obvious to me and to anyone with ears to hear that the issue here is much more fundamental. To me, this issue is national and is one of the most critical situations I have seen since becoming a Member of Parliament in 1968.
I heard the minister this evening stand in his place and tell us that he would be prepared to go to jail for the farmers. He told us how he would take shortcuts, how he would cut through red tape to get around the law. I could almost hear the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) coming from his lips. I would not go as far as other members of this House and say that he is only the puppet of the Prime Minister, that he is only doing what he is told, because having shadowed the minister from Saskatoon for the last couple of years and watched him take part in debates in this House I am convinced that much of what he is doing carries his own conviction. We have seen him today. I saw him earlier today stand before the national press down in the Commonwealth room and try to explain away the unemployment with which we are faced today in Canada by saying that there has been a growth in the labour force. He said to the national press-and I hope they could see through it-"I know you cannot understand what all these figures add up to, so come down with me to the Commonwealth room and I will explain away all the ills of the economy in Canada". He tried to tell the people of Canada, through the press, that the problem we have today results from the growth in the labour force, something which I heard back in 1945 when I was five or six years old, something which I heard repeated by his former prime minister in 1964, and something which I heard repeated every time there was a release on unemployment in the last three years. This minister is the most competent minister of any in this government in being able to present a deceitful situation to cover up the mess to which he and his government brought this nation. He is the most competent in this field because he has the smoothness, and the verbal diarrhea which goes with it, to be able to do this so beautifully that most people would never suspect him.
I remember one summer in my riding of Gander-Twil-lingate having occasion to witness, in a small community called Brown's Arm in Notre Dame Bay, a situation in which a number of very peace-loving ladies decided that they were not satisfied with the commitment which was made by their provincial government, made officially on paper during an election in 1966, to pave a piece of road in their community. Let me give you the full story. There is a great source of gravel in that community that was being used to pave roads all over the Notre Dame Bay area, and these ladies said: "Why should this gravel be hauled through our community with all the dust and resulting danger to our children and families?" The government made a commitment four or five years ago to pave the roads in that community and they had not fulfilled it, so why should they get away with it. These
Withholding of Grain Payments
ladies decided they would picket the gravel pit from which this dust originated.
This might seem like a minor story, but it was never picked up by the national press. It was one of the most fundamental things that I have ever seen happen. Mr. Speaker is smiling. I will prove to Your Honour that this is an example of how the law applies to everybody. The ladies picketed the gravel pit which belonged to the provincial department of highways. The attorney general's department issued an order to the police that the law must be enforced. The RCMP moved in and told the ladies that they would have to enforce the law unless the ladies were obedient to that law. I remember witnessing this sad situation in a small community. I will not go into the religious affiliations of the people, but suffice it to say that they were peace loving Notre Dame Bay people. I said to these people: "you cannot break the law. I am a law-maker and I would love to be able to lead you in an issue which is legitimate, but you cannot break the law". I am also a teacher and I have spent years teaching young people to obey the law and to respect discipline. I remember going into great detail about it with these people. The next day, after the warning from the RCMP, the police had no alternative-and I am not blaming them-but to move in and arrest these ladies. They carted them to jail and charges were laid.
This is an example of how the law applies. The situation was sad, but it is an example of the fact that nobody is above the law. But here we have a situation today in the House of Commons where $90 million is being robbed from the people in western Canada, which is illegal under the law of this land. As my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) indicated, here we have the minister, an eminent lawyer from Saskatoon, who is not only breaking this law but is the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It is an unbelievable situation. I have been here a few years only, and I am a rookie in terms of the length of time in office compared to other hon. members, but I certainly feel that some of the remarks made by other hon. members were very pertinent.
I hope this debate will be well recorded and well read, because this Parliament has seen the ultimate insult. We have seen the gradual build-up to this ultimate insult-and it first started with what happened in committees. I could debate at length all that has happened in committees. 1 remember one night when government supporters, organized into platoons, moved in on a committee and kept it in session until 7 or 7.30 in the morning studying Bill C-176, in order to cram it down the throats of the Canadian people. Luckily we had people with the dedication of some of my western colleagues who withstood the organized efforts of the government.
I hope the Canadian people can understand what is going on in this country. We have a situation where examination of the estimates has been taken out of the House of Commons, another example of the downgrading

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
of Parliament. Today the government can bring in any spending program it wants. Parliament has lost control. It is only a matter of time until Parliament becomes another committee room where members will only be able to do what they are doing now, that is, get up and voice opinions. As a matter of fact, I do not know how long the press can continue its present practices in face of the organized professional efforts of Information Canada and its Canadomes. In fact, it won't be long before even the verbal efforts of Members of Parliament are totally nullified. If people with legal training read through much of the legislation that we have passed in recent years they will see the break-up of democracy, with more and more discretionary power given to ministers. Such a study will show what is happening in Canada. Today the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) is the financial czar of the country. At his discretion he can decide on expenditures of up to $12 million and beyond, although he has not yet gone beyond that figure.
I just want to touch on one or two points before I conclude, Mr. Speaker. The remarks of my colleague from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) earlier today centred on the decline in rural farms in western Canada. I cannot talk too much about those farms, although I had an opportunity to spend a couple of years of my early life living in western Canada, visiting parts of Alberta and of the minister's province. But I can tell the people of western Canada that they had better beware of the government which is running the country if they want to see any semblance or trace of rural life left in that part of our country.
We on the east coast have seen a deliberate, calculated plan to destroy the whole of rural Atlantic Canada. It is being put into effect under many pieces of legislation, and the most traumatic leadership is that provided by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. My colleagues from Prince Edward Island and the other Atlantic provinces can verify what I am saying. The people running the government have decided that everything in Canada has to be big, has to be based on the model of Montreal. It has to have an industrial complex and it must be viable, a word which has a particular meaning in government departments.
I hope nobody is fooled by all this. The government is attempting to destroy rural Canada at a time when most people are beginning to understand and appreciate the cultural and environmental qualities of life in these areas. This quality of life of these people needs to be preserved, yet the government is deliberately embarking on a policy to destroy the small communities. This is what is happening. If any farmer in western Canada does not realize that this is the end of the major aspects of government policy in this regard, he is in for a setback.
We have seen situations like this before. I am not making the charge without being able to substantiate it. A number of places in my province have been designated as special areas and will get what Mr. Tom Kent used to refer to as the "infrastructure". A number of other areas have been designated as receiving centres. This has not been announced publicly and no one in my province knows about this, but I have a copy of the publication
naming the communities as receiving communities. These communities basically fall into special areas. All of the 800 communities around the coast of Newfoundland are referred to as sending communities. This matter is really relevant. Your Honour is looking at me as if I am being irrelevant. I am trying to point out that basically the type of legislation being introduced, whether referring to farming or regional development, is aimed at destroying rural Canada. That is why I say to the people of western Canada that this is the intent of the government policy before us today. In my province we have a program that the government bragged about called the resettlement program under which people are uprooted from their communities, given a couple of thousand dollars, which seems a great deal of money to them, and sent into the urban areas. Often that is the end of their lives.
Last year in Alberta I visited areas where farmers had been very successful. They might have needed a little assistance from the government to organize themselves into viable units, but the experts from the government departments came and encouraged them to move off their farms. This is what I saw in the part of Alberta with which I am familiar.
About an hour ago, as I was coming in from the lobby, I noticed the television station was signing off for the evening. It was a little moving to hear "O Canada" being played. This would send a thrill up the spine of any Canadian who feels as I do. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am the youngest Canadian in the House at the moment, at ten after two o'clock in the morning. As a matter of fact, I am exactly 21 years old as a Canadian because Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. At that time, I was ten years old and it took a little time to move from the traditional background of a Newfoundland fishing community with a pride which goes beyond description and a feeling of fierce independence borne from eking out a livelihood from the rugged coastline, fighting the elements day after day in a village on the east coast of Newfoundland. The day we became part of Canada, a lot of old Newfoundlanders raised the black flag because they did not think we should give up our heritage. A lot of them died without becoming Canadians, but others became very fine Canadians. I felt proud to stand in school assemblies and halls across the province, taking part in the verses of the national anthem.
In 1968 I decided to enter politics and become a member of the Canadian Parliament, the highest court in the land. This was because I was convinced that the system of government in Newfoundland had reached a state of autocracy which could not be tolerated. That is the system presently controlled by the provincial government which I would not like to comment on in detail in this chamber, though I have done so many times in the province of Newfoundland. At that time, going across Canada was this young, aspiring Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I believe he was 49 years old.
Except for a few people on the east coast, a few people in two or three cities in Quebec, Ontario and out west, most Canadians went for this young Canadian who could

September 16, 1971___________________COMMONS DEBATES___________ 7933
dive off a diving board better than the leader of our party and who figured that he could kiss away all the problems of Canada. That was his style of politicking from British Columbia to Newfoundland. He became Prime Minister on June 25, 1968.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: I remember coming into the House after the election and, like almost every Canadian, not knowing too much about the direction of this government or what it was capable of doing. I have had my fill of this man, who by his own definition is a young Canadian- who became our Prime Minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He is my age.


John Howard Lundrigan: The unemployment situation has
reached crisis proportions-455,000 people are out of work today, the highest figure for August in the history of Canada. The wheat farmers of western Canada are making half the net income they made ten years ago.


An hon. Member:: No, about a quarter.


John Howard Lundrigan: My colleague says that they make about a quarter. We have fishermen on the east coast who have been left so unprotected that people of every nationality are raping our fishing resources there. In the fall of 1970 we had a situation under which we invoked the War Measures Act. Inflation has been at almost 4 per cent over the last 12 months. It is running above that figure this year. We have an economy which because of the action of our neighbours to the south is in much greater danger now than it has been for several years. In part, that action was provoked by the contempt the leaders of the United States government feel for the leaders that Canada now has. It is a contempt for which one cannot blame them.
Now we have reached the ultimate situation. Government, which makes the law, is breaking the law. I should like to see this issue resolved in this House before we move to other legislation. I should like to see the issue resolved, with the co-operation of the Chair, during question period and by means of other procedures which we can adopt. This government must be forced to uphold the law. Even if it takes us another week, we must make sure that the government upholds the law and that it does not use any piece of legislation to blackmail the House of Commons and the people of western Canada. If this matter is allowed to drag out until the legislation passes in any form, even in an acceptably amended form, you might as well close the doors of the House of Commons.


Prosper Boulanger: Don't exaggerate.
Withholding of Grain Payments


John Howard Lundrigan: "Don't exaggerate," the hon. member says. Is there any use our continuing to pass legislation if there is one example in this history of Canada of legislation not being upheld? If there were to be one such example-and we are talking about it-and if this state of affairs is allowed to continue, we might as well resign our seats, go back to our constituencies and let the Canadian Parliament die a natural death.
I should like to see colleagues who are experienced in parliamentary practices bring in motions and adopt procedures which will force this government to pay its debts under the law. And that should be done before we move on to further legislation. I should like to see motions of non-confidence put forward in the House. I want to see members of the House of Commons forced to stand in their place and say whether they will vote for upholding the laws of Canada or not-because Mr. Speaker, that is the basic issue here.
Everyone in the House knows where we stand, Mr. Speaker. We have not yet heard where members opposite stand. Either they have not been permitted to take part in the debate or they have lost interest in the whole process. If the support that the minister, who stands sipping his coffee, has in his caucus is evidenced by the presence this evening of his colleagues, there is a lot of discontent in the backbenches and the whole of the Liberal party.
In conclusion, starting tomorrow I will look forward to standing here again and debating a non-confidence motion specifically aimed at where the members of this House of Commons stand. Either they stand for Canada or they stand against Canada. That is the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I trust I am not pre-empting the time of anyone who wishes to take part in this debate. I assume that the last speaker was the last person to speak. If that is correct, on behalf of my colleagues- Does the hon. member-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was going to take two or three minutes, if my hon. friend does not take them from me.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: While I have the floor, on behalf of my colleagues, may I thank the Speaker and his office for providing the opportunity for this debate which may have historical significance. We would like to thank the Speaker's staff, the officers at the table, and all those-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair hesitates to accept the remarks of the hon. member in the sense that it is placing the Chair in the centre of an important debate. Hon. members are aware of the stature and position of the Chair which has the sole responsibility of applying and interpreting the rules of the House to the best of its knowledge. The Chair hopes the hon. member will not in any way imply that any decision of the Chair might be related to the debate before us.

September 16, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure Your Honour misunderstood my remarks. I meant no reference to the Chair. I was referring to the staff; the officers at the table, the interpreters, the security staff and all who provide services around the chamber. We thank them for their courtesy and apologize to them for their loss of sleep. Be assured there was no intention to reflect on the Chair. I make that abundantly clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I will only be two or three minutes. I am sure we all agree that in many respects this has been an important and useful debate, but I think it is most unfortunate that in over six hours of debate there has been no attempt whatsoever to answer the question that has been in our minds all night. By what authority is the present government ignoring the law of Canada? The question is as simple as that.
We have heard plenty of discussion about other matters, farm policy and all the rest of it. None of it has been really relevant. The issue revolves around the fact that there is a law on the statute books which requires the government to make certain payments. Those payments have not been made. We have not been told that there is any provision in the law, any order in council or legal instrument of any kind which permits that law to be ignored. Back in 1949 when Mr. Garson, who was minister of justice, broke the law by refusing to table a report on the flour milling industry which had been prepared under the terms of the Combines Investigation Act, the best answer he could give was: We are the government; we won the election.
In 1968, when we debated the question how the government was able to get around the fact that it had been beaten in a major vote on a tax bill, we were told by the minister of justice of that day, now the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), that they were the masters of the House. Now, all we get from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is that these payments have not been made because there is a bill on the order paper which, if passed, would repeal the law under which they would have to be made. May I remind hon. members that there is also on the order paper a bill numbered C-264, a bill to change the family allowance scheme into what is to be known as a family income security plan. Do hon. members opposite realize that in this bill there is a clause which says that the Family Allowance Act is repealed as of May 1, 1972? Does this mean that if Bill C-264 has not been passed by that time, the government will quit paying the family allowances which are required under the present legislation? Suppose there are extended negotiations between Mr. Bourassa and the Prime Minister, suppose there are other crises and we don't get at it, or suppose the opposition filibusters the measure. Would the government cease to pay the allowances presently required by law?
I suggest these cases are on all fours. If the government, on the basis of a bill on the order paper now, can ignore a statute which that bill says will be repealed, it
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
can do so with respect to this one. The answer Mr. St. Laurent made once upon a time was, there are certain things we don't do. The government would not do this. The government would not think of discontinuing the payment of family allowances before a new scheme came in. Yet the same government finds it possible to discontinue the payment required by statute under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act because there is on the order paper a bill which would call for the repeal of that Act.


Otto Emil Lang: Effective 1970.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. The reason I chose the example I did, rather than some others I might have picked, was that in both cases there is a precise date. There is also a precise date in Bill C-244. Since the government has not been making the payments required under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, it would follow that after May 1, 1972 the government could cease paying family allowances, even if the new legislation had not been passed. I know this will not happen. I am not trying to scare hon. members opposite. It would not happen because there would be too much of an outcry. But the same principle applies. The government is doing what Mr. Garson did back in 1949. The government is doing what the present Prime Minister did in 1968 when he said "We are the masters of the House." This is not the way this place operates. We operate on the rule of law. We operate on the principle that when a law has been passed the lowliest citizen in the country must keep it, and so must the government.
I make this appeal to the government across the way. What is being done is not just harmful to the farmers. What is being done is in defiance of the rule of law and the traditions of Parliament. There is still time to correct this situation and I ask that government to make that correction right away.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall answer with pleasure.


Marcel Prud'homme: I think I should ask it in French. [Translation]
Taking for granted that we are currently making a mistake, does the hon. member mean to tell us that the government must pay the highest price, namely going down in electoral defeat? Is the government not responsible for taking decisions, just as the opposition is responsible for opposing them, taking for granted that the government is erring and that it will have to pay the price, that is being defeated?


Stanley Howard Knowles: member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), has raised the point that any responsible government or executive of the day can literally do just about anything it wants, provided it has the approval of Parliament and provided it is prepared to run the risk of an electoral defeat.
Let me refer again to Mr. St. Laurent-and I am sure the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) knows what I have in mind. Mr. St. Laurent rose during a debate and picked up the Bible. This action was recounted during the pipeline debate. He quoted from the Bible and pointed out that there are certain things the Romans did not do. He said of government in power that in spite of the right it has to do certain things, there are
Withholding of Grain Payments certain things it should not do. One of the things the government should not do is violate the laws of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In accordance with Standing Order 26(13), the Chair is satisfied that the debate is over. I declare the motion carried.
At 2:30 a.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, September 17, 1971