1971-02-15

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
THIRD SESSION-TWENTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT 20 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
23966-li
Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 15, 1971


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on this day, the 15th of February, because it is six years ago that a new Canadian flag was promulgated in Canada. It has long been my contention that regardless of the opinions we may have individually as to the design of that flag, we all wish to honour the flag of our country in a way that is befitting.


Mr. Horner:: Stop the government cutting it up.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Since most legislatures in the world display their flags at their centres of government and since in Canada we have never had that custom in the House of Commons, it would appear to me that there would be unanimous consent by hon. members to have the flag of Canada displayed in this House.
My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, rests on the point that the members of this House are denied the presence of the flag in the House when enacting the laws of this country and that the people of Canada who come here to visit would also like to see their flag displayed here but up to now have been denied this privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cochrane has given the Chair notice of the question of privilege he proposes to submit to the House at this time. As the hon. member knows, the Chair is required to rule whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. I think the House will agree with the Chair that although the hon. member may have a point of debate and a valuable suggestion for consideration by the House, the matter should not be raised by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member may have a motion which could be submitted to the House in the regular way, but it cannot be brought to our attention in this way. I regret, therefore, that the matter cannot be pursued further by way of a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in French
and English an agreement recently entered into by the government of Canada with the government of Israel concerning commercial scheduled air services.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Would the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada table in Parliament all the background studies, consultant reports, etc., that were prepared by the Task Force on Government Information?
2.	Would the Minister also table in the House all the reports, documents, studies, undertaken in the Privy Council Office regarding the establishment of Information Canada?


Mr. Barney J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the studies and reports prepared by the Task Force on Government Information are at present being assembled and indexed. When this work is completed it is proposed to submit a set to the Library of Parliament, where they will be available to all members.
In reply to part 2, Mr. Speaker, these internal documents and as such are privileged and not customarily disclosed.


OTTAWA-CANADIAN GOVERNMENT EXHIBITION COMMISSION
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract 67-N.C.R.-4 construction of a warehouse and office building for the Exhibition Commission and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (x) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, (a) Eleven tenders were received and opened on March 15, 1967. (b) Highest tender, $2,876,700; lowest tender,

February 15, 1971
Questions
$2,548,000. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement: Newspapers-Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Daily Commercial News, Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Ron Engineering & Construction Ltd.
4.	(a) and (b), (i) $25,500 (est.)-Architectural supervision was provided by employees of the Department of Public Works, (ii) $34,065-J. L. Richards & Associates (Structural, Mechanical and Electrical), (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The Contractural arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades
Warehouse and Office, Exhibition Commission- Contract 67-N.C.R.-4
1.	Piling (Franki Pile Limited)	$ 14,300.002.	Dry wall, lath and plaster	112,770.003.	Structural steel (Canadian Iron FoundriesLimited)	383,910.004.	Excavation	55,298.005.	Mechanical (John Colford ContractingCompany Limited)	544,600.006.	Elevators	68,000.007.	Precast concrete roof deck (Domtar Construction Limited)8.	Electrical (Meco Electric (1960) Limited)9.	Masonry (George & Asmussen Limited)10.	Overhead doors11.	Reinforcing steel supply12.	Wire wesh13.	Tile and terrazzo14.	Precast wall cladding15.	Roofing and sheet metal16.	Venetian blinds17.	Glass and aluminum windows18.	Metal doors and frames19.	Monorails and hoists20.	Weigh scale (Toledo Scales)21.	Miscellaneous metals22.	Dock levellers
160.943.00
314.446.00 55,000.00
18.500.00
22.200.00
30.470.00
7.500.00
40.500.00
25.513.00
1.180.00
35.750.00
15.800.00 18,826.50
4,144.91
47.500.00 2,646.96
23.	Rubber doors	1,456.0024.	Asphalt paving (Dibblee Construction Company Limited)	27,525.0025.	Cement finishing	36,076.0026.	Insulation	3,020.0027.	Millwork	9,923.0028.	Concrete curbs	7,800.0029.	Caulking	1,700.0030.	Resilient flooring (Capital Tile & FlooringLimited)	16,195.0031.	Acoustic ceilings	17,332.0032.	Painting (Coleman, Cinkant & Son Limited)	17,700.0033.	Finishing Hardware (Canadian HardwareConsultants Limited)	9,200.00
34. Movable Partitions (Murphy & Morrow
Limited)	43,000.00
35.	Concrete	141,735.0036.	Formwork	87,500.0037.	Carpentry	15,000.0038.	Bond, insurance	and permits	25,000.0039.	General condition	108,039.63


PUBLIC WORKS-CANADIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTING BUREAU, OTTAWA
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract CR-67-27I4 to cover renovations for a computer system, at the National Printing Bureau and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, what was the reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4 If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. (a) Six tenders were received and opened on June 22, 1967. (b) Highest tender, $37,800.; lowest tender, $29,106. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement: Newspapers, Ottawa and Hull.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	D. K. Young Construction Company Limited.
4.	(a) and (b), (i) $450 (est.)-Architectural supervision was provided by employees of the Department of Public Works, (ii) None, (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to

February 15, 1971

list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades
Alterations for Computer System, National Printing Bureau-Contract N.C.R.-67-2714
Electrical (Unives (Canada) Limited)	$ 3,980.00
Mechanical (Gendron Limited)	12,495.00
Blinds	300.00
Partitions (Murphy & Morrow Limited)	9,000.00
Flooring (Pedlar People Limited)	1,000.00
Painting	300.00
Supervision and Overhead, etc.	2,031.00


PUBLIC WORKS-K. W. NEATBY BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract OC-00036-Alterations, K. W. Neatby Building and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Ten tenders were received and opened on March 19, 1970. (b) Highest tender, $49,580.; lowest tender, $36,200. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement. Newspapers-Ottawa and Hull; Journal Constructo, Ottawa.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Comae Construction Company Limited.
4.	(a) and (b), (i) $550 (est.)-Architectural supervision was provided by employees of the Department of Public Works, (ii) None, (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as
Questions
provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5 and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Contractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades
Alterations, K. W. Neatby Building, Central Experimental Farm-Contract OC-00036
1.	Insurance, permits, overhead and profit $ 3,791.00
2.	Move on site, demolish partitions & doors,
remove millwork	510.00
3.	New block partitions	1,300.004.	Plastering	700.005.	Millwork	5,200.006.	Door frames	130.007.	Venetian Blinds	50.008.	Acoustical ceilings	235.009.	Finish hardware, installed	425.0010.	Painting and finishing	415.0011.	Vinyl tile flooring	723.0012.	Mechanical	17,383.0013.	Electrical	5,338.00


PUBLIC WORKS-HEADQUARTERS BUILDING, DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, OTTAWA
Mr. Paproski: 1.	Were tenders called for contract OC-01865-Construct Headquarters Building for the Department of External Affairs and, if so (a) what was the number of bids received (b) what was the highest and what was the lowest (c) what bid was accepted (d) how was the notice of tender publicized?
2.	If no tenders were submitted, for what reason?
3.	Who was awarded the contract?
4.	If the Department of Public Works executed the contract (a) what was the cost of (i) architectural supervision (ii) engineering supervision (iii) excavation (iv) foundation (v) super structure roofing contractor and concrete supplier (vi) masonry construction (vii) interior divisions plastering and interior finish partition (viii) heating and air conditioning (ix) electrical wiring (x) plumbing and heating (b) by whom was same done?
5.	Who was the bonding company for sub contracts?
6.	With whom was the insurance placed for sub trades?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes, (a) Five tenders were received and opened on May 5, 1970. (b) Highest tender, $26,700,000.; lowest tender, $25,711,000. (c) Lowest tender, (d) Public advertisement: Newspapers-Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Hull; Daily Commercial News & Building Record, Toronto; Heavy Construction News, Toronto; Journal Constructo, Ottawa.
2. Not applicable.

February 15, 1971
Questions
3.	The Foundation Company of Canada Limited and Janin Building & Civil Works Limited. Negotiations undertaken subsequent to tender closing resulted in the revised tender in the amount of $25,617,000.
4	(a) and (b), (i) $480,000 (est.)-Webb, Zerafa, Menkes, Architects. (Work currently underway.) (ii) None, (iii) to (x) In very few cases does the Department require the General Contractor to list on the tender form all the names of the subcontractors they propose using. A cost breakdown by trades, as provided by the General Contractor, is attached including the names of those trades which were required to be listed.
5	and 6. The contractual arrangements are directly between the Department and the General Constractor. Consequently the matter of performance bonds and insurance for subcontractors is the sole responsibility of the General Contractor.
Cost Breakdown by Trades
Construct Headquarters Building for the Department of External Affairs-Contract Oc-1865
1.	Mobilization	$ 506,255.002.	General Accounts	929,169.003.	Excavation	406,822.004.	Structural concrete except resteel	2,869,830.005.	Reinforcing steel	1,475,000.006.	Rough carpentry	32,872.007.	Asphalt paving (Beaver Asphalt)	11,000.008.	Rock anchors (Conenco)	23,193.009.	Precast concrete (Schokbeon Quebec Inc.)	2,209,995.0010. Masonry (George & Asmussen)	430,241.0011.	Structural steel (Canron)	418,315.0012.	Miscellaneous metals (Ottawa Iron Works)	490,890.0013.	Steel deck (Robertson-Irwin)	7,600.0014.	Building insulation (Dewar-Duron-Diamond)	677,000.0015.	Caulking, sealing and weatherstrip (Dominion Caulking Co. Ltd)	18,700.0016.	Hollow metal (Macotta)	34,743.0017.	Aluminum windows (Zimmcor Company)	890,000.0018.	Overhead doors (Pelle & Ambico)	12,662.0019.	Rolling shutters	1,302.0020.	Wood and plastic doors (Gardiner's of Gault Limited)	119,700.0021.	Steel toilet partitions (General Steel-wares)	9,160.0022.	Washroom accessories (National Material Handling)	33,500.0023.	Chalkboards and Tackboards (DeltaOntario Limited)	3,520.0024.	Door grilles (Hart & Coolley)	1,144.0025.	Dock ramps and bumpers (Service Steeland Engineering)	2,866.0026.	Vertical conveyor systems (MathewsConveyer Company Limited)	530,374.0027.	Pneumatic tube system (Power RegulatorCo. of Canada Ltd.)	33,919.0028.	Elevators (Dover Corp. Canada Limited) 982,890.0029.	Mechanical (Canadian InternationalComstock Company Limited)	5,643,860.0030.	Electrical (Univex Canada Limited)	3,109,872.0031.	Vault Door	606.0032.	Post tendered items P.C. allowance	3,700,000.00


Mr. Coates: 1.	Were any members of the Company of Young Canadians arrested under the War Measures Act since October 16, 1970 and, if so (a) what are the names of the persons arrested (b) where did they reside (c) how long were they held in each instance (d) were charges laid against any of them (e) are they still members of the Company of Young Canadians?
2.	Were any of the offices of the Company of Young Canadians closed since October 16, 1970 and, if so (a) which offices (b) at whose request (c) in each instance, what were the names of people involved in these offices as members of the Company of Young Canadians?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of the Solicitor General and the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. Yes. One as of November 5, 1970. (a) It is not in the public interest to release the name of any person who is arrested under the War Measures Act and then released without being charged, (b) Quebec city, (c) Held five days, (d) No. (e) Yes.
2.	No.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring tire manufacturers to maintain records of the names and addresses of tire purchasers so that they may be notified if the tires prove defective?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not require tire manufacturers to maintain records of the names and addresses of tire purchasers so that they may be notified if the tires prove defective. Such defect notification, under the Act, is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, distributor or importer in respect to the tires with which the vehicle is equipped. The provincial authorities are reviewing the quality control of tires retailed in their provinces and consideration is being given to tire standards regulations.
[Mr. Laing.)
February 15, 1971


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring the standardization of motorcycle controls as to location, operation and identification of such controls to facilitate their safe operation?


Gérard Duquet: Over the years, a standard set of controls has evolved for such motor vehicles as passenger cars and trucks. Where operators may frequently change vehicle, such standardization of control location, operation and identification contributes to the safe operation of the vehicle. Consideration is now being given to standardization of controls on both motorcycles and snowmobiles.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring that all motorcycles be equipped with turn signal lamps?


Gérard Duquet: Motorcycles present a poorly defined target in the general traffic environment, particularly at night, and are capable of high mobility. These two factors combine to make it desirable to increase the visual impact of this type of vehicle and the intentions of the operator. A contribution to this end can be made by requiring the fitting of the signal lamps to all motorcycles, and consideration is being given to this.


Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given to the publication of an annual consumer information booklet designed to help the new car buyer know more about the safety performance of the automobile?


Gérard Duquet: The publication of an annual consumer information booklet about the safety performance of motor vehicles is under review. So far it has not been established that this information would be of practical value to the consumer or that it would be an appropriate requirement of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to equip new vehicles with warning devices, which, in emergencies, can be erected on or near the roadside to alert approaching drivers of the presence of a disabled vehicle?


Gérard Duquet: For many years, provincial regulation of truck operations has included requirements relating to the provision and use of emergency flares or equivalent devices. Such devices offer an advance
Questions
warning of any disabled vehicle. Consideration is being given to extending this practice and assisting provincial regulation through a requirement that all motor vehicles be equipped with devices having specified characteristics.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to setting standards to control the noise level inside trucks and buses?


Gérard Duquet: The Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides authority to establish standards limiting the noise level of vehicles. Noise regulations have already been issued for snowmobiles and consideration is now being given to further regulations establishing standards to control the noise levels of trucks and buses.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 587
Mr. Carter:: 1.	What was the number of revenue passengers carried in 1969 and up to September 30, 1970, by CNR in Newfoundland?
2.	What was the total revenue received?
3.	What was the cost of operating CNR's passenger transport service in Newfoundland during the same period?
4.	What was the profit or losses on the operation during the same period?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
		January-
	1969	November 1970
1. Revenue passengers	137,169	138,9052. Total revenue	$807,498	$ 766,1773. Operating expenses	$975,866	$1,145,474*4. Loss	$168,368	$ 379,297
* The increase in operating expenses is attributable to higher wages for bus drivers, repair costs (due to heavy accumulation of mileage resulting in major overhauls), modifications to buses to comply with the requirements of the provincial government and an increase in the number of buses operated from 20 to 22.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many pasengers travelled on CNR trains, Ottawa to Montreal and Montreal to Ottawa, each week for the past three years?
2.	What percentage of full capacity did this represent?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The weekly average
3366

February 15, 1971
Questions
number of passengers travelling on all trains operating between Montreal and Ottawa were as follows:
1968	1969	1970Montreal to Ottawa	2911	2951	2754Ottawa to Montreal	2637	2577	2755
2. As train consists are adjusted to meet the day to day and seasonal demands, the information required to answer the question is not readily available and would entail considerable time and expense to develop.


Mr. Orlikow: How many meals were served on CNR trains, Ottawa to Montreal and Montreal to Ottawa, each week for the past three years?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The weekly average number of meals served on all trains operating between Montreal and Ottawa were as follows:
1968	1969	1970Montreal to Ottawa	794	532	681Ottawa to Montreal	811	792	705
For the year 1970 the weekly average represents about fifty meals per one way dining car trip or approximately two sittings per one way trip.


Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring the installation of a device on motor vehicles which will limit speed to a maximum of 85 miles per hour and which will automatically blow such vehicle's horns when that speed is reached?


Gérard Duquet: Consideration is being given to a proposed standard for high speed warning and control on motor vehicles. One proposed standard currently under discussion in the United States would require that the vehicle's horn be actuated and the vehicular warning
signals flash continuously when the vehicle exceeds a designated speed.


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the government tabled the management consultation report on Air Canada, and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reasons?
2.	What company acted as management consultant?
3.	What was it paid?
4.	Is the administrative reorganization of Air Canada completed?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: In so far as Air Canada is concerned: re: 1, 2, 3 and 4: The document requested is a proprietary internal company document relating to internal matters of management and administration within the Company and it is not intended, therefore, to table it in Parliament. However, as the Minister of Transport has previously indicated in reply to earlier similar enquiries, questions relating to the reorganization of Air Canada might quite properly be addressed to the executive officers of Air Canada at the appropriate time when they appear before Parliamentary Committee, in view of the complexity of this subject.


Mr. Sullivan: 1.	As of January 1, 1971, how many persons were confined in institutions operated by the Government of Canada under the Penitentiaries Act?
2.	Of those in such institutions, how many were in the age groups (a) 13-15 (b) 16-20 (c) 21-24 (d) 25-30 (e) 31-40 (f) 4150 (g) 51-60 (h) over 61?
3.	What are the names and locations of all such institutions and the number of inmates by institution?
4.	What different types, e.g. maximum security, minimum security, etc., is each such institution?
5.	What are the names and salaries of all (a) psychiatrists (b) psychologists (c) sociologists (d) social workers (e) welfare and classification officers (f) correctional officers, employed and rendering services to inmates of all such institutions?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Soliciior General):: 1. 7,154. 2. (a) None; (b) 857; (c) 1,588; (d) 1,857; (e) 1,703; (f) 811; (g) 250; (h) 88.
and 4.		No. of	
Institution (35)	Location	Inmates	TypeDorchester Penitentiary	Dorchester, N.B.	358	MaximumSpringhill Institution	Springhill, N.S.	239	MediumSt. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary	Ville Laval, P.Q.	434	MaximumCowansville Institution	Cowansville, P.Q.	349	MediumFederal Training Centre 	Ville Laval, P.Q.	276	Medium
February 15, 1971

Questions
Institution (35)	Location	No. of Inmates	TypeLeclerc Institution	Ville Laval, P.Q.	435	MediumSpecial Correctional Unit (Quebec)	Ville Laval, P.Q.	62	MaximumArchambault Institution	Ste. Anne des Plaines, P.Q.	378	MaximumKingston Penitentiary	Kingston, Ontario	702	MaximumCollins Bay Penitentiary	Kingston, Ontario	372	MediumJoyceville Institution	Joyceville, Ontario	413	MediumWarkworth Institution	Campbellford, Ontario	267	MediumManitoba Penitentiary	Stony Mountain, Man.	356	MediumSaskatchewan Penitentiary	Prince Albert, Sask.	368	MaximumDrumheller Institution	Drumheller, Alberta	353	MediumBritish Columbia Penitentiary	New Westminster, B.C.	434	MaximumMatsqui Institution	Abbotsford, B.C.	273	MediumBlue Mountain Correctional Institution	Westfield, N.B.	38	MinimumSt. Hubert Centre	Montreal, P.Q.	11	MinimumLaval Minimum Security Institution	Ville Laval, P.Q.	104	MinimumBeaver Creek Correctional Camp	Gravenhurst, Ontario	67	MinimumLandry Crossing Correctional Camp	Petawawa, Ontario	51	MinimumPrison for Women	Kingston, Ontario	86	MaximumMontgomery Centre	Toronto, Ontario	6	MinimumThe Osborne Centre	Winnipeg, Manitoba	15	MinimumWilliam Head Institution	Metchosin, British Columbia	82	MinimumAgassiz Correctional Work Camp	Agassiz, British Columbia	66	MinimumMountain Prison	Agassiz, British Columbia	172	MaximumWest Georgie Centre	Vancouver, B.C.	8	MinimumDorchester Penitentiary Farm Annex	Dorchester, B.C.	46	MinimumSte. Anne des Plaines Work Annex	Ste. Anne des Plaines, P.Q.	60	MinimumCollins Bay Penitentiary Farm Annex	Kingston, Ontario	78	MinimumJoyceville Penitentiary Farm Annex	Joyceville, Ontario	81	MinimumManitoba Penitentiary Farm Annex	Stony Mountain, Manitoba	63	MinimumSaskatchewan Penitentiary Annex	Prince Albert, Sask.	51	Minimum5.	The information sought here would require obtaining and typing essential data on about 2,400 individual employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service.


Mr. Sullivan: 1.	What training, if any, is given to guards or correctional officers before hire into the Penitentiary Service?
2.	How many staff colleges for the training of personnel for the Penitentiary Service were operated by the Government of Canada since September 1, 1969?
3.	How many persons in the federal Penitentiary Service have been dismissed since September 1, 1969 and for what reasons?
4.	How many employees of the federal Penitentiary Service have been disciplined in the last twelve months and for what
reasons?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. On
recruitment by the Canadian Penitentiary Service on a probationary basis, each correctional officer is given a six weeks' course regarding his custodial duties before he is given further on-the-job training.

February 15, 1971
Questions
2.	Three.
3.	Eleven employees of the federal Penitentiary Service have been dismissed for the following reasons, since September 1, 1969: Abandoning their posts, 8; Unsatisfactory performance during probationary period, 2; Committing a criminal offence, 1.
4.	Ninety-eight employees of the federal Penitentiary Service have been disciplined for the following reasons during the period Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 1970; Absence without leave, 18; Negligently performing duties, 29; Under influence of alcohol, 6; Abuse of leave privileges, 6; Sleeping while on duty, 8; Failure to obey lawful orders, 21; Being insolent or insulting to superiors, 3; Committing an act that is unbecoming as a member of the Service, 4; Causing damage to government property, 1; Refusing to answer a question when required to do
so at an institutional court, 1; Making a false statement related to his appointment or employment, 1; Total 98.


Mr. Sullivan: 1 How many inmates in federal penal institutions received physical or corporal punishment in such institutions since September 1, 1969?
2. (a) How many cases of (i) suicide (ii) attempted suicide, occurred in such institutions since September 1, 1969 (b) on what dates (c) at what institutions did the acts take place?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. One, administered at Kingston Penitentiary by order of an outside court.
2.	Act
(a)(i) Suicides 23:
(ii) Attempted Suicides 80:
Dates
(b) September 6;
December 16, 1969
October 30;
November 13, 1969;
January 5;
February 4, 14;
March 5, 24; May 16,
19; August 22, 31, 1970
March 28, 1970 November 9, 1970
February 1; June 1;
December 6, 1970
April 6; June 11, 1970
June 25, 1970
December 24, 1969;
January 3, 1971
March 20; June 6;
October 1;
September 5, 1970
January 13; November 30, 1970
March 4; July 9, 17, 1970
December 19, 1970
November 13;
December 19, 1969;
January 4, 5, 16;
February 2, 3, 7, 15, 16, 19, 28; April 5, 21;
June 28; July 9;
August 28; September 12, 13; October 19(2);
November 24;
December 7, 20, 1970
Institution
(c) Dorchester Penitentiary
St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary
Leclerc Institution Manitoba Penitentiary
Saskatchewan Penitentiary
British Columbia Penitentiary William Head Institution Kingston Penitentiary
St Vincent de Paul Penitentiary
Leclerc Institution Special Correctional Unit (Quebec) Manitoba Penitentiary Saskatchewan Penitentiary

February 15, 1971

Act	Dates
December 28, 1970
(ii) Attempted Suicides 80:	September 6;
(continued)	November 28;
December 16, 1970
September 15, 1969; September 25; October 8, 1970
September 28, 1970
July 1, 1970
November 26, 1969; November 30, 1970
Note: Thirty-five of the attempted suicide cases were considered to be manipulative gestures on the part of the inmates concerned. However, there is no positive way to differentiate between those and genuine suicidal attempts.


Mr. Sullivan: How many times since September 1, 1969, have hostages been taken by inmates in federal penal institutions?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Eight times.


Mr. Coates: Has Mr. Frank Howard been selected for a position with the Department of Communications and, if so (a) what was his former position (b) what position does he hold within the Department (c) on what basis was the selection made and were the principles of the merit system applied (d) what is the annual salary for the position?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	Mr. Frank Howard was appointed to a position with the Department of Communications on September 2, 1969. (a) Reporter Toronto "Globe and Mail", (b) Director of Information Services, (c) Selection was made
Questions
Institution
Drumheller Institution British Columbia Penitentiary
Matsqui Institution
Mountain Prison Joyceville Institution Prison for Women (Kingston)
Kingston Penitentiary
through the continuing staffing program 69-310 in accordance with Section 10 of the Public Service Employment Act which requires that appointments be based on selection according to merit, (d) $16,379 to $18,611.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Has the Advisory Council, provided for under the National Library Act, been appointed?
2.	Who are the members of the Council and what are their credentials?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. The 9
persons to be appointed by the Governor in Council as members of the National Library Advisory Board under Section 9(2)(d) of the National Library Act have not been appointed as yet by the Governor in Council; the 2 persons provided under (c) have been nominated by the Canada Council and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and their names will be released when all appointments are completed.
2.	The present members of Council are the ex officio members, that is Dr. J. G. Sylvestre, National Librarian; Mr. Erik J. Spicer, Parliamentary Librarian; Dr. W. I. Smith, Dominion Archivist and Dr. Jack E. Brown, Librarian of the National Science Library of the National Research Council of Canada.
September 22;
October 21;
November 6, 29;
December 8, 25, 30, 31(2);
1969; January 18;
March 16; May 8, 10, 17, 19;
June 4, 10(2), 19;
July 4(2); July 17, 20, 23, 27, 29, 31; August 1, 2, 8, 23;
September 26;
October 21; November 26; December 18, 1970

February 15, 1971

Questions


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Caribbean countries are to receive financial support by way of grants and/or loans in the year 1971?
2.	What is the amount of each?
3.	What are the terms of repayment, if any?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Allocations for fiscal year 1971/72 have not been approved by Cabinet but during fiscal year 1970/71 the following countries, country groups, and institutions received allocations for development assistance under Canada's program of assistance to the Caribbean region in the amounts indicated:
2.	($000,000 Cdn.)
Grants	Loans	TotalJamaica	1.20	4.00	5.20Trinidad and Tobago	-	5.00	5.00Guyana	2.00	2.50	4.50Barbados	.80	1.00	1.80British Honduras	.50	-	.50Leeward and Windward Islands 6.00	-	6.00University of the West Indies	1.00	-	1.00Total	11.50	12.50	24.00
3. In the case of a grant, no repayment is required. Development loans are made to Guyana, on terms of 0 per cent interest repayable over 50 years, including a ten-year grace period. Loans to Jamaica, Trinidad
and Tobago, and Barbados are made on terms of 3 per cent interest repayable over 30 years, including a seven-year grace period.


Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What grants have been made under the Small Businesses Loans Act to residents of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?
2.	What were the amounts of the grants and to whom were they made?
3.	What was the location of the proposed business and what was the purpose of each grant?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1, 2, and 3.
The Small Businesses Loans Act does not provide for grants to be made. The Federal government guarantees certain loans made to individual applicants by the chartered banks and other designated lenders. The lenders then report their loans under the program, by bank region. Small Businesses Loans made to borrowers in the Yukon and Northwest Territories are reported under the bank regions concerned, British Columbia and Alberta respectively, and it would not be practicable to extract the information requested.


Mr. Robinson: What is the total amount of excise tax received from the sale of tobacco for each of the years 1960 to 1970 inclusive?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Statement of Excise Tax Collected on Tobacco Products for Fiscal Years Ending March 31, 1960 to March 31, 1970
Year	Cigars	Cigarettes	Manufactured Tobacco	Totals1959-60	$2,602,765.19	$163,607,872.50	$19,291,881.28	$185,502,518.971960-61	2,754,955.93	172,196,637.28	18,697,064.97	193,648,658.181961-62	2,775,551.41	185,175,768.13	19,599,179.12	207,550,498.661962-63	3,372,009.87	195,312,891.31	19,122,793.69	217,807,694.871963-64	3,266,982.00	200,211,434.62	23,460,293.43	226,938,710.051964-65	3,700,166.95	197,495,123.71	17,148,654.49	218,343,945.151965-66	3,811,341.74	217,875,695.00	16,393,320.74	238,080,357.481966-67	3,561,273.99	231,549,829.56	16,323,748.99	251,434,852.541967-68	4.076,291.08	241,440,862.59	21,169,355.99	266,686,509.661968-69	4,711,071.20	281,905,866.77	17,559,541.02	304,176,478.991969-70	4,785,933.84	272,949,317.77	18,109,977.02	295,845,228.63


Mr. Southam: 1.	What were the total amounts paid out in 1970 to farmers under PFAA in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?
2.	What were the total amounts paid to farmers for 1970 in each province under the Crop Insurance Plan?

3.	Is it the intention of the government to expand the present all-risk crop insurance plan to cover crops other than the present wheat, oats and barley, and to all areas of the provinces?
4.	Is it the government's intention to carry on with the PFAA program?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Manitoba, $637,166.50; Saskatchewan, $1,131,121.50; Alberta, $3,683,867.50.



* ;
*

February 15, 1971

Note: The above figures apply to payments made in the calendar year 1970 which include payments with respect to crop losses in both 1969 and 1970. Payments made in 1970 with respect to 1970 crop losses are as follows: Manitoba, $984; Saskatchewan, $115,551; Alberta, $146,965.
2.	Manitoba, $1,918,000; Saskatchewan, $175,000; Alberta, $1,650,000.
3.	The provinces are responsible for initiating any expansion of crop insurance plans to take in new areas or cover additional crops. The federal Crop Insurance Act and Regulations permit federal contributions to be made with respect to insurance of all major crops produced in Canada in any area covered by a federal-provincial crop insurance agreement.
4.	Any government decision with respect to the future of P.F.A.A. will be announced in the usual manner.


Mr. Skoberg: 1.	Has the Department of Agriculture conducted any studies as to the added costs incurred in irrigation farming as compared to cost of dry-land farming in the Outlook district of Saskatchewan?
2.	Have any specific studies been undertaken or completed as to the economic viability of irrigation farming and, if so, are these studies available?
3.	Has the Department given consideration to conducting personal interviews with farmers who are now engaged in irrigation farming, in order to determine whether such an operation is viable and, if not, would the Department give consideration to such interviews?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. The only study in which the Department participated was done in 1951 in co-operation with Professor H. Van Vliet of the University of Saskatchewan, which was an economic appraisal of the South Saskatchewan River Development.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes; but other priorities for staff available have prevented carrying out such a study. An economist of the provincial department is conducting economic evaluations on particular aspects of irrigated farm production at Outlook.


Mr. Crossman: 1.	What amount of money did the Government of Canada pay to the Province of New Brunswick in provincial sales taxes on building materials during each of the past five fiscal years?
2.	What amount of money did the Government of Canada generate for the Province of New Brunswick in the form of revenue from the provincial sales tax on building materials during each of the past five fiscal years (a) with respect to publicly financed housing (b) with respect to technical, trades and vocational schools (c) other cost shared projects (d) with respect to other purchases?
Order for Return
3. What percentage would that be of the total revenue under the provincial sales tax on building materials?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Government departments do not pay provincial sales tax, although their contractors as final consumers of the building materials do pay the tax. Thus federal departments bear the tax, but since it is indirect, have no records of the amounts which could be attributed to tax payments.
The Crown corporations listed in the schedule to the Crown Corporations (Provincial Taxes and Fees) Act do pay provincial sales taxes on purchases of goods including building materials. However, even in these cases, most of their construction work is carried out by contractors who pay the tax, and indirectly pass it on to the corporation.
2 and 3. Information is not available.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Do Canadian firms who carry out timber operations in the State of Maine and ship the timber into Canada have to pay duty at the border and, if so, at what rate?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Timber imported by Canadian firms operating in Maine is required to be entered at Customs in the normal manner. Providing the timber is not further manufactured than sawn it is admissible under Tariff Item 50040-1, free of Duty from the United States.


Mr. Hales: 1.	What was the net amount received by the government for the HMCS Bonaventure?
2.	Was it a cash deal or were credit arrangements made?
3.	What instruments, fittings or other material was salvaged from the Bonaventure before it was sold for scrap by the government?
4.	Which items have been sold, and what was the payment received for each?
5.	What is the anticipated value of each remaining item?
6.	When are the remaining items expected to be sold?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


[Stage Direction]
UNEMPLOYMENT-INCREASED FEDERAL WELFARE COST Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He may still be involved in duties in Saskatoon, but I am sure the Minister of
[Stage Direction]
February 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Finance will be able, in any event, to give me the answer. Does the minister or the government have an estimate of the increased cost of welfare to the federal government caused by the increased levels of unemployment?
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take notice of the question with regard to the expected increased costs of welfare for this year. I would be glad to get the figure for my hon. friend.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister obtain this information and give it to the House, particularly for the benefit of the Prime Minister who seems to think that high welfare costs would result from programs designed to get the economy moving again?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ESTIMATES OF SEASONALLY ADJUSTED FIGURE AND GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT FOR 1971

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the speech which he made in Regina on Saturday night. Referring to the present economic recession and high rate of unemployment, the Prime Minister said:
The federal government Is determined that we shall get over this temporary problem.
In an endeavour to find out how temporary is "temporary", may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has any estimate as to what will be the seasonally adjusted figure for unemployment for 1971 and whether the government has any estimate as to the GNP growth rate in constant dollars for the same year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at the time of budget speeches we try to give these forecasts to the House and to the country as best we can, but it is not usual-


Mr. Woolliams:: You are never right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the member says.



UNEMPLOYMENT-EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS AND WELFARE PAYMENTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
the same speech the Prime Minister stated:
The challenge is to remedy the wrongs and to assist the injured.
I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is prepared to do anything about the present unemployment insurance benefits and the eligibility provisions. Also, does the government intend to do anything about providing adequate welfare for those who are presently banned because of the fact they are transients?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, is that we have just recently increased the benefits to the unemployed by 10 per cent,
[Mr. Stanfield.!
and that very soon we will have a bill before the House which will present to the House a much improved unemployment insurance system. We hope we will have the support of all parties in passing it.



INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CROWN CORPORATIONS AS MEANS OF REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this morning's CBC program, "The World at Eight", contained a statement that the federal minister, "Jean-Lac" Pepin, said that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
federal trade minister, Jean-Luc Pepin, said that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -increasing the number of crown corporations may be one way of reducing unemployment in Canada. I ask the Prime Minister if the minister was making a statement of government policy? If so, which Crown corporations does the government have in mind?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware of the statement, Mr. Speaker. I will ask Mr. "Jean-Lac" Pepin about it.



FINANCE MINISTER'S FORECAST OF REDUCED UNEMPLOYMENT-RELATIONSHIP TO INCREASE IN GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. The minister has made repeated statements that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment will decline substantially through 1971. Is this based on any forecast with regard to the real increase in the gross national product?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I made some forecasts in my recent budget speech about the general outlook in Canada for 1971, with which most responsible economists agree-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: Name one.


Edgar John Benson: -which will lead to an increase in the gross national product throughout 1971 with a resultant decrease in unemployment throughout the year-not quickly, as I have said previously. Dealing with seasonally adjusted rates, which my friend sometimes supports in summer and hates in winter


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister be good enough to answer a simple question in a straightforward manner? Will he tell the House whether his forecasts with regard to a reduction in unemployment are based upon a specific estimate with regard to the growth of the GNP in 1971?
February 15, 1971


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would let me answer his question instead of jumping up, I would be pleased to answer it. We are continually making forecasts as to what will happen to the GNP, productivity and business activity in 1971. I would not state there would be a decline in the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment if I did not think there was going to be an increase in the GNP during 1971.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If the Minister of Finance is making these forecasts, will he tell the House what the estimated increase in the gross national product is? That is a simple question and one capable of a simple answer instead of all this skating and evasion.


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to give a simple answer when I make my next budget statement to the House.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour prompted by the erroneous statement of the Prime Minister. Would the Minister of Labour assure us that the miners idled in Cape Breton through the efforts of a Crown company will get the 10 per cent increase which was made available on January 3, 1971?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The policy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission as far as the 10 per cent increase is concerned was not to take this into consideration when assessing other income. In other words, no one was to be penalized for the special benefit as a result of the 10 per cent.


Donald MacInnis: When the minister says nobody will be penalized, does he mean that Devco will not be penalized but that the men will be?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am more interested in the men than I am in Devco.


Donald MacInnis: Will the minister follow through and make sure the men will get the 10 per cent, not Devco?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The men who are on retirement from Devco between the ages of 60 and 65 are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits and if they are entitled to the maximum they are deriving $58 from unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Commission has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might return to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond in a few moments, but there are other supplementaries, I believe, on the general question raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. Perhaps we might return to this matter in a few minutes.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I shall only take the time of the House long enough to tell the minister that the statement he has just made is not in accordance with the facts.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: In view of the fact that unemployment insurance benefits can run out after a period of only 15 weeks, can the Minister of Labour advise the House as to the number of persons who have exhausted their right to unemployment insurance benefits?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I could
inquire and find out, but the hon. member is asking for statistical information and to obtain it would take a little research.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will allow the hon. member a supplementary, but he might resume his seat. I am inclined to agree with the hon. minister's comment made in his reply to the hon. member's question, but the hon. member might like to rephrase his question.


Mark Willson Rose: I fully appreciate that this is information which could be given as part of a statement on motions. I was about to ask the minister whether he would include the number of people who are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits and who, because these benefits are inadequate, are also in receipt of welfare?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: One of the attractive features of the new plan is that it will be unnecessary for those drawing unemployment insurance benefits to supplement it with welfare.


An hon. Member:: Next year.
[DOT] * *



CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker,
Friday last, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I asked the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) whether he could explain the difference between the French and English texts of the communique published following the last federal-provincial conference, as recorded moreover at page 3325 of Hansard, especially the terms "exprimer sa sympathie" and "admettre ou accepter la proposition".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister has effectively submitted the problem to me. I

February 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
cannot evidently say more than the following: the communique was drawn up partly in English and partly in French and the translators have done their best to give the same meaning to both texts. I, for one, to do not see any significant difference between the English expression "expressed its sympathy for this basic social objective" and the French expression "se declare en accord avec cet objectif social fondamental". The Conference has not decided which of the two versions would be the official one, and I think that under the circumstances, everyone may choose the meaning he prefers.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister will agree that there is a difference between the two versions and that if in Quebec one refers to the French version, that would be quite a different proposition from, let us say, in Ontario-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Is his department giving consideration to the problems that will arise for the very large number of people who are now drawing seasonal unemployment insurance benefits when these benefits cease automatically on May 15 if they are still unemployed? Is the government giving consideration to what can be done to alleviate the ill effects of this situation on the people concerned as well as on the municipalities which will have to carry them on welfare if something is not done?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical to the extent that we do not know what the employment figures will be in the month of May.
We do not know what the position will be on May 15 and what will happen to the people who were drawing seasonal unemployment insurance benefits. If and when any change in government policy in regard to extending the period is arrived at, it will be announced in the usual manner in the House.



WELFARE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since certain Liberal members are meeting with the Metro Toronto council today, which meeting, I believe, is not being blessed by the local ministers from the city of Toronto, I
wonder whether the Prime Minister and the government have indicated to these members any particular direction the government is following regarding the great problem of welfare-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton West on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If Your Honour was worried about the preamble to my question, I can certainly cut it short. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether any special indication was given these members regarding what to say to the Metro Toronto council-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that his inquiry is not in order.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether the government has any immediate plan to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to try to help the 108,000 people who have been out of work for longer than six months?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question, of course, has been asked on a number of occasions. I suggest to the hon. member and to the House that if this kind of information is to be given to the House by the government it should be given by way of a statement on motions. The hon. member is inviting the government to make a general statement. Perhaps he would indicate whether this is what he would like the minister to do in due course.


John Howard Lundrigan: No, Mr. Speaker, not in due course; I should like the minister to answer, yes or no, whether the government has a plan. It is quite a simple question.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister has made it very clear that there will be a complete overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act very shortly. This consideration has been preceded by a white paper and by an in-depth study of the proposal by the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I think the Prime Minister has indicated that we should be tabling a bill very soon, so I am afraid that the hon. gentleman is going to have to contain his impatience until that time.



REQUEST FOR SPECIAL COMMISSIONER TO EXAMINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS

Mr. W. B. Nesbiil (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the administrative problems in regard to payment of unemployment insurance seem to be increas-

February 15, 1971

ing, would the minister consider appointing a special commissioner, someone outside the commission, to look into these problems and to make a recommendation in this regard as quickly as possible?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been very concerned over the last year about this problem and has made many constructive suggestions in writing, all of which have been taken into consideration. An in-depth study of the whole administration is proceeding at the same time as we are formulating the legislation, and I think we should see some basic changes in the administration introduced at the same time as we introduce the legislation.



RAPESEED-PERIOD UNDER DELIVERY QUOTAS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REGULATIONS

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board arising out of the confusion in reference to rapeseed. Would the minister advise the House how long rapeseed has been placed on a quota basis under the Canadian Wheat Board, and is he prepared to table a copy of the regulations that introduced quotas for this production?


Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has been operating quotas for rapeseed for some time in connection with over-all responsibility to see to it that handling facilities are equitably available for the various grains. I do not have at hand the specific dates but I would be glad to find them and furnish them to the bon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds of producers who seem to have had their permit books seized by officers because of a misunderstanding. First of all, they had long-term contracts, and then they came under quotas and neither the elevator agents nor the producers knew about it. Are these people in fact going to be charged under the law with an offence?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the individual cases to which the hon. member has made reference if he will give me the information. There has been no sudden or recent change in the quota requirements, although there may well have been some misunderstanding on the part of some people. I will certainly be glad to investigate this.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is going to look into this matter, and as he has not told us yet when rapeseed was put on quota, will he look into the situation of those producers who had long-term contracts and who have been frustrated completely by a silent, quiet Order in Council?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is the second time recently that I have
Inquiries of the Ministry
asked a question which I believe to be in order and the minister has not been allowed to answer. This is a very serious question affecting thousands of people in western Canada and their livelihood. The minister wanted to answer the question and he was getting to his feet but you cut him off.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point. Perhaps the minister should have been allowed to reply. I will give him the floor at this time.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Rape-seed quotas have been in effect for quite some time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: How long?


Otto Emil Lang: It depends on what the hon. member is talking about, Mr. Speaker. Rapeseed quotas for crushing mills have existed this year. Rapeseed quotas for producers have existed for several years. There has been no recent change and, of course, the quota system cannot be over-ridden by individual contracts entered into by individual producers. I very much wanted to answer, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that most farmers know the answer and so I was not so concerned if the question was unanswered.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is this. If what he says, and I am not arguing with him because he has knowledge of his department, is correct, why were thousands of producers in western Canada permitted to enter into contracts, apart from any quota system, under which they sold their rapeseed and other commodities without any interference from the minister or the department?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the hon. member, who knows a good deal more about law than he does about grain, would know that contracts between individuals are not only basically within provincial jurisdiction but are something that it is very difficult to do anything about in advance of the fact.



FAILURE OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE TO REACH AGREEMENT ON PRICES-ADVICE TO FARMERS PRIOR TO PLANTING

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Since no agreement on grain prices has been reached at the United Nations wheat conference at Geneva, will the minister indicate what advice he will be giving to farmers with regard to growing wheat in the coming year since the time for planting is approaching?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we anticipate still that it may be possible to give a package of information to producers prior to March 1, including information which may help them in their final planting decisions. Of course, on the subject of the grains arrangement itself, as I indicated earlier there has been a significant degree of co-operation concerning prices as well as some order in respect of pricing even without an effective minimum under the grains arrangement. Therefore nothing very much has changed as a result of the events in Geneva.

February 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-MEETINGS WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS ON PROTECTION OF PRODUCERS' POSITION

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that at the meeting he had with the Federation of Agriculture last week it was stated by that organization that the proposals in respect of the grain receipts policy do not represent an adequate undertaking by the federal government to assist in protecting the position of the Prairie grain producers, is it his intention to meet with the organizations and work out a position mutually satisfactory to the government and these organizations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we had a very good discussion with the Federation of Agriculture. Of course, the point was made that the farm organizations and the farmers may never be completely satisfied that the amount which is being paid by the government or the treasury for their particular industry is enough, and we might be left with a difference of opinion in this regard. I think we did agree that this was a matter which required continual discussion and consideration. The point was also made, of course, that while what we are doing may not be regarded by them as enough, it was a substantial improvement over the previous situation, and in that regard I think they did express some gratitude.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, since the representations made to the government by the federation were substantially backed by a previous meeting with the National Farmers Union, would the minister not concede that the condition of the farmer is really not that good?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the supplementary question asked by the hon. member is in the form of an argument and is not in order.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-ACCEPTANCE OF NATIONAL FARMERS' UNION PROPOSALS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenfre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the 14-point proposals put to him by the National Farmers Union and the request by the Farmers Union that the government re-examine its proposals on the grain stabilization program, will he say whether some or all of these 14 points will be implemented and whether or not the government is re-examining its position on the grain stabilization program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether the word "reexamination" is the correct word to use when an examination in fact is going on. A good number of the points made by the Farmers' Union, as well as by the CFA, are matters really endorsing what we have already proposed to do. Of course, much of the rest of their briefs contain matters which we are examining and considering on the way to a final decision.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. Since the government of Nova Scotia has not agreed to enabling legislation which would permit Nova Scotia to become a participating province in the Saltfish Corporation, will the minister use his influence with the provincial premier in order to prevent the closing down of this traditional industry in Nova Scotia, which will further add to the problems of the fishing industry?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minisler of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the saltfish industry can operate either within or outside the Saltfish Corporation. It is my understanding, however, that only Newfoundland-Labra-dor and the North Shore in Quebec will come under the corporation in 1971.



REASON FOR SHIPS HAVING TO WAIT TO BE LOADED AT VANCOUVER

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board how many vessels are waiting in Vancouver harbour for the loading of grain and, if the number is substantial, what is the reason for this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of whether it is substantial or not is one of opinion. There have been several vessels waiting for berths there in the last little while. The Wheat Board has indicated in a press release which came into my hands today that many ships which were booked in for November and December are only arriving now because of congestion in foreign ports at times when they should have been unloading. The Wheat Board has explained that in the interest of attempting to move the maximum amount of grain they must run the risk that on occasion more boats will be there than there are berths available. They have also indicated that the grain is moving very quickly into these boats and that there should not be any great delay in berthing the remaining boats.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us how many vessels are waiting?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly have to check that to give the figure for this very moment.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-REQUEST FOR SPECIAL DEBATE

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the views expressed over the weekend by farm organizations I should like to ask the minister in charge
[Mr. Lang.)
February 15, 1971

of the Canadian Wheat Board whether he will now reconsider his previous statements and hold discussions with the Government House Leader and others with a view to providing for a special debate on the government's grain policy proposals before the government finalizes its position?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think we have been having a very good general debate on the farm proposals and farm policy throughout the country, and I look forward to the occasion of a debate on these matters in the House at the time the legislation comes forward.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-PUBLICATION OF REPORT ON WHEAT BOARD TO ASSIST DISCUSSION

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In order to aid in the discussion that is going on with regard to grain policy, is it the minister's intention to see to it that the Menzies Report on the Canadian Wheat Board is made public?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Wheat Board is in the process of having the report printed and as soon as that is completed the report will be made public.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Since several judges in Canada have questioned the breathalizer as a criterion to determine whether an accused person is guilty and several others have challenged its legality, can the Minister of Justice tell us whether this provision of the Criminal Code can be amended?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker.



TAKEOVER OF CINEPIX BY KALVEX INCORPORATED OF NEW YORK-PROTECTION OF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INVESTMENT

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. On February 4 I inquired about the sale of Cinepix, a Canadian film company, to Kalvex of New York. I inquired particularly concerning what steps have been taken to protect
Inquiries of the Ministry
the investment of the Canadian Film Development Corporation in this former Canadian company.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that I had already replied to the hon. member that all necessary steps had been taken, at the time of the transaction, for adequate protection not only of interest-bearing loans, but also of loans involving profit-sharing arrangements regarding films produced by Cinepix.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, is it the policy of the Canadian Film Development Corporation to invest in other than Canadian Companies or does it exclusively support only Canadian companies?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker. Of course, there are marginal cases, if you wish, such as co-productions. Canada has signed co-production agreements with some foreign countries. However, it would take too long to explain in detail the CFDC's policy in this regard. Briefly, the policy consists in requiring, in order that a company may obtain a loan or other assistance from the Canadian Film Development Corporation, that a certain number of conditions be fulfilled so that the film may be 50 per cent Canadian at the least. But a simple answer to the question whether it is the CFDC's policy to finance foreign film companies would be no.
# s*s *



FISHERIES


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. How soon does the hon. gentleman expect to announce the decision made with regard to the mercury pollution problem in the swordfishery and what will the decision be?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with the province of Nova Scotia and we hope to be able to make an announcement shortly as to the precise arrangements for swordfishermen.



CONSULTATION WITH U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ON TOLERABLE MERCURY LEVEL IN FISH

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister had any further contact with the United States Food and Drug Administration to ascertain whether the tolerable level of mercury in fish can be increased above the present level of .5 parts per million?

February 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, a conference is scheduled for later this week in Ottawa sponsored by the Royal Society to deal with this subject. Experts from all over the world are coming here. After that conference is over we may have information which will be useful in this regard.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that many old age pensioners, either directly or through members of this House, are sending contributions of 42 cents to the minister, I wonder if receipt of these contributions is being acknowledged and what use is being made of the money?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have received three such amounts of money. I am acknowledging those letters. The money will be deposited to the credit of the Receiver General. I would hope my hon. friends opposite would be honest enough to send their money to me too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister be good enough to acknowledge those I shall send to him very shortly?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I wish to ask the minister whether the town of Renfrew falls within the category of a designated or depressed area and, if so, what plans the government proposes in order to assist the aircraft industry there which is about to close and put 300 highly skilled employees out of work?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we met with a delegation from Renfrew this morning in connection with this matter. Should there be a company interested in acquiring the United Aircraft plants, we will be pleased to help such a venture. We will be pleased also to support any local initiative to this end.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to find employment for these highly skilled employees?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, without appearing to be facetious, I think that question should be directed to the Minister of Manpower who has that responsibility.



RENFREW-ACTION TO FIND REPLACEMENT FOR AIRCRAFT COMPANY

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What initiative is the minister's department taking to find a replacement for this company in view of the minister's statutory responsibility with regard to creating employment during periods of peak unemployment?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are authorized by legislation to grant subsidies to business wanting to set up facilities in designated areas. Renfrew is a designated area. We will do all we can for companies that will request grants in order to promote industrial expansion. However, I cannot make the requests on their behalf.



SIGNING OF GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH NOVA SCOTIA

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. When he and the hon. member complete their discussion across the floor of the House I will direct it to him. I notice from the newspapers that today is supposed to be the day that his department and the province of Nova Scotia enter into the next general, broad agreement. I also notice the absence of the Government House Leader and I wonder, since today is the day the agreement is to be entered into, whether the Government House Leader is home grabbing a little more glory for himself?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the question as asked is not in order. He may want the floor again for the purpose of rephrasing the question. There will be no difficulty about that.


J. Michael Forrestall: Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion could indicate whether or not the federal authority and the province of Nova Scotia will today enter into their broad general agreement or whether this has been postponed indefinitely?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, nothing has been delayed. The agreement must be signed by a minister from Nova Scotia and myself. I have not signed any document this morning and I shall not sign any this afternoon either.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion would care to indicate whether or not the agreement will be entered into this

February 15, 1971

week and, if so, who will sign it on behalf of the government?


Jean Marchand: If there is an agreement to be signed, Mr. Speaker, it will be signed by the responsible minister as provided for by the legislation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Lou don't even know, do you?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice who I believe is Acting Solicitor General today. Has the minister seen a statement attributed to Mr. Claude Charron, a member of the Parti Quebecois and of the Quebec National Assembly, to the effect that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have infiltrated the Parti Quebecois? If the minister has seen that statement, would he care to comment on it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question would have to be asked directly. The hon. member cannot ask the minister to comment on a statement which has been made outside the House. Perhaps he might ask the question in another form.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think it had to be prefaced in that way so that it would be put in the proper context, but may I ask whether the RCMP are in fact infiltrating the Parti Quebecois?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he considered or will he consider any plans to make Canada's foreign aid to over-populated countries contingent upon those countries instituting birth control or family planning measures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External
Inquiries of the Ministry
Affairs. Having in mind the statement made over the weekend by his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to the effect that Canada is strongly opposed to the shipment of oil by tanker from Alaska down the British Columbia coast to Washington refineries, and the minister's own statement that only the cooperation of the United States can help to meet this threat of pollution, can the minister indicate what the policy of the government is on this very important matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the statement made in the speech by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the statement I made I hope indicated our very serious concern about the dangers of pollution arising from the movement of oil by tanker down the Pacific coast, and we hope that public opinion both in Canada and the United States will be aroused to avoid a possible disaster.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the minister care to tell us what alternatives the government is proposing which it would favour?


Mitchell William Sharp: As my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has said, we certainly would be prepared to consider a pipeline down the Mackenzie valley but, as hon. members probably know, objections have been raised even to that particular route.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister indicate whether the government is doing any studies of this route to see whether it is the best one for Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have been doing some studies on the ecological consequences of a pipeline, which I think is one of the first bits of information we would need before a firm decision could be made either by us or by anyone else, such as an American company that might want to build such a pipeline.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier in the proceedings today the Minister of Finance, in answer to a question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding the return of 42 cents to him by disgruntled senior citizens, said, and I think I am quoting his words, "I hope that all members of the House will be honest enough to send the money to the Minister of Finance". The minister left the implication that all members of this chamber may not be honest enough to do so. I think the minister should not have used the words "honest enough."


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if there was any implication that I meant people in the House were dishonest I apologize sincerely. May I say I do not think I will get many cheques for $28 from the people in Canada who really needed the increase in the supplementary old age pension.
February 15, 1971

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the minister is going beyond the question of privilege. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the debate which is about to commence there have been discussions with regard to the length of time for speeches in order that the House may have the benefit of hearing from as many members as possible. It has been suggested that we might vary the rules so that the first speaker from each party would have 20 minutes and each speaker thereafter would be limited to 15 minutes. This suggestion has been made. There is some willingness to accept it but I do not know if it is complete.


Cliff Downey: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Battle River, who has a question of privilege, to indicate what it is, and then return to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, in Saturday's Calgary Herald it was reported that the provincial Minister of Agriculture for Alberta stated that he had not received an invitation to appear before the House of Commons Committee on Agriculture which has been studying the marketing board legislation. Could the Minister of Agriculture assure the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is, of course, not a question of privilege. The hon. member knows that if the rule is adhered to strictly, notice has to be given. If the hon. member wants to ask a question, this might be done tomorrow. We will now return to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, consultations were held with respect to the length of speeches during the debate today and certainly agreed to that aspect concerning the length of speeches after the first speaker for each party has spoken. However, rather than reduce the length of the initial speeches from 40 minutes to 20 minutes we would prefer that it be reduced to 30 minutes. We would agree that the first speaker for each party should have 30 minutes and that thereafter speeches be limited to 15 minutes.


Gerald William Baldwin: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the rule is 30 rather than 40 minutes for the two lead-off speakers, so we are extending the time for the lead-off speakers for the other two parties. We agree to the first speaker for each party having 30 minutes and thereafter 15 minutes for the succeeding speakers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what has been arrived at is what we arrived at some time ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe there is agreement in the House to the suggestion made by hon. members. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald William Baldwin: That this House condemns the government's lack of leadership which has humiliated the disadvantaged, dislocated the finances of provinces and municipalities, and caused injury and decline to our rural communities which are already seriously damaged by the government's failure to provide adequate agricultural policies.
He said: Mr. Speaker, by consent the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) is speaking first in my place.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to note, according to reports that came out of Saskatoon over the weekend, that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was concerned about the effect of criticisms of his government on the confidence of the people in that government. I would say he has reason to be concerned. I could not help but smile last night-it really is not the right way to express it because anything so serious as this must be of grave concern to every one of us-at reports of the Prime Minister's efforts to rationalize the unemployment situation that exists at the present time. If there is one phrase that has confused the Canadian public it is, "seasonally adjusted." It is very easy to rationalize statistics in terms of such vague generalities but the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that we are told by the Bureau of Statistics that at the present time in Canada there are 668,000 people unemployed.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Norman Thompson: In fact, the other day the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang) noted that there were approximately 640,000 Canadians registered with the manpower offices across the country as seeking employment. Some of the labour leaders in the country say that the actual statistics as far as unemployed people are concerned show the figure more accurately to be over 800,000. These figures indicate a tragic situation for Canada, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. With all the ability and knowhow that we have, it is incredible that a situation such as this should exist. In my opinion, it exists because of the government's restrictive economic and fiscal policies and because of its failure to alleviate the plight of the unemployed. It also

February 15, 1971

results from the lack of assistance to the provinces and the municipal governments of the country. It is for these reasons that we are forced today to move this motion which, in effect, is a motion of non-confidence.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we condemn the government's lack of leadership which has humiliated the disadvantaged, dislocated the finances of provinces and municipalities, and caused injury and decline to our rural communities which are already seriously damaged by the government's failure to provide adequate agricultural policies.
The Economic Council of Canada recently estimated that the Canadian output performance for the current year is $4 billion below potential. I suppose that might be rationalized by saying "seasonally adjusted", though not with the seasons of the year, perhaps, but with the seasons of the ups and downs of the present government.


James Aloysius McGrath: The ministers responsible are not even here.


Robert Norman Thompson: The fact is that the chairman of the Economic Council, Mr. Arthur Smith, just the other day pointed out that one of the basic reasons the government is facing a deficit of approximately $350 million in place of the $250 million surplus which they budgeted for is that the income of the government has decreased. Mr. Smith suggested that, while no one knows exactly at the present time, it might be reasonable to expect that the income of the government in the form of taxes is down approximately $1 billion from what it ought to have been if the expansion and growth of the country had gone forward at the same rate as in the last several years and as it might have done had the government not followed the policies which have brought us to this present situation.
It has been emphasized by many newspaper editorials across the country and it has also been the opinion of leading economists, that the government has taken the historically dangerous route of fighting inflation by bringing about a greater extent of unemployment and general economic slackness. It does not require the training of an economist to know what happens when jobs are cut back and production is restricted, when money is withdrawn from circulation and when interest rates increase. The answer is simply that less is produced and, therefore, there are fewer jobs for people in the area of production and distribution. When that happens, Mr. Speaker, there is less money to spend and we find ourselves in the downward cycle in which we have been for the last ten months.
The government has realized this and, during the last three months, has attempted to reverse the situation. They have doubled the money supply in circulation, have lowered the cost of interest, have desperately brought in policies that will stimulate the economy because they know that their restrictive policies have inhibited the economy, resulted in unemployment and that these negative policies were bringing the country to the brink of disaster.
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
These are basic economic principles which experience confirms, yet when these facts were brought before this House in the debates on the budget last spring the government said they knew what they were doing. In a country, such as Canada, with an economy as diverse as its regions and industries, it seems to me that the government should operate a fiscal and monetary policy in a regional perspective to bring this situation under control. When unemployment is the intentional creation of a government under the pretext of trying to lower the rate of inflation, that government ought to be honest and acknowledge overkill. They should make an effort to restore jobs and provide a livelihood for those Canadians who want to work and to contribute to the industrial expansion of this country. They should be provided with work or at least with the opportunity to work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities financial strain that has been imposed upon the provinces, the tremendous effects of the high rates of interest and the lack of money for public development, have worked hardship at that level of government far more than at the federal level. That is why, in the present situation, it is clear that the provincial governments are the ones most concerned about the actual levels of unemployment. They are concerned first, because they have not been able to undertake many projects relating to expansion of sewage facilities, pollution control, the expansion and building of hospitals and schools and, secondly, because one of the side effects of unemployment has been that welfare costs have increased for both provincial and municipal governments. These welfare programs are now very costly for the municipalities. In 1970, as a result of high unemployment, municipal governments in total spent $275 million to finance welfare expenditures, as compared with $213 million in 1969. That is a 23 per cent increase. This is one reason the economic community, provincial and municipal governments have lost confidence in this government.
The government has the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country and to initiate proper economic and fiscal policies as it sees fit. We can only talk to the government and draw its attention to those things that we are trying to recommend, because we think that our suggestions might be useful in the situation. That is why the motion we are considering was moved. I believe that we are speaking on behalf of the vast majority of Canadians who know that the situation is grim, and know the realities of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: The last two days of the budget debate were spent in debating unemployment. May I mention one or two points at this time to emphasize again that this is still the most crucial problem that we face at present. If we could have confidence in the pronouncements of the government and the Prime Minister, that this is merely a seasonal situation, that it has been a difficult and cold winter, that other factors have contributed to the situation and that, since spring will be here in a month or so, unemployment will go down rapidly, perhaps we would not be so concerned. I am concerned now because the change in the financial policy has had such little effect. The influx of a greater volume of money into the economy has done little except put a bit of moisture into the sponge. The availability of money is not great enough to stimulate the development of the country. The same degree of unemployment still exists.
It is true that unemployment will go down somewhat this spring and summer; yet the indications are that the level of unemployment among students this year will not go down to the level it reached last year. I am not concerned so much about what will happen in the coming spring and summer, as I am about students who are completing their education and who will not be able to obtain employment. I am even more concerned about what will happen next fall and next winter; that is when the real impact of present policies will be felt. We

warned the government about the situation and hoped that they would do more than they have to correct it. I think that the government must consider lowering the unemployment level to a more desirable figure. I say that because that is a prerequisite of social justice. Too many of our young people are unemployed; too many cannot find jobs in the summer or after leaving university. Those who have completed their formal education expect and desire to find work. If we deny them the opportunity to work we shall erode their faith in the future of their country and in the ability of the government, which has responsibility in this area, to provide what has been promised, what has been expected, and what it is the right of these Canadians to expect.
How can we expect our young people to have confidence in a country which cannot provide them with the means to live and which puts them on welfare. Such actions do not encourage the initiative, the enterprise and ability of which our young people are capable. Our nation needs those abilities. It is high time that the government revitalized its policies to meet the situation. In order that full employment may be generated-I do not use the term "full employment" in the sense that 100 per cent of our work force will be at work, because that would be impossible when one considers our climate, regional disparities and distances, but in the sense that not more than 2 per cent of our work force is unemployed

it will be necessary, by 1975, to create between 1.3 million and 1.4 million new jobs. As the Economic Council of Canada has indicated, our present output performance is below average. How then can we expect the necessary jobs to be available within the specified time? The growth in employment in 1970 was 1.3 per cent, the lowest growth in employment since 1950.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Robert Norman Thompson: These are statistics that we cannot rationalize away by using phrases such as "seasonally adjusted".
May I refer, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes to the expansion and growth of our economy. I think that unless this economy can be expanded, unless our gross national product can increase year by year, the jobs so necessary to provide work for our people just will not be available. In my province, Alberta, there are literally thousands of oil wells. We are grateful for that tremendous petroleum reserve. We note with interest that reports in today's newspapers indicate that as a result of agreement between oil companies and middle eastern countries, the price of imported of oil will go up. That agreement, which for the time being, will solve the petroleum needs of Europe and, in part, of our eastern seaboard, will mean an increased price. In my opinion, although there had not been a price increase for a number of years and the middle eastern countries were quite justified in asking for more money for their oil, this agreement is bound to have a tremendous effect on the oil industry in this country.
It has been said that it is impossible to ship western oil economically to eastern Canadian markets. That argu-
February 15, 1971

ment will no longer be effective in view of the increased price of oil coming to our eastern seaboard. Our own oil coming from the west to the eastern provinces will be cheaper than oil coming from outside, under the new price agreement. Certainly, the time has come for us to consider extending our oil transportation system, at least to Montreal. The facts of economics dictate this. No longer does the argument that this course is not economically sound hold water. Above all, the present agreement has forced the United States government to realize, and it ought to force this government to realize as well, that we must depend more upon our own oil resources than upon those of the Middle East or South America. The agreement, I am sure, will have a tremendously stimulating effect upon the expansion of our own oil industry. The industry will undertake more exploration and develop more pipelines that will supply our own markets with our own oil. We must be thankful that we have such oil to develop.
You know, Mr. Speaker, of the thousands of oil wells in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia, it is difficult to find many that are actually owned by Canadians. More than 90 per cent have been drilled by, and are owned by, subsidiaries of United States companies. My purpose in bringing up this matter at present is not to condemn the United States because the financial interests of Americans and their tax policies have allowed them to do for us something that we did not do for ourselves. That being so, we do not really have too much reason to complain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: In this country there are thousands of oil wells. More will need to be drilled. Who will carry out this exploration and this development? Because of the present tax policies of the government, it will not be Canadians. It is almost impossible to find Canadian financial backing for any venture that is based on the search for much needed oil resources. There are at least $12 billion in the savings accounts of the Canadian people. In addition there are billions of dollars in the hands of insurance companies, trust companies, and mutual funds. The money is here. We have the know-how as well. Perhaps the exploration ability of the Canadian mineral resource industry is unsurpassed by any country in the world, including the United States. The tragedy is that the resources are there and Canadians do not develop them. With regard to the petroleum industry, the oil is there but something is lacking. What is it?
There is a complete lack of concern, vision and action on the part of the Canadian government, the Canadian financial authorities and the securities commissions which have the financial responsibility. If they did have the concern, the situation would not be as it is at the present. Furthermore, the discriminatory tax laws of Canada place Canadian investors in an inferior position to American or European investors. If there are losses involved in risk investments, the Canadian investor is not allowed to deduct them in calculating his income tax.
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities Although mineral exploration is a high risk venture, the opportunity is not there for Canadians. However, it is there for American and European investors. They can afford to invest in Canadian oil development. Canadians cannot because of the tax policies that are presently followed by the federal government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And the fear of them.


Robert Norman Thompson: The tax reform recommendations in the white paper on taxation do not do anything to correct the situation. In fact, they make it worse. They destroy confidence and incentive. This is why Canadian money is not being put into our investments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: I want to ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), who know as much about this as I do, if investment in Canadian development is good for Americans, why is it not good for Canadians? I would like the answer to that question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We do not reach that conclusion.


Robert Norman Thompson: The money is available in Canada today. The monetary supply has doubled in the last few months since the government reversed its monetary policy. The banks have more money available than they can find people to borrow. They are even advertising for borrowers. Yet, the Canadian investor is afraid to invest. He lacks confidence in the policies of the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities houses will not do anything for them. They are more interested in selling eastern Canadian mining ventures or United States industrial stock, often highly speculative, than they are in selling those of western or northern Canada. American investors are looking for investment opportunities, even high-risk investment opportunities. A Canadian company does not have to even send its president to these places. Everything can be done over the telephone. This is a travesty of justice. It is a tragedy. Anyone who knows the situation knows that this is true. It is not only easier to go south to the border to obtain investment money, it is cheaper and more satisfactory. A side comment here on Canadian know how is that the United States exploration success ratio in oil drilling is only one sixth of that in Canada.
The Minister of Finance talks about buying back Canada through the Canada Development Corporation. I went through my file on the CDC before I rose to speak. I noted that for the past seven years there has been mention in Speeches from the Throne and in policy statements of Liberal governments that a Canada Development Corporation would be initiated and implemented. Finally, after a seven or eight year gestation period, the baby has been born. What do we have? We have something that could just as well have been aborted because it will not be useful to correct this situation. It will not encourage new companies, investment and development. It certainly will not accomplish what Mr. Gordon said could be accomplished through such an organization. Others have talked about it as well. It could accomplish these things if it were organized on the right basis.
Why can the government not draft legislation which will let Canadians compete on an even basis with American investors? In the United States, the individual and the corporate investor have the right to invest their money in the United States or in Canada before they pay their taxes. If the investment is not successful or profitable, the United States taxpayer can deduct his losses. In Canada there is no such provision. If the Canadian taxpayer is not careful, he will be charged by the Department of National Revenue. In fact, it seems that the tax department looks upon the Canadian investor with suspi-cian and doubtful motivation. All too often he is judged guilty before he even acts. This is a tragedy. We are faced with unemployment, a lack of confidence in government and a situation which relates to provincial and municipal governments. The whole problem with regard to our economic position has been brought about because of a lack of policy and lack of confidence. If we cannot expand, how can we provide jobs? How can this country go forward? This is the question of the hour. It is "t>
+o the government to answer this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address myself to this very important motion. It is indicative of the situation in this country that such a motion should he discussed in the House today. The motion states that this government has failed to meet the needs of the citizens of Canada. It reads:
-dislocated the finances of provinces and municipalities, and caused injury and decline to our rural communities which are already seriously damaged by the government's failure to provide adequate agricultural policies.
e (3:30 p.m.)
Only a short while ago the urban municipalities were conducting a survey of the situation which they were facing. I wish to talk mainly about the farm and grain situation. It is a fact of our economic life that farmers, whether they are in grain or livestock or fruit, do not live in isolation economically from the rest of the community. Neither, of course, do those who live in cities live in isolation from the farm community. At no time has this been better demonstrated than it is now, in western Canada and in Saskatchewan in particular. The Star Phoenix, reporting on a white paper put out by the provincial government in December, used a black headline "Economic Boost seen for province". Underneath, it said: "White paper indicates recession low point passed". The old term used to be "turned the corner". Now, we say the low point has passed-we have bottomed out. I do not know whether we have bottomed out or not.
The agricultural policies which the government is proposing must be judged in the light of the circumstances which presently exist. They must be judged in the light of whether or not they meet these circumstances and whether they will correct the malaise which exists in a major part of the farming and rural communities of Canada, particularly in western Canada. Meanwhile, the low earning power of the farmers finds its expression in the empty storefronts in some of our small towns and in some of our cities. It is reflected in the conversation of the businessmen who live in the area.
Last Friday, in the city of Saskatoon, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) together with a large number of other cabinet ministers met the farmers in a ballroom at the Bessborough Hotel. The seating accommodation was entirely taken up, and all who could stand crowded in as well. The size of the meeting indicates the degree of concern which exists in the province. I wish to read briefly, now, from the grains policy proposals for the western grains industry. I shall begin with the last paragraph on the last page. It reads, under the heading "Encourage adjustment of farm units to more efficient sizes":
The problem of farm consolidation is one which is not peculiar to the prairie region and which, perhaps, is less critical in this region than in other areas of Canada. It is therefore believed that it would be inappropriate to proposed programs for the prairie region to deal with the consolidation issue in advance of the availability of programs to deal with this problem in Canadian agriculture generally. Such a general plan is in preparation.
So, the government apparently has under consideration a plan for farmers. It proposes the establishment of farms of a more efficient size. You know, Mr. Speaker, this final paragraph on the last page is perhaps the most important part of the whole document.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It scares us most, anyway.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The rest of it is made up of proposals intended to relieve the government from having to pay

February 15, 1971

out too much money, from having to take too much responsibility, from embarking on too large a commitment to the farming and rural community of western Canada.
The government is now bringing forward two major measures which will affect the direction and destiny of agriculture in Canada generally, and grain production in the west in particular. One is the marketing bill, Bill C-176, and the other is the grains policy white paper or proposals to which I have referred. We need to examine these policies but we also need to assess the situation they propose to deal with. While the Prime Minister and the other ministers were in Saskatoon, the provincial treasurer of Saskatchewan, under a Liberal government, was releasing a white paper on the subject of the economy of that province. It said, among other things, that the average Saskatchewan farmer owed the Wheat Board between $1,070 and $1,250. This means that farmers, in addition to living off their depreciation, have been selling their grain ahead of time because they did not have sufficient funds, and are now trying to pay this money back. If hon. members want to bring a statement of this kind on to an individual level, let them talk to a man who lives on a good farm and is unable to pay his taxes in full because he is determined that his son, who is at a university, should stay there.
The white paper said realized net income would show a decrease as compared with 1969. It blames the decline on lower production due to a reduction of seeded acreage under the federal government's Lift program, and a minimal final payment on wheat, oats and barley sold in previous years. It put the blame where it belongs. The provincial white paper goes on to say that grain delivery was approximately 40 per cent higher in 1970 than in the previous year but that receipts from the sale of grain were only 22.6 per cent higher as a result of lower final payments and lower unit prices.
These are the circumstances with which the government's proposals purport to deal. As I say, I am convinced they are intended not so much to deal with the situation which is so well described as to ensure that the government does not become too deeply involved at a time when the country finds itself in a fairly serious situation. The object is to limit government involvement. These government proposals are not based on the need to increase or even to maintain income but, as the paper says, on stabilization of income. This means stabilization of income equal to the coverage of the previous five years, not on the farmer's cost of production. The government ignores the need to correct the situation; instead it bases its proposals on a previous five-year period, the record of which has not been all that good, namely a five-year average and an initial price which can only be related to international market terms.
During the question period today, I asked the minister what his reaction was to this statement made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
-we must on this occasion stress as strongly as we can that the government grains receipts and stabilization proposals-which clearly will be on all our minds as we meet here today-do
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
not represent an adequate undertaking by the federal government to assist and protect the position of prairie grain producers. They do not represent a sufficient acceptance of responsibility by the government, on behalf of the Canadian public and in the national interest, to share the costs of maintaining this vital industry in the face of widespread, highly subsidized international competition, violent swings in market and price conditions and intense competitive pressures.
In the submission of the National Farmers Union which was presented to the federal government at Saskatoon there is this statement:
Secondly, while producers contribute to the program as individuals, stabilization payments are determined on the amount of the industry-wide aggregate short-fall or gross income from grain sales. Consequently, there is no guarantee of individuals income needs being, in fact, stabilized in times of greatest need. What is required is a larger allocation of funds from the federal treasury to provide the comprehensive program required. Indications are the minister in charge of this program is hamstrung by the conventional wisdom the government is employing in its approach to this important problem. We, therefore, request government re-examine its position on this matter.
I noted with some interest that one of the ministers of the Crown said in Regina it was too bad that the farm organizations could not agree on their approach to the government. I have referred to the agreement and also to the similar stand taken by the two farm organizations that are most representative of farmers in that particular area, and they express their reaction. They have good cause to take the position they do.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the total program must be examined in terms of the existing situation. The situation is that last week the minister in charge of the Wheat Board had to inform hon. members that all attempts to reach a real agreement on the international marketing of what had failed and that the negotiations for an international wheat agreement had come to a standstill. In other words, the government are well aware that we are now entering into a period of absolutely cut-throat competition overseas. We may or may not be able to continue to negotiate an agreement to hold the line on prices with other governments. As a result, for the first time in many years the farmers will be taking the full brunt of savage competition in export markets.
What does the government propose to do to meet this situation? It has brought in a proposal under the grain stabilization program that would largely relieve the government of the responsibility of supporting the wheat farmer in the export market. I say this in view of the fact that initial prices of wheat to date have been tied to the International Wheat Agreement. These initial prices are established each year and reflect two factors: firstly, the level of the minimums reached in the international wheat agreements or secondly, the production costs within the economy.
The government has announced that it has a stabilization program that is going to follow the pattern of the previous five years. Initial prices are going to be set at the beginning of each crop year. However, the government carefully refrains from announcing that those initial prices are going to be set in accordance with the needs of the farmers, their production costs, or any other

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities consideration of that sort. Anyone who does not examine the facts of life in this situation is missing the point, namely that the government is relieving itself of its responsibility to the farmers, it having allowed international arrangements or agreements on the pricing of wheat to break down and fall apart.
I do not think we can lay the whole blame for this at the door of the government. I think most of those who are close to the situation are aware that the United States did not particularly want another agreement with stated minimums; at least, that is the conclusion I draw. If it had wanted an agreement, we would not have had to renew the old International Wheat Agreement on two or three occasions previously, and then travel to Geneva and negotiate a new IGA that was as full of holes as a sieve.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: With an 11-month gap.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Yes, a period when the market was wide open. So, I only lay partial blame at the door of the government. Under these circumstances, the government is telling the farmers: "Not only will you cut your cloth according to your purse, but we are going to do the tailoring after you have cut the cloth". This, in effect, is what the government is saying in the final paragraph on page 20 of its statement "If there is too much trouble", the government is saying to the farmers, "you can take it from there".
I do not know whether there was a little bit of kidding going on a year or two ago, but when the minister introduced the Lift program, he said Canadian farmers were going to reduce wheat acreage. He clearly implied that other countries were going to join us in reducing their acreage. Now, I don't know where they got their commitments from, but...


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And did they not do so?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: No, they did not.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member should check his facts. That is absolutely wrong.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If the minister thinks he has something then God bless him. Certainly, I hope he has a great deal more than he has shown. I hope the government has a couple of hole cards because it is certainly going to need them, and so are we. If the minister could say to this House that we are to reduce acreage and other nations are to reduce acreage also, then by clear implication we would be dealing with nations who, in the immediate future, would be prepared to meet us around a bargaining table and come to terms on price and quantity. There is no other implication one could draw, because what good is an acreage reduction program without a price factor since we would get the worst of both worlds. We would reduce our acreage and there would be no possibility of having maximum efficiency and production. For what? For a great big zero.
Let us have some elementary economics in the picture. This is where we stand. I say we are left with uncertain days ahead. I do not think we are faced with a disaster unless the government should continue to act with lack of determination to back up the farmer and give him some confidence. That is the critical factor in this area because the farmer cannot enter the international market on his own under the circumstances which he faces. He cannot expect to survive on his own because he does not have enough money in the kitty and, under these circumstances, whoever is marketing our grain must compete with the U.S. treasury, the European Economic Common Market, the Australians and other people in the market who are supported by government. That is the game. With a few exceptions, there are centralized selling and buying agencies in the major markets of the world, so we are in that kind of game.
A year ago barley, at the point where I deliver, was worth 64 cents a bushel. We said we would go into the market and sell the barley. Good enough; that is what we should have done. The government picked up some of the deficit. I do not know what will happen this year. There are people who know, but that is not the important thing. But how, with any conscience, in another year can we lower that initial price? We know we ought to increase it if the farmer is to continue to produce. If we do lower it, who will pick up the tab? The government obviously should. Yet in this paper which the minister has put out there is no mention of any commitment whatsoever to maintain an initial price which relates to the cost of production. That commitment is not there. Indeed, the responsible minister on more than one occasion has said that whatever is done must be done within certain limits. He is approaching this thing from the wrong end. The proper way to approach it is to see what is needed so that the farmers may operate as a unit and be competitive in the market. The proper thing to do is to ascertain what is necessary, see what we can afford and then tell the western Canadian farmer what is going to be done. I say that the Canadian farmer is just not buying this program.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Try to help sell it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Me help sell it! If the government would bring out a program that would help the farmer in Saskatchewan be viable, be able to use all the technology, his efficiency and know-how in order to stay in business, then I would support such a program.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is what it is all about.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: When that kind of program is put on the table, I will support it. However, I do not intend to support a program that is designed basically to get the government in the position of putting a minimum amount in the pot so that it can sit back and say: Don't bother coming back to us again; you have all you are going to get.

February 15, 1971

I wanted to put these thoughts before the House today, Mr. Speaker. I support the motion that has been moved and seconded by the two hon. members.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, rereading the text of the motion before the House, I realize that the wording used reveals, in learned terms, that its purpose is to point out several administrative blunders in various fields and to prove that the number-ous errors of the pesent administrators have helped discourage the farmers in particular.
Of course, the topic is very important; it deserves the contribution of as many members as possible, and their greatest possible understanding, with a view to calling the attention of those whose responsibility it is to take decisions on the various reactions of the people, many of whom I feel have exhausted their reserve of patience, after having multiplied their representations and their claims, whenever they felt them to be timely.
We all know that farming methods have changed, as methods have in other fields, and that the consequences of those periods of adjustment or orientation imposed sacrifices on a large percentage of the farmers who, in large numbers, were forced to borrow from the Farm Credit Corporation. Moreover, the fact that too many politicians seem to have considered agriculture as an industry of little importance, except at election time, has not helped them any.
0	(4:00 p.m.)
For a number of years, the various governments were concerned with getting as many workers as possible into agriculture and now, this same farmer cannot operate his farm economically without relying on government assistance.
1 have read a very up to the point article by Mr. Lucien Gosselin, a realistic agronomist of my area, which
1	will quote in part:
It is often said that agriculture is a school of common sense and observation, which leads the farmer of today to seek the middle term between the theoreticians lost in the clouds and those who will not give up ancient farming methods. It will be argued that some routine methods of our grandfathers must be dropped, but it is often comforting to rely on their good judgment always based on plain common sense. That is perhaps one of our natural resources which is most threatened today by the sheer might of our techniques.
Some claim that the size, the enlargement of farms might be a solution. I can understand that a farmer should have a reasonably large farm, but the acreage is not necessarily the solution to the problem. By enlarging farms exceedingly, do we not run the risk of creating other problems more difficult to solve? Is the problem of western wheat producers solved? And yet their farms are certainly big enough.
We must at all cost preserve the importance of farming, because of the permanent role it assumes as regards production of human food.
The world is facing now the most serious problem on earth which is to feed a constantly increasing population. "We might, in a few years, be faced with a problem which will overshadow all our present concerns", said
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities Dr. Raymond Ewell, vice-president of the State University of New York. Experts who have considered the problem of world hunger have made several other statements to the effect that starvation could very well become one of the greatest calamities of history.
On the basis of all these statements, we have the right to wonder what are the intimate thoughts of our leaders, of our government heads, or of all the other groups, when they advocate a decrease in the number of farmers. Our government goes even as far as subsidizing some farmers for not producing like what is happening in Western Canada. This is not the first time that our politicians implement such a policy. In 1938, the Canadian taxpayers contributed several million dollars in taxes to be deprived of bread. The government at that time could not find a better solution to the problem of farmers producing too much wheat.
With respect to the dairy industry in Eastern Canada, this government has changed its program by resorting to deductions from subsidy payments in order to pay for the operating costs involved in surplus production.
In 1967-68 farmers from Eastern Canada paid more than four million dollars. In 1968-69 they paid seven million and in 1969-70 more than 13 million. It is a kind of fine they have to pay because they produce too much. It is levied against them because they produce too much milk. The reports are incomplete. That is a rather strange way of encouraging production. In our present system things get complicated when there are too many products. Advocates of the "just society" are unable to spread abundance and prefer to follow the guidelines of the scarcity system dictated by the financiers.
We could build up sufficient food reserves and make them available to the Canadian people and this for several years in advance. There are various means to process raw materials and modern methods of conservation and we can also alter the distribution system of goods. We could establish a mechanism for adequate purchasing power in order to make that wealth of goods available to the citizens instead of depriving them for the only purpose of maintaining prices at a certain level.
We could also set up a distribut'on chain of foodstuffs to feed under nourished people. While Canadians would be assured of a decent living, they would also be ready to help underprivileged countries. Such a policy, in addition to being an example of Christian charity, would be more readily accepted by Canadians than interest-free loans due in 50 years or more, while in Canada, a great number of people have to make do with a welfare allowance which barely enables them to subsist.
For several years already, practical suggestions have been submitted to governments by those concerned with finding solutions to the problems of food supply, through a marketing of dairy products with various flavours. We feel that milk could advantageously replace our numerous soft drinks. It would be better for the health of children, especially now that we favour a return to healthy habits and to natural food. This would also be excellent for dairy producers, particularly when one

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities thinks of the millions of dollars that are spent yearly on publicity by the major manufacturers of soft drinks. If we compare with the budgets of groups concerned with the consumption of milk and dairy products, the situation becomes dramatic.
Unfortunately, all of us can see that the butter market is invaded by margarine. Why the increase in the consumption of margarine? It is not because this product has a better flavour than butter. No. It is because it is cheaper. We always come back to the question of purchasing power. Some people interested in margarine sales maintain that this artificial product, with colour added if required, costs less and is more within the means of low-salaried people.
It does not seem fair to me that good natural butter be reserved for people in easy circumstances and that a substitute be offered to manual workers. All citizens are entitled to consume one of our best Canadian foods, and let us not make the serious mistake of antagonizing consumers and turning them away from agricultural products to the point where our market is flooded with substitutes whose acceptance will be detrimental to the sales and revenues of our dairy farms. Butter sales drop in the same proportion that margarine sales increase.
Instead of trying to solve the problem by starting with the farmers, who are already too hard-pressed, and by asking them to bear cost price reductions, it might be advisable to re-organize the marketing of dairy products. For this purpose, one could perhaps look to other fields, that of the automobile for instance, where the entry of foreign cars into the country is subject to control.
The problem results from the lack of markets for dairy products. It would be advisable to attempt to enlighten some people who do not realize that they are contributing to under-consumption in our population through the adoption of certain legislative measures that reduce purchasing power instead of stabilizing it. The variety of our taxes is a striking example of this.
I admit that a well-balanced dairy policy, which would enable farmers to sell their products, would be ideal. Meanwhile, a policy of subsidies may be beneficial if it is tailored to the needs.
The production system in Canada, in agriculture as elsewhere, has constantly improved. I do not think there is a single Canadian who fears that, in 10 or even 50 yeras, his country will not longer be able to produce wheat, butter or meat. Canadians have full confidence in the production system. On the other hand, the financial system is not in harmony with the production system. Canadian farmers produce everything that nourishes, while the financial system depletes credit.
Some men are capable of dreadful thoughtlessness. It is unbelievable to find to what extent the habit of seeing prevents them from looking. It is not at all necessary to have a university degree to understand that under the present system freedom is conditioned by the amount of money left in one's wallet. If the government takes too
much, by levying taxes, whether visible or invisible, the citizens will revolt and rightly so.
A vigourous publicity program would be needed to increase consumption of butter and other dairy products.
It is not normal that in a country such as ours, workers' families should be deprived of good Canadian butter to use margarine because of their low income.
I also believe that most farmers support fully all programs established under the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, that is ARDA.
The purpose of these programs is to redevelop and improve the use of farm lands, water resources, forests and, finally, to improve the profitability and efficiency of farms.
So, ARDA should be administered with objectiveness and care so as to minimize economic and human problems which will necessarily be brought about by these adjustments in the field of agriculture.
As these present needs are urgent, we are asking the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, to try to define and develop the outline of the policy for ARDA in the years to come. We are also asking that financial assistance be sufficient to prevent any dealy in the implementation of existing programs. Let me now describe what is happening.
In my constituency of Kamouraska, we have a program for the construction of dikes along the shores of the St. Lawrence river, which would permit the recovery of thousands of acres and would considerably increase the land yield in several waterfront parishes. This project has been under study since 1937. I would like to point this out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and to his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Lessard). At that time, 34 riparian owners signed an agreement regarding a free right of way on their properties so that necessary repairs could be made.
A survey made in 1951 shows that there are 325 acres of fertile soil to be recuperated in certain areas. In November 1951, a sum of $81.12 was paid to the Quebec Department of Agriculture by the county council for certain projects carried out by the department with regard to this dike.
In 1953, the hon. Laurent Barre, then provincial Minister of Agriculture, estimated the construction cost of the dike at approximately $50,000 and requested a $5,000 grant from the council before authorizing the work, which those involved considered to be too expensive in the circumstances.
In 1956, Mr. Avila Bedard, Deputy Minister of Lands and Forests of Quebec, authorized surveyor Marc Thiboutot of Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere to carry out the survey, draw up the plans and prepare the books of reference in order that titles might be issued to future purchasers.
In 1961, the Department of Lands and Forests turned the shore rights over to the Department of Natural
Resources.

February 15, 1971

In 1962, the Minister of Natural Resources sold the shore rights to citizens of Saint-Denis and Saint-Louis-de-Kamouraska by patent letters, at the price of $1 per arpent. From now on, the price will be $1.50 per arpent.
At present, the dike is in its initial condition. There are no construction plans, no estimates, no evaluation and above all no money. The dike should be rebuilt closer to sea and according to a master plan.
Dikes were built some 50 years ago at a time when each did his bit as he saw fit, when timber was not selling well. Nowadays, timber is too expensive.
The Saint-Germain dike would allow to recuperate from 1,000 to 1,200 acres of land; the one at Saint-Andre, a few hundred acres; something could also be done at Notre-Dame-du-Portage. At Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere and Riviere-Ouelle, recuperation would be more significant, which in my opinion, means that despite the high cost, it would be worthwhile to achieve the project. With machines and materials available today, the dikes could be built under favourable conditions. The county council is very interested and so are a great number of farmers because many think the best lands would be those close to the river.
It is obvious the assistance of public authorities is needed to achieve this vast project. I believe it is an area where ARDA could apply, but decisions must be taken by the responsible authorities. It is not enough to say in reply to requests for assistance that the problem will be taken into consideration while results and decisions never come.
I have here a letter dated July 21, 1970 from the Assistant Deputy Minister, Central region, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which says that the matter will be discussed with representatives of the Quebec Department of Agriculture. On November 2, 1970, the secretary of the municipal corporation of the Kamou-raska riding received from the assistant executive secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Colonization of the Quebec government the following reply:
According to the information received, I am sorry to advise you that we will be unable to implement your first resolution concerning the construction of functional dikes on the south shore of the St. Lawrence River. The reason for this refusal is very simple: all problems relating in any way whatsoever to the river fall strictly within federal Jurisdiction.
I say therefore to the members of the government party that the time has come to act with regard to the dikes in the riding of Kamouraska.
The resolution that was the object of the debate adds that the government helped disorganize the finances of the provinces and municipalities, and was prejudicial to rural communities. Allow me to point out that that disorganization unfortunately dates back a long time and that several successive governments contributed to it in no small measure. The defenders of the corrupt financial system we have today are responsible for that situation.
During a federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa on January 14 and 15, 1941, the Premier of Ontario, Hon. Mitchell F. Hepburn, read part of a letter he had 23966-3
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities received from the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, on November 2, 1960, and I quote:
While the cost of unemployment relief has been reduced, the war has cast additional burdens on governments and taxpayers alike. It has inevitably increased the competition between governments to secure revenues, and has aggravated the overlapping, cumbersome and discriminatory character of much of our tax structure.
Things were already going rather badly at that time.
At the end of his speech, the Premier of Ontario said to those participating to that conference, and I quote:
And while you thus obligated yourselves to fight this war with the last drop of printer's ink and to the last page of Hansard, confusion, utter confusion, would prevail in all governments as existing tax machinery bogged down.
Hon. T. D. Pattullo, Premier of British Columbia, said the following as shown on page 42 of the report:
Money Root of Trouble
Money, of course, is at the root of this whole question. While monetary measures should be based upon the productive capacity of our people, the productive capacity of our people can be amplified by wise monetary measures and other considerations.
Another premier, Alberta's Honourable William Aber-hart-he who had succeeded in putting the financial administration of that province back in order-after having mentioned the advantages and disadvantages of speaking last, made the following remarks intended to the various heads of governments:
I do not believe that the British North America Act, or confederation, or whatever you like to call it, has been responsible since that time for the three D's which have marked the industrial history of some of our provinces-I mean, decadence, debilitation, and death. I do not believe that confederation was the cause of these things, but I avow, sir, that something has been responsible for the awful plight that has settled upon the provinces. I notice sadly that the Ethiopian is still at large; the blight continues.
And further in the same speech, Mr. Aberhart stated and I quote:
Now, what is the job of each of us at this moment? Is this conference a ration line, where we are to receive our dole, or is it a place in which each must grab all that he can carry away with him? Is it not rather a conference to which we are privileged to bring, for the benefit of the Canadian nation, the combined gifts of thoughtfulness, wisdom, foresight, vision, tolerance and understanding with which we Canadians may be endowed?
Is this not our golden opportunity to lay the foundations for the never-before realized gifts of fraternity, freedom equality of opportunity, and, what is also important, financial security? We are here, honourable chairman and gentlemen, I take it, 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 delivrance from debt of 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.

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
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 viewpoint which shall not only recognize, as you have publicly stated, Mr. Prime Minister, but which shall further decree, that that which is physically desirable is financially possible.
Judging from the events which occurred in Canada since then, I note that the recommendations made during the federal-provincial conferences are far from being implemented. We would rather go on floundering in the stupid system of today, making every effort through every possible means to deprive the Canadian citizens, through a variety of taxes, from the revenue they need with the resulting disorganization of farming, unemployment, unpaid and unpayable public debts of municipal, school, provincial and federal governments. And I do not think that the solution to the many Canadian problems will be found with such small constitutional reforms as we have been witnessing for too long.
What we need is a true monetary reform which would take into account the needs of the people and would allow for an intelligent and just distribution of the abundant production which is available to us.
If we go on looking for solutions along tracks already beaten by selfish financiers we run the risk of finding ourselves all in designated areas where Canadians will be numbered, classified, taxed and riddled with debts and asking themselves with anguish when they will be integrated, disclassified, retrained or nationalized. There are indeed enough examples to incite us to direct our decisions towards a better end.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks about agricultural policy and the development of that policy over the past few months. I think, however, that the composition of this motion again demonstrates the ingenuity of the opposition and, particularly, of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to be negative and destructive, to initiate and perpetuate a myth, to ignore the facts and to continue to widen the credibility gap between his party and the Canadian citizen.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Six hundred and thirty-eight thousand are unemployed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker. The motion provides me with an opportunity to discuss some developments in the area of agricultural policy and program changes which have taken place during the past few months. Before I embark on those comments, I suppose I ought to reply briefly to the main theme brought forward by opposition spokesmen who have so far participated in the debate. It seems to me that the comments of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) bore very little relevance to the wording of the motion. At one point he tried to suggest that the government ought to stop making proposals to the Canadian people by way of white papers and that sort of thing.


Robert Norman Thompson: I did not say that.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He is very, very wrong indeed if he thinks that he can, either by that speech or any other way, persuade the government to stop putting proposals before the people and asking them to respond to those proposals before coming out with hard and fast positions. We began some time ago this very useful process of consultation with the people of Canada. We have done this so that we shall not "govern by surprise". The people of Canada accept that as good policy. That is part of the process of the development of policy and it is a process which we intend to continue.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is a good process so long as the proposals are proper.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Next, I refer to the comments of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). I am sorry that he did not have time to stay and listen to this important debate on agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there is no privilege here; the hon. member is not in the House, and that is all I have said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will both hon. members please resume their seats? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege and to ask the minister if he is not aware of the fact that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is meeting with our caucus at the present time, and that that is why the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) is not here? I stayed here in case something like this was tried.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am also aware that whenever there is not one particular minister in the House, no matter how valid the reason for his absence may be, the hon. member gets up and comments about it. He always draws the attention of the House to that fact and decries it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think that the members of the NDP, who are so good at this sort of thing, ought to be reminded that only one of their members is present in the House while the debate on agricultural policy is taking place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You will admit that he is a pretty good one, though.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Oh, yes; he is a good member, although he might not be very good at agriculture.
I think that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar ought to get his facts straight before perpetuating the kind of myth he tried to bring before the House respecting what has happened during the past 12 or 18 months.
February 15, 1971

He talked about those things that are tremendously important in the field of agriculture, and particularly about grains policy. The result of the international meetings in the field of grains policy has led to a much more satisfactory climate on the selling side, and this is evident in that international market today. I will have more to say about this in a minute.
I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne). I think he tried to outline some of the problems facing farmers and tried to suggest that these problems could not be solved by consolidating farms. I suggest to him that perhaps he ought to consult with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) who sits behind him. He will learn that the great problem of poverty and low incomes in agriculture in most parts of Canada today is directly related to the advance of technology. Far units must become economic units if they are to stay competitive in the production of those commodities; and, therefore, we are doing agriculture a service by providing policies that may lead to the kind of consolidation that will transform farms into economic units.
Regardless of all the weeping and wailing that may go on from time to time with regard to the overproduction of food in some areas, and the underconsumption or lack of food affecting people in other parts of the world, the fact is that all farmers must live with the market place. This is the place from which they derive their income. That is where they obtain their gross receipts with which they must pay their operating costs and from which they derive their net income. May I say that the total amount laid out by the Canadian treasury at present for food aid and other international programs is many, many times what it was before this government came to office. The outlay for food outlay alone will approach perhaps close to $100 million in this year. We have gone almost as far as we can without upsetting markets, etc., in the recipient countries. I know of no case where a government has made a request to us under the rules that are usually respected in the international field with regard to gifts of food aid where this government has not responded and provided whatever we had to meet that request. I repeat that farmers have to live with the supply and marketing conditions within our area. They must not produce more than the effective market can absorb, notwithstanding the fact that there may be people somewhere in the world who can use this food. We have to bear in mind that it is cash receipts that are important to the wellbeing of farmers in Canada.
I now wish to deal specifically with our agricultural policy. The motion claims that serious damage to rural communities and to farmers was brought about by the failure of the present government to provide adequate agricultural policies. Any objective member of this House who wants to use even a little integrity and honesty in his assertions will agree there is probably more agricultural policy, leadership and new departures in coming to grips with the fundamental problems in agriculture before the farmers, the country and this Parliament than at any other time in recent history.
23966-3J
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I think that the proposals we have made, the meetings we have had, the great agricultural congresses which have been endorsed by the agricultural community have been successful in having the kind of discussion that the farmers want to have and, as well as other means of consultation, have led to the evolvement of policies for the general improvement of the agricultural community.
In addition, for the first time in the history of the Canadian Parliament, all of the agriculture bills have gone to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The committee can call witnesses and listen to opinions of farm organizations during the process of passing these bills. I think it is fair to say that in almost every case very important amendments have been made to these bills based on the representations of the farm organizations. I suggest that the kind of assertion in the motion at this time is not in keeping with the facts.


Paul Yewchuk: Will the minister permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder if hon. members could hold their questions until the end of my speech. I only have 30 minutes. I have so many things to say that I am afraid I might not get them all into that 30 minute period. If there is time at the end of my speech, I will be very happy to answer the hon. member's question and other questions.
I think that the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and other departments are spending a greater portion of their time than ever before on the marketing aspects of agricultural products, both in the domestic and international field. I think that is a proper attitude and change of emphasis. I say that because I realize that our production technology has advanced to the point where Canadian farmers are capable of overproducing almost any commodity when they set out to produce to their maximum capability. What is more important, they can overproduce all commodities at the same time. The technology and know-how that our farmers possess today enables them to produce so much more in relation to a few years ago that we now have to turn the emphasis on finding better ways and means of having orderly production and marketing rather than constantly producing against the depressed prices that surpluses create.
I suggest that Bill C-176 is one step in the program of coming to grips with the basic structural requirements by way of amendments to policies and programs that will lead us there. From time to time temporary action has to be taken until the organizations are functioning well under the authority of Bill C-176. Occasionally this has been done under the authority of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. During the past few months we have taken action on such things as potatoes, apples and broilers under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. We have also taken action on corn under another authority. We will continue to do this when we find a particular sector or commodity within the industry in difficulty. Farmers and provincial governments agree that there is now a deficit in the total

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities legislative authority that is required to really come to grips with some of these fundamental problems. I hope that members opposite will cooperate with the government to reach the point where we can significantly and substantially improve this situation in the shortest possible time. That kind of co-operation has not been made manifest up to this time.
I now wish to deal with the dairy policy. Hon. members are aware that there have been some very important changes in the past 12 months; first, in the general improvement in the economic well-being of the dairy industry, and second, in the kind of structures to keep it that way and to keep moving up from the very unsatisfactory position which has existed for a number of years. I want to offer my appreciation and congratulations to the dairy farmers of Canada and to other interested organizations, particularly organizations at the provincial level, which have spent a great deal of time and effort during this past year in order to reach the agreement which was formally signed on January 14 of this year.
Under the new market quota system that is now in effect, we have reached the stage where we do not have any surplus of Canadian cheddar cheese. But the end of the dairy year, March 31, we will probably have virtually no surplus skim milk powder. We probably have approximately 30 million pounds more butterfat than is required for usual commercial marketing. However, now that we have increased the price of these commodities, we have an even greater responsibility to ensure that we manage this with the co-operation of the industry in such a way as to keep the industry healthy. I think that hon. members will agree that more milk should be diverted to the cheese factories for the production of cheese. Recently, the price has been around 55 cents which is 8 cents more than it was under the old support price program. This is something we should weigh very carefully.
On the one hand, if there were a large diversion to cheese we could do a great deal of damage to the satisfactory situation which exists today. On the other hand, if we fail to divert enough milk to cheese making we might cause a sharp increase in the price of cheese because of temporary shortage. This would inhibit an expanding market in Canada and possibly cause a very large diversion of milk to cheese production, as a result of which we would be faced, first of all, with unhappy customers because of higher prices and then, when the price came down, with unhappy producers. So, there is a delicate balance to be maintained and the situation has to be watched carefully. The domestic market is growing quite satisfactorily. Now that we have all the milk, not only in the manufacturing sector but also the over-quota milk from the fluid milk sector under these quotas, we have to make sure that we produce enough to supply the market, and not more, at a reasonable price.
Turning to grain, I am the first to acknowledge that the grains industry, particularly in western Canada, has come through a very difficult period. I do not believe we
have yet reached a point at which we can say that no further difficulties are likely with respect to cash flow and farm incomes, but I think it is fair to say that the federal government has recognized that producers were having a difficult time. Hon. members can look back over the figures at the size of the transfers which were made from the federal treasury into the grain economy during that period. It is, indeed, significant. Well over $200 million has been paid in the last 12 months through the various programs which have been in effect, programs such as the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the Lift program, cash advances, the deficits in the wheat pool accounts which were paid by the treasury, and so on. I am sure no member of this House and, indeed, no farmer in western Canada, would wish the situation to remain such that it was necessary for the federal government to transfer this amount of money into the grain economy every year. I believe it is fully justified in a situation where there is a depressed market and very limited marketing opportunities but, hopefully, the action we have taken in co-operation with other producer countries around the world has resulted in a much healthier and more satisfactory international market. In these circumstances, therefore, there will be no need during the next 12 months for sums quite as huge to be transferred in order to keep this industry viable.
Some hon. members complain that no satisfactory agreement was reached in Geneva during the past few days. I suggest that what came out of this conference was, in fact, a most useful agreement. It is an agreement which provides, or continues to provide, for consultation and for the monitoring of prices. It continues to place some obligation on all the exporting countries to monitor their prices and to consult immediately if there is a serious downward trend in prices. It provides for other useful things as well. Some hon. members have focussed solely on the price range which was contained in the old International Grains Arrangement and in some of the international wheat agreements prior to that. They have complained that such a feature is absent from the agreement. But the history of these international commodity agreements shows that when there is a price range, from a floor price to a maximum, and when there is production in excess of requirement imposing a downward pressure on prices, almost without exception the price has gone through the floor. The last time this happened, hon. members opposite were the first to complain that Canada had waited too long before adjusting her price after other nations had penetrated the floor as far as prices were concerned.
There is another thing I want to say with respect to this grains proposal and what went on in the past 12 months. I might point out that what took place was not really negotiations; they were discussions with all the other leading exporting countries of the world. They were meetings with representatives of the United States, Australia, Argentina, the European Economic Community and other exporting nations. I am not trying to persuade the House that what Canada did under the Lift program by way of reducing the acreage was solely responsible for the improvement in the international market. I real-

February 15, 1971

ize, too, that there was no formal agreement signed between Canada and the other countries concerned. But look at the record, and see what happened. Canada reduced her acreage under wheat, because of huge, unmanageable surpluses, by about 50 per cent, from 24.8 million acres in 1969 to just over 12 million acres in 1970.
In Australia they have a different system. What they do, under their wheat board, is to announce in advance how much grain they will take from all producers. Presumably there is no market available at all for grain produced beyond that amount unless world markets suddenly open up. In other words, there is no guarantee. What they did was announce in advance that they would be taking 257 million bushels of wheat, a 40 per cent reduction compared with the year before. Bear in mind that the year before they had registered production in excess of 500 million bushels. Between 1968 and 1969, and again between 1969 and 1970, the allocation for wheat acreage in the United States was reduced by about 15 per cent in each period. There were reductions in the acreage shown in other parts of the world as well.
The action which we in Canada took is not solely responsible for the present improvement in the situation, nor is the action taken individually by any other country. But as a result of these meetings, as a result of the situation in which all these countries found themselves, which was basically similar, I suggest that the action taken together by all these countries did lead to the greatly improved situation which is evident in the market today. I believe my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) can take a great deal of credit for his participation in these meetings.
I wish to touch briefly, now, on two or three other matters. Under the Farm Credit Corporation program we have made a number of commitments during the last 12 to 18 months. For example, we have provided credit for diversification, credit which was not provided for under the regulations prior to that time. We have provided credit for debt consolidation which was essential in the circumstances encountered in some areas during the difficult years. We have provided for deferment of payment by farmers who could show it would work hardship, or be impossible, for them to obtain the financial resources from their sales to meet payments on time. There is much, much more. And I can say this: we shall be bringing in further amendments to the farm credit corporation program to make sure that this very important organization which has done so much for agriculture generally will be able to keep abreast of changing conditions and meet the requirements of modern agriculture.
The government advised the House many months ago that it was prepared to bring in an agricultural adjustment program to deal with the problem facing those farms that are so small that the operators find it impossible to compete, to pay their expenses and enjoy a decent standard of living as a result of their labours. I am pleased to advise the House that I now have authority from the cabinet to initiate a program that the government would be prepared to introduce. Hon. members are
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities aware that $10 million was provided in the current main estimates for this program. The Prime Minister has written to the first ministers of all the provinces in the past few days outlining in general terms what the government is prepared to do. I have written a letter to each minister of agriculture outlining more or less the same proposal, and also suggesting a number of dates for getting together to finalize this policy and put the program into operation.
Discussions with the provinces must be held in order to ensure there is no duplication of, or contradiction between, the programs the provinces have to deal with this particular problem and the federal government's program. Our program is going to be a national program. In almost every agricultural area of Canada, communities are facing the same kind of problem I have outlined, though some of the provinces are in a substantially better financial position to remedy the situation. Not only this, Mr. Speaker, but there are individuals within those communities faced with economic problems who are now reaching the age when they should retire from agriculture. In my view, it is essential that this program be a national one that can be applied and administered uniformly across the country, embracing all sectors of agriculture-the dairy, grains, livestock, fruit and vegetable production, and so on.
Consolidation into economic units is not by itself going to be sufficient; some way must be found through this program to enable farmers to utilize the assets they have. If farmers decide to retire from agriculture because they are at or near retirement age, the program will allow them to do so with a high degree of dignity and security, something that has not been available to them, in my view, in the past. I hope it will not be long before I can announce the details of the program to the House, having had discussions with the provinces.
In conclusion, I wish to assert again that during the past year and a half or so there has probably been more leadership, more consultation, more policy changes and more new departures from established programs requiring more courage to come to grips with the fundamental and basic sectors of agriculture than ever before, quite contrary to what the motion alleges. I suggest the action taken by the government is going to lead to an improvement of the economic wellbeing of farmers generally in whatever sector of agriculture they are engaged.
One additional thing we need to do-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give the minister unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, certainly I will not abuse that privilege; I had reached the concluding sentence of my remarks. May I say in conclusion-and I say this very sincerely-that what we need now is a great deal more

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities co-operation from all members of the House to implement the programs that are before this Parliament. The greatest service we can do the farming community of this country is to implement the government's programs. After experience thus gained, we will be able to make further amendments to them if this is found necessary.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuck)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Program "Sesame Street"-Classification of content-Educational value; the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey)-Grain-Lift program-Extension of deadline date for payments for hail damage; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Pensions-Old age security-Acknowledgement of return of basic increase by certain pensioners-Use made of money.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baldwin:
That this House condemns the government's lack of leadership which has humiliated the disadvantaged, dislocated the finances of provinces and municipalities, and caused injury and decline to our rural communities which are already seriously damaged by the government's failure to provide adequate agricultural policies.
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, having heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) telling the House that his country has never seen so much leadership from him and his government, I am wondering why this "travelling circus" has just returned from the western provinces. I think they went out there to give support to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board as well as to the Minister of Agriculture. Indeed, there is no doubt about that. As I understand it, the minister's trip was not too successful.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We had wonderful success.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In any event, it appears to me to have been an exercise in futility, and I think this will be borne out later by the remarks of those more expert than I in matters of agriculture.
The minister alleged that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) had not spoken to the motion. This motion is so framed that no matter what you say about
the government's fiscal and monetary policies you are still within the ambit of the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let not hon. members opposite refer to the pork barrel reorganization bill, which is another devious ploy on the part of the government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said: "It does not matter how many camels I ride, if unemployment increases we won't be in government". That may be a little out of context, but the gist of his remarks is there. There is a feeling of pessimism and despair running through this country at the present time purely as a result of the fiscal and monetary policies of the government which have created unemployment. The government has created an horrendous situation, one that we cannot tolerate. We cannot tolerate it because it affects our prime resource, human beings who want to stay in the labour force or who want to get into the labour force. It is all very well for the government to announce that the seasonally adjusted rate has dropped, but this is cold comfort both for the 668,000 individuals who are unemployed and for the municipalities whose welfare facilities are already strained to the limit.
When I go back to the city of Hamilton and find the unemployed lining up for welfare at the rate of 60 a day because they cannot get unemployment insurance, I question whether the government is at all sincere. As I understand it, the unemployment insurance fund has increased from $450 million to almost $500 million. Yet it seems to me the government is more concerned about its antiinflationary fiscal and monetary policies than with the hardships suffered by hundreds of thousands of people who are unemployed. This is obvious to anyone who is interested, because we are not interested in statistics, seasonally adjusted, unadjusted or any kind of adjusted. The actual figures indicate that the unemployment rate is 8 per cent which is 668,000 people. What is disturbing is that when we extend this figure to include the families, we find a large number of families are involved, businesses affected and so on all down the line. The Lord knows how many people are affected by the policies this government seems to accept and force on the people in this country.


Gerald William Baldwin: There are only nine Liberals in the House and they will be unemployed pretty soon.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The unfortunate thing is that the government continually boasts about the success of its schemes. I would like to remind the government that unemployment was the creation of the Liberal government because of its obsession with inflation. It was the government's insistence on coping with inflation which brought public opinion so heavily to bear on unemployment that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was forced to make an enormous infusion of money into the Canadian economy. Unemployment is not licked so long as there are over 600,000 people in the labour force who are unsuccessful in finding jobs.

February 15, 1971

Then, we come to the regional area which is extremely important. For some regions, the worst unemployment is yet to come. Not all provinces will participate equally in the initial stages of recovery. Daily, there are new reports of mass firings by floundering companies. Obviously, this creates pockets of severe regional unemployment not included in the national figure. When I returned to Hamilton I spoke to representatives of several industries there. These people were extremely concerned about the government's restrictive policies which leads one to the conclusion that we will see more unemployment. For one thing, the policies the government brings forward are not incentives; they are disincentives. One of the greatest disincentives was brought to bear by the fact that this monstrosity, the white paper on tax reform, was thrown upon the people of Canada. It has brought about uncertainty, fear and a lack of confidence. So long as we have this area of concern in respect of that item alone, I would say we are in trouble.
It seems to me the government does not want to back down. It will not admit that its policies have failed and tries to hoodwink the Canadian people in terms of the seasonally adjusted rate. I am very concerned about this, particulary when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) indicates there is a problem in respect of unemployment and the striking worker. The government indicated that it was worried about man-days lost through industrial disputes and the consequent impact on the economy. One is led to believe that the industrial disputes have had a good deal to do with unemployment. My figures indicate that the number of man-days lost through unemployment in 1970 was 124.2 million and that only 7.8 million man-days were lost through industrial disputes. What further discouraged me was the fact that in Ontario, which is the one region which is supposed to have benefited from the government's policies, the seasonally adjusted rate is reduced. If it is reduced for Ontario, I respectfully state that the other provinces must be in dire straits. The provinces and the municipalities are suffering, and I am amazed at the fact that this government continually sloughs them off when their welfare rolls continue to increase rapidly with no help from the government.
The government deliberately creates unemployment and does not bring in effective reform through the white paper on unemployment insurance. Therefore, there has been no updating of the unemployment insurance payments and the same people who take advantage of the $500 million fund are going on the welfare rolls. The cities today take a dim view of this. A recent survey conducted by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities has served to assess the impact of high levels of unemployment on welfare expenditures at the local level of government. Fifty-one municipal units, representing 91 per cent of the total number of respondents, replied that the impact of high unemployment levels has been to raise their welfare expenditures substantially above original budget estimates. The persistence of high unemployment levels, and their consequent effect on welfare expenditures therefore, can place severe strains on the financial capabilities of some municipal units. I wonder what members from the Toronto area
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities are saying in Toronto today when they meet with the Metro council? I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) is smiling in his charming manner. Perhaps he will become involved in this debate and tell us what they had to say to the city of Toronto, because if they do not have anything to tell they will not be around after 1972. I believe the parliamentary secretary knows this.


An hon. Member:: We will be right back here.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I doubt that you will be back unless you become more credible in respect of the demands of the Canadian people, their problems and the fact that you do not have any solutions for them. What concerns me also is the fact that there are unemployed in every class, from professionals to labourers, from students to highly qualified new graduates who expect to find employment on graduation. There are married men who wish a means to support their families and married women who wish to supplement the family income. I notice the Minister of Finance, as recorded in Hansard at page 2545, stated this:
.. . the official opposition, the Conservative party, appears to have as many ideas about the economy as it has spokesmen. This should come as no surprise to anyone, for when they were in office several years ago-and some members of that government are still seated on benches opposite-the nation suffered through the longest and most severe bout of unemployment in the postwar period.
It is not true that unemployment was more serious in 1958-62 than it is now. On CBC News Magazine of January 24, 1971 a university economist denied this allegation by the Minister of Finance. He stated four major points to substantiate his belief that the unemployment situation is much more serious now than a decade before. The following are his four points: First, unemployment now is extremely severe among young people, the age group which is extremely vulnerable to suffering a greater degree of deprivation than other groups because of their lack of sufficient build-up of unemployment insurance benefits and so on. In 1958 to 1962 unemployment was not concentrated among the young. Second, unemployment during the 1958-62 period was concentrated among the unskilled; now, persons of all varieties of skills, including the highly educated and the highly skilled are suffering from unemployment. Third, unemployment during the 1958-62 period came after a long period of upswing in the economy; the same is not true now. Fourth, unemployment now, but not during 1958-62, has come during a period of cultural tension. This fact, in itself, calls for more government intervention to alleviate unemployment than in previous years of decline.
Let me put something else on record in respect of the comments of the Minister of Finance, as recorded at page 2546 of Hansard, when the Leader of the Opposition indicated-he said this on several occasions-that we should have tax cuts, particularly for those on low income and even those in the middle income group. He mentioned that he would like to see the surtax removed. He also mentioned the fact that the white paper on tax

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities reform is unacceptable. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned that the 11 per cent sales tax on building material should be removed. In short, he said that what we have to do is bring back confidence in the economy, to which the government has said "baloney". In fact, the Minister of Finance dared the Leader of the Opposition to try his tax cut program on the provincial governments. As recorded at page 2546 of Hansard, the minister said:
This would mean a loss toprovincial
-governments, because reductions in federal income taxes also reduce the revenues of provinces which the Leader of the Opposition says have not enough money now. I hope he drops in on the Conservative Premier of Ontario as well as the Conservative Premier of New Brunswick and tries that idea out on them.
In November, 1970, the Hon. C. MacNaughton, Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics, had this to say about tax cuts in a speech in the Ontario Legislature:
In the context of our concern for the growing tax burden in Canada, I want to comment today on one particular tax measure that deserves immediate attention. While I recognize that tax reform now cannot become effective before January 1, 1972, I suggest to this House that at least one relief measure can be undertaken for the coming year.
I refer of course to the present 3 per cent surtax on personal incomes, which was imposed in 1968 as an anti-inflation measure. Our reform paper takes a strong position that this temporary surtax should not be incorporated as a built-in component of a reformed income tax structure.
Ontario urges that this 3 per cent surtax be terminated explicitly at the end of 1970, and that the white paper rate schedule be revised downward to reflect this fact.
This step would be positive and progressive on a number of counts. First, it would generate an immediate stimulus to the Canadian economy, which is required if we are to reduce unemployment and regain momentum and growth. Second, it would demonstrate to our taxpayers that temporary tax increases for economic stabilization purposes are Indeed temporary. Third, by reducing taxes, it would restore confidence that governments are genuinely seeking reforms that benefit taxpayers.


An hon. Member:: .Genuine reforms.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I hear a voice in the wilderness over there. I wonder if the member is going to become involved in this debate or sit back and pussyfoot like the rest of them over there. I hope he has something concrete to say. If he has, I will listen.
I see that my time is starting to run out. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the government must create confidence. There is no sense in its going around talking about a seasonally unadjusted rate or adjusted rate if in fact 668,000 of our people are out of work. To hon. members opposite I say: look to the Leader of the Opposition who has given you leadership, who has given you direction in a number of areas, one of which I mentioned at length and which has been endorsed by the Provincial Treasurer of Ontario as a means whereby this problem can be alleviated.
To return to the Prime Minister, I wonder if he still sticks with that great statement he made some time ago

that, "If the Canadian people do not like my policies they can lump them." Was that just another great boo-boo he made? Let me close by repeating my first statement, that it does not matter how many camels you ride or how many orang-outangs you court, if the unemployment rate continues to rise as it has-and it will-hon. members opposite will not be back in government.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the humour in the debate this afternoon. I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). In fact, it was good to see him live today after watching him on television the other night until the wee hours of the morning. Incidentally, it is amazing how the Conservatives could take good Liberal voting machines and get all fouled up. They certainly do not understand our policies and they do not understand our voting machines.
I am sorry if the hon. member thought I was smiling while he was making his remarks. I always look that way before I get ill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Get on with your speech.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I could call this a dog's breakfast motion. I cannot figure out exactly at what it is supposed to be aimed, but it certainly gives a lot of scope. A part of the motion deals with agriculture, and certainly the hon. member for Hamilton West has handled the fertilizer pretty well. The hon. member for Hamilton West mentioned that he does not care about percentages, that he does not care about seasonally adjusted rates, that he just cares about people. I believe that. I think we all do, and I think that is the prime concern of everyone in this House. The question is: are the right things being done or the wrong things? Are we trying to be short-term, medium-term or long-term in our approach? Fundamentally, there are three time phases involved in this question. First, there is the immediate unemployment, then there is the medium term aspect involving the provision of summer jobs for students. Finally, there is the long-range aspect which involves regional disparities and the total economic goals of our country.
The hon. member for Hamilton West mentioned the meeting which was held in Toronto this morning. Mr. Speaker, I attended that meeting, and had to leave it a little early because of my duties here. The meeting was a very constructive one, and was attended by members of all parties, including the convert Conservative member from Toronto, a couple of members from the other party down the chamber, members of the provincial legislature and of the provincial cabinet, and members of the municipal council. The Mayor of the city of Toronto wisely had specific proposals to make, proposals which I think made a great deal of sense. They happen to fit in with the loan fund program of the federal government under which, I understand, Ontario will get $17 million, of which $5 million will go to Metro Toronto. This amount will help accomplish a fair share of the proposals put forward.
It was rather encouraging for members of this House to
be able to meet with other levels of government and find
February 15, 1971

specific proposals that matched specific programs, although all proposals did not match those programs. The trouble with debates like this, Mr. Speaker, is that we always seem to be trying to score debating points, and we do have a lot of fun with each other. But this is not a very humorous subject.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I'm not joking; it's a very serious problem.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Then, you shouldn't talk about camels and orang-outangs. I hardly think that was a serious interjection, but that does not matter. I understand the hon. member for Hamilton West, and boys will be boys. The fact is that there are difficulties which are cyclical in any economy, and one government deals with them one way and another in another way. I know that when the Conservative party was in power they had their problems in 1962 and 1963, but I would like to deal with those problems which I think the present situation creates. I should like to mention how I think we should face them and deal with them in very specific ways.
I think the present situation presents business management with some very real facts of life. I think that industry, to a very large extent, was enjoying a boom over a long number of years, in fact unprecedented in our history, and as a result got into some rather sloppy habits. This is part of the reason for a necessary readjustment. It is one of the things that contributed to inflation. This is a tough way for management to have to become efficient, but in our market economy it is one of the things that happen to work. I think that management is looking at its own organization as it never has before. This one of the healthy manifestations of the situation, and in this country if we are to survive economically with our very high standard of living we must give more attention to the techniques of management that will help us avoid these cycles. May I say I also hope members of trained management will join us in government where their help will be valuable.
I think management must look at the competitive situation not only within our country but also in the export field. This involves a very serious look at the research and development policies within industry. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward very much to the second report of the Senate Committee on Science Policy. The first one was extremely interesting reading, giving a historical review, but I look forward to the second one in the hope that it will make specific recommendations which will enable us to point our industry in the right direction selectively, and make productive and profitable.
I suspect that one of the problems, although I cannot pin it down, is that we have another bank operating in the market place today. I call it the BCF and BAR., the Bank of Cash Flow, or Bank of Accounts Receivable. It is a very odd thing in our economy today, and it is having a very important effect on the morale of business. We have come from a period of high interest rates and tight money. Now, interest rates are going down, money is
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities looser, banks are much more willing to lend but the uncertainty within the business community has made it reluctant to borrow. Another special factor is involved, namely, that during this process everybody started banking on everybody else. Customers did not pay their suppliers, who in turn did not pay their suppliers. In business today, there is so much energy and time wasted in trying to keep the cash flow going that businessmen are forgetting to do those things which are productive. Not all of them are forgetting, of course, but I do not think any businessman is unaffected by the cash flow problem. While he might be able to borrow money from the bank more easily than before, he is afraid to do so because then his customers will use him as their banker.


An hon. Member:: Have you heard of the white paper?


Barnett Jerome Danson: You could call the white paper a red herring in this context. I think the people have misunderstood and have blamed the white paper for this situation, but I don't know if that is what we should be blaming here. I think there is undue uncertainty in many cases, but that is not the point I am trying to get at. However, perhaps it is one contributing factor, whether justified or not. The fact is, people are reticent and while this tremendous cash flow problem exists people are reluctant to hire and reluctant to invest. I am presenting a problem rather than answers, but I suspect that underlying a great deal of the uncertainty is the question of cash flow and this is something which must be overcome. Every businessman is trying to keep a tight rein in order to survive and meet his payroll. If he cannot relax in that atmosphere he cannot think ahead. I do not think there is an easy answer to this.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think it is worth discussing with him if we can reach a solution to break the psychology. It is part of the psychology which exists and about which people are concerned.
Over a year ago when we were discussing inflation in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in a semi-facetious way I suggested that people stop using the credit card system so freely. People were being seduced by the "red convertible loan" type of advertising to buy things they could not afford. I suggested that people should get a discount for paying cash.


Robert Jardine McCleave: How did it go over?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I produced these cards called "Cashex". Normally, when a person goes into a store and uses the Chargex or Diners' Club or American Express card the storekeeper has to pay a 4 per cent to 7 per cent service charge. My idea met with a tremendous response and the card is now in its fourth printing in a year, representing some 17,000 cards. I have not tried to promote it but people responded. Editorials have appeared in the publications of a consumers' group, the civil service union and in some newspapers. At this moment, letters and requests
3398

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities for cards are coming in at the rate of 50 to 100 a day, so people are concerned.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about the 668,000 people who have no cash?


Barnett Jerome Danson: This is not a panacea for all problems, but it is part of the cash flow psychology. If a storekeeper has cash as a result of not taking credit cards, he can use that cash to do his buying on much better terms and this should make things far more competitive. This is a concern which I did want to highlight, the question of cash flow, and I am only expressing it as a concern because I think it is destructive to the economy.
One of the other things that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the problem of summer employment for students. I was speaking to my son and my daughter-in-law to be, who is from Hamilton-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Tell him to vote for-


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am going to be back next time, my friend, but we will miss you terribly. Of course, I will visit you when I visit my daughter-in-law in Hamilton. She is an arts student at York University and when we were discussing the problem of jobs and youth today, she pointed out that the universities are full of students in the general arts, political science and economics courses who do not know what they will do for a living. They wonder what we are going to do about it. We are spending an immense amount of our resources on education, not uselessly but not specifically either. These young people say that they did not know what they wanted in Grade XIII and their counsellors and guidance teachers did not know, either. When we look at the problem this summer we will have to look beyond it as well to understand what we are building-a generation of educated children with high expectations but no place to go. Perhaps that disturbs me more than anything.


An hon. Member:: That is the just society.


Barnett Jerome Danson: The students in technical schools and in the sciences do have a specific place to go but the students with general arts degrees, for which we are spending tremendous amounts of money, have no place to go when they are through. This is an area which is provincial and not federal, but nevertheless we cannot help but be concerned and I do not think we should be afraid to deal with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The time of the hon. member has expired.


An hon. Member:: But he has not made his speech yet.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact that the hon. parliamentary secretary raised the point about the meeting between the federal members and the Metro Council, I wonder if, with the unanimous consent of the House, he

could elaborate on that. He said that some constructive things had been decided upon, so perhaps he could let the cat out of the bag and let us know what occurred at that important meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, there was no cat in the bag. It was a preliminary meeting and the mayor had some specific proposals which were rather interesting. I had to leave to catch a plane before the meeting was over, but I am looking forward to the further report of my colleagues. There was a considerable amount of enthusiasm for the reinstitution of winter works programs, assistance to the municipalities, and additional welfare benefits. The question of grants versus loans was also discussed, as was the new loans program to assist municipalities.
This brings up an interesting problem in the case of the city of Toronto because although they want grants, these are more expensive to Toronto than loans. Ontario gets back only 80 cents of every tax dollar it contributes to the federal treasury as a result of the equalization grants.
Quite properly, proudly and justifiably, we enjoy a greater income. We hope to distribute some of this to the less favoured parts of the country so that they may become prosperous. I think that is a reasonable summary of the meetings. Certainly it is not over. When I left it, it was hoped we would meet again in one week so that the programs which have been referred to could be further discussed. In my opinion that sort of trilevel communication is very helpful. Perhaps the hon. member would like to do something like that in Hamilton so that the local people could talk about such matters.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They have heard that sort of thing before. We want action.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is my urgent duty to rise in my place today and lend my full support to this motion condemning the government for the very serious plight in which our people find themselves. It is a plight brought about by the maladministration of this federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Richard Russell Southam: I was interested in hearing several hon. members on the government side say that this was one of the most all-encompassing motions ever to be presented to the House. Why should we not present such a motion? As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) pointed out so well a few minutes ago, you can look at any part of the economy and you will find difficulties. So we had to bring in an all-encompassing motion. We have in Canada at present the highest degree of unemployment that we have experienced since the dirty thirties;
February 15, 1971

we are experiencing our highest cost of living, the worst inflation and the highest interest rates that we have ever known. The agricultural industry is staggering, we have a housing crisis and we have disunity in the country. You
name it; we have it.
I listened with interest to the tortuous defence that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) put forward in respect of the government's agricultural policies or, rather, its lack of them. Replying to several members, the minister dispensed his usual plausible nonsense. The fact is that his smokescreen covered up the government's lack of agricultural policies. He attempted to say-this is the inference that I drew from his remarks and no doubt it is also what other hon. members think-that the farmers of this country had never had it so good.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Tell that to the farmers. They will not believe it.


Richard Russell Southam: Two of the main economic problems raised today revolve around two of the basic sectors of our economy. Those problems are, firstly, the plight of our manpower forces, a plight brought about by the highest degree of unemployment in Canada since the hungry thirties and, secondly, the very seriously depressed condition of the Canadian agricultural industry. My own province of Saskatchewan has, in common with all other provinces, been hard hit by unemployment. This problem was debated seriously in the House during the past few days and I shall have more to say about it later in my remarks.
I wish to speak in the short time allotted to me about the serious plight facing our agricultural industry. The agri-industry in Canada represents the second largest source of income in our country, wood pulp and paper being first. Today agriculture is in the worst state of depression since the dust-bowl days of the thirties. Why has this situation come about in Canada? It is not nearly so bad in other countries. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that this government and the previous government headed by Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson have lacked the experience necessary-I would even say, at times, the interest-to administer this most important segment of our economy.
Evidence of this lack of experience and lack of policy is found in all the royal commissions, task forces, agricultural congresses, grains committees, conferences, white papers and emergency meetings which have been set up to study the problems of our great agricultural industry. All these studies have done is create a great big political mirage which has led the farmer to believe that something is being done-and all of it has turned out to be window-dressing. The fact is that the costs of agriculture are accelerating by leaps and bounds and the return that the farmer receives for his produce in most cases is going down. The cost-price squeeze is now worse than ever before.
To further substantiate my charge, Mr. Speaker, that this government is floundering in the area of agricultural policy one only has to listen to the many questions that
23966-4}
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
farmers are asking about government policies. The following are just a few of the many they have raised. They ask, first, what will replace the stability of grain prices once enjoyed under the International Wheat Agreement and more recently under the International Grains Arrangement which has just collapsed. Will there be a domestic two-price system that our competitors in other countries enjoy? Second, will acreage reduction programs be carried on in a similar way to the Lift program?
Third, will forage crop acreage increases be subsidized? Fourth, when will initial prices for the new crop year be set? Fifth, when will the new quota formula be established? Sixth, when will the various suggestions made under last fall's stabilization of grains policy be adopted and announced? Seventh, when will the Menzies report on the Canadian Wheat Board administration be released? Eighth, when will the serious fears relating to the government's white paper on tax reform be removed? I am talking of those fears which apply to agriculture. Ninth, does the government plan to move small farmers off the farm? Tenth, does the government intend to establish a special sales force to sell Canadian grains and products around the world? So the questions go, Mr. Speaker. All around there is widespread concern and confusion.
I wish to comment for a few moments on the minister's announcement of Thursday last concerning the collapse of the International Grains Arrangement. This announcement, I might say, was greeted with expressions of utter dismay, shock and even horror.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is leaving the chamber. He will not wait.


Richard Russell Southam: The minister referred to this general question-


Robert Jardine McCleave: The minister is leaving. He should stop and listen.


Richard Russell Southam: -and went on to say that a great deal of good could emanate from the present arrangement even though there had been a complete collapse.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The minister has gone.


Richard Russell Southam: I am referring to what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who reports to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board, said last Thursday. I quote from page 3275 of Hansard for February 11. The minister said in part:
The results of this conference are far removed from what Canada had sought to obtain. However it should be borne in mind that the price provisions of the 1967 agreement have not been operative for some time. While the new wheat agreement now being concluded is of only limited significance-
Think about that, Mr. Speaker. That is quite the contrary of what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has just stated.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister to whom the hon. member has just referred, the Minister of Agriculture, has left. The Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), who

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
reports for the Canadian Wheat Board, was never here during the debate.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is not here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I did not want to intervene. I regret that the hon. member should have raised this type of question of privilege. However, since he has raised it, that is that.


Mr. Francis:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is present. The minister is temporarily engaged. Another minister left just a few minutes ago.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention. One can see that what I and others have been saying for a long time is correct. Apparently the government is not overly concerned about the problems of agriculture. If I may return to the International Wheat Agreement and to the discussions on that subject which have just collapsed, I think it might be worth while putting some facts on record. I think the government ought not to go unchallenged or uncriticized for what has happened in this area.
It has taken a backward step with respect to a matter in which over the years there was international co-operation. This agreement was made in 1949, after 12 years of behind the scenes negotiation involving 50 exporting and importing countries. The agreement entered into in 1949 worked successfully until 1961. On that occasion when the International Wheat Agreement was discussed-this was in the cycle of three-year meetings which the grains council or the wheat council called-a price increase of 12 cents per bushel was adopted. That price, it was hoped, would enable us to carry on successfully in the future. However, at that time many countries realized that some countries, and especially our friends to the south, had overly large surpluses. As a result, when the wheat question came up for study again in 1964 under the three-year cycle, our American friends persuaded other nations to agree to terms being set only on a one-year basis.
This led up to the 1967 meeting when the International Grains Arrangement was mooted at the conference in Geneva. The result was that the 11-month lapse that occurred in bringing in a new grains arrangement gave our competitors the opportunity of entering the market and playing around with it. In other words, while that took place the gentleman's agreement did not prove effective: several nations, including the United States, France and Australia, broke the agreement with respect to prices subsidies of transportation rates.
In the spring of 1965 the then Minister of Finance, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was responsible for the Wheat Board. Instead of supporting this international agreement we were faced with the situation where the United States cut the price by 18 cents in 10 days. Instead of consulting with his counterparts in the United States, the minister advised the
Wheat Board to cut prices, which they did. As a result, our Canadian agriculturists, particularly the western farmers, lost $90 million. This was exactly the trap into which the United States wanted Canada to fall. In case hon. members think I am being unduly hard on our neighbours to the south, I have mentioned previously in this House who was responsible for first breaking this agreement.
I wish to quote from a very revealing document, the "Pool Broadcast" for February 5, 1971. It refers to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture conference held in Ottawa two weeks ago. The guest speaker at that conference was Tony Deschant, president of the Farmers' Union of the United States.
Mr. Deschant said if the United States and Canada had observed their pledges, the floor price of the IGA would have been maintained.
This is the salient point:
He said it was the U.S. that first broke the price.
The Canadian agricultural industry and agricultural industries throughout the world are the losers.
A classic example of the kind of distorted thought-processes that underlie a recent budget is a statement the Minister of Manpower and Immigration made in Saskatoon on February 2, 1971. I wish to quote from the minister's press release. It gives a false sense of security or importance to the western philosophy. I quote as follows:
Inflation is under control, the economy is expanding and every Canada Manpower Centre has long lists of educated, trained, experienced, aggressive, hard working personnel-
That is not a record of which to be proud. While the minister's statements on wheat exports often seem to be drafted by his immigration staff, this statement on manpower and the Saskatchewan economy must surely have come from the proverbial "down on the farm". Carried away by the Lift program, the minister's aides have coined a new one-Operation Earlybird. The basis of this bold scheme is that Manpower will be ready when the private sector of Saskatchewan dutifully divides itself into groundhogs and earlybirds. The earlybirds correctly go to Manpower to select new employees from an exceptionally wide supply of willing workers. I quote from the minister's statement:
-every Canada Manpower Centre has long lists of educated, trained, experienced, aggressive, hard working personnel-
The long lists, of course, are with the compliments of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). The Minister of Manpower and Immigration has no idea what the groundhogs will be doing. For the cautious, it should be pointed out that in our part of the country groundhogs have had an honourable and essential role in forecasting the length of winter. After reviewing the splendid contribution made by the federal government to Saskatchewan, the minister indicated that he will be going around saying, "I've just got to be optimistic". Perhaps he has concluded that the difference between a groundhog in the private sector and one on the Treasury Board is simply a

February 15, 1971

frame of mind. More likely it is a degree of financial solvency or bankruptcy.
In Saskatoon, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration spoke of the federal government pouring $60 million into Saskatchewan in 1970 through regional economic expansion, and $6.7 million into Saskatoon through CMHC. What he did not say, and what he has neither sold nor evidently tried to sell the budget makers, are the following facts about his native province: one, Saskatchewan got only two per cent of total federal public works spending in 1970; two, the number of housing starts fell to 993 from 4,425 in 1969 on a January to September basis; three, the number of motor vehicle registrations fell in absolute terms by 5,800 from 1969 on a January to September basis; four, retail sales fell by approximately $40 million on a January to October basis; five, capital investment fell by approximtely $70 million for 1970; six, gross personal income fell by approximately $200 million for 1970; seven, the total population of Saskatchewan fell by 23,000 people on a January to October basis.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. Perhaps we might proceed a little informally. The Chair is not sure whether there has been agreement between hon. members as to who is to speak next. I do not want to do anything unfair. In the remaining 10 minutes perhaps we could hear from the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) who apparently has something to share with the Chair.


Mark Willson Rose: I thought there was agreement with the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). He agreed that I could go first because of my illness. He was rather shocked-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this would probably be in order as far as the Chair is concerned. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) is rising on a point of order.


Richard Russell Southam: I do not want to differ with Your Honour's ruling as to the time I took to make my speech, but Your Honour will recall there was dialogue at great length by two other hon. members, which took up part of my time.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on the point of order raised by Your Honour. If the two hon. members cannot agree about who should speak next, I want Your Honour to know that I am ready to speak.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it would be easier if we called it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think at this point the Chair might recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mark Willson Rose: I thank the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) for allowing me to go forward on compassionate grounds. I appreciate it because I have a very bad cold. I would like Your Honour to know that my speech is not to be sneezed at. I
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities am interested in this debate. I just left a meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture at which the problems of rural Canada were thoroughly examined. That group expressed its concern for the future of rural Canada. It is important to remember that policies that affect rural Canada ultimately affect urban Canada. I am sure everyone agrees that it is very important that rural Canada be kept as healthy as possible.
I am pleased to congratulate the mover and seconder of this motion. It may be regarded by some as a hydraheaded kind of motion; it gives us an opportunity to discuss matters of concern to particular members. My contribution in the 10 minutes at my disposal may be regarded as rather general. I prefer to think of them as being rather philosophical. They will not deal with any particular program which the government has placed before us but with what is happening in Canada in general.
I have entitled my little thought-piece "A new landed gentry". I say this because in many of the older societies such as are found in Europe and South America the people have been stifled. This is because the land in those countries has been delegated to a relatively few landed families or rural aristocracy. It does not need much study of the lessons of history to see that in Britain and Europe some of the most resplendent of the aristocracy traced their titles back to the huge estates they held over the years. In that situation, in older societies you find a concentration of land held in a few hands and, coincidentally, great masses of landless peasantry held in various form of bondage and, indeed, in some societies into the present century they have been used as agricultural labour.
It is to the landless that the revolutionary first appealed. We can cite the example of the Soviet Union, the Russian revolution. The same thing occurred in China, to some extent in Algeria and certainly in Cuba. I think we can predict that other parts of South America might be on this course. Remember, landless people have everything to gain and nothing to lose by revolting, and so the fight is on. I am sure the ancestors of many members of this House were attracted by the prospect of free land. That was the great appeal of America. So great was this appeal to the landless of Europe that within a century most of the land of North America, certainly in the western part, was taken up. We all know about that romantic era in our history. We harp back to it in all kinds of things like horse operas and television shows.
In Canada as opposed to America, about the same time as the land was being taken up, before the completion of occupation, came the technological revolution in agriculture. So with the introduction of new techniques and machines Canadian agriculture ultimately became so efficient that you could have one man on a farm feeding up to 40 people in the city. At the same time the land was filling up there was a migration of young people from that land into the urban areas, so we did not create in Canada a rural peasantry. I know there is a problem of rural poor in Canada but not to the same extent as in

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities other countries. Instead, there was a constant drift to the cities.
We are told that within a generation 90 per cent of the population will become city-dwellers. A recent report indicates that the most favoured areas for urban growth in the next 25 years will be the Niagara peninsula and the constituency I am privileged to represent in the Fraser Valley, both, because of climatic and soil conditions, about the best agricultural land in the country.


An hon. Member:: Next to Norfolk.


Mark Willson Rose: Pollution will be concentrated in these areas and thousands of acres will be blacktopped because the redundant sons and daughters of rural Canada will gravitate to the growth areas having experienced the problems of living in rural areas. They will consequently depopulate the other regions of Canada, notably the Prairies.
Of course-this was the fear expressed many times on the agricultural committee's tour recently to hear representations on Bill C-176-this depopulation will lead to a weakening of political power because we have, at least in essence, representation by population. But an even more serious concern in my opinion is the trend to larger and larger agricultural units in western and prairie Canada and the coincidental phenomenon of more and more apartment dwellers, renters or tenants in the cities. It follows that if you have larger and larger agricultural units in a depopulated section of Canada and consequently a diminution of landholders in total numbers, and you have more and more renters in the urban areas, there will be a larger and larger number of landless people. They may not be a rural peasantry but they might well show a special concern about the urban problems of our society. They might be an urban peasantry.
This is what has been going on. I think it continues to go on. When you get people out of the prairie region and you have larger agricultural units, you do not remove all the problems; you create problems in the cities because of the effects of this concentration upon the quality of life. You have problems of housing, pollution, transportation, education, police costs, delinquency and all the rest of it. On the Prairies, of course, the big land owners are often faceless corporations. These new, larger land owners, often absentee land owners, will become the new landed gentry. There is a great opportunity for the new landless tenants to become the new villains. I think we should be concerned about this.
I know it can be argued with some justification that no one should own land anyway; that it is ridiculous, except in the case of large financial corporations, to turn land over from generation to generation on the basis of ownership. Leasing might be much better. Incidentally, some of the suspicions attached to the new marketing legislation have their roots in this very concern by people who live in rural Canada, particularly prairie Canada, that if you concentrate our people in a particular area of Canada, Ontario, the Niagara peninsula or British Columbia in the Lower Fraser Valley, or perhaps Quebec, what you have is a gravitation of political strength to

those areas. Consequently, it does not matter how a particular party appeals to a particular area; the strength lies with numbers and it lies within a certain area. So after a hundred years are we not in danger of completing the cycle-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate. However, I regret the bitter and unfair wording of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who is becoming famous for vitriolic statements which almost invariably exaggerate the situation far beyond recognition.
It is my intention to address most of my remarks to farm policy, but I should like first of all to record my opposition to the suggestion in the motion that this government has "humiliated the disadvantaged." The hon. member cannot be referring to the old age pensioners who have little other income, because they will shortly be receiving a substantial increase in their guaranteed income supplement. Neither can he be referring to the unemployed, who have had an interim increase of 10 per cent and will soon have the benefit of much greater increases.
In addition, family allowances for low-income families will be increased from 100 per cent to 166 per cent in a very few months. The Canada Assistance Plan, which is administered by the provinces but supported on a dollar for dollar basis by the federal treasury, is constantly being improved from province to province. More and more housing is being provided, with federal assistance, for disadvantaged families. Policies for increased employment are beginning to be effective, and inflation has subsided. That record alone would be good enough to persuade me to vote against this motion if it should come to a vote.
As I said earlier, I intend to devote the little time I have-and it is far too short-to a discussion of the many things that the government has been doing for the farmers of Canada, particularly for the prairie farmers. I do this because the motion refers to the government's agricultural policies. On October 29 the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), tabled in the House of Commons a set of proposals for the prairie grain industry, including a very interesting grain income stabilization proposal. I had an opportunity to discuss these matters with several groups of farmers in my constituency during the Christmas break and I feel I can make some useful suggestions about some of the proposals. Incidentally, I refer to the grain income stabilization plan because an item of $100
February 15, 1971

million was included in the recent budget to finance such a plan and because I expect legislation soon to give effect to it.
There are those who have criticized the budget because they say there is little in it for the people of Saskatchewan. They completely overlook the $100 million estimate of the cost of this grain income stabilization plan, the greater part of which will accrue to grain farmers in Saskatchewan. It is estimated that the gross income from the six major grains in the three Prairie provinces in 1970 was $823 million, $457 million of which was received by Saskatchewan farmers-about 55 per cent. Alberta's share of the total was 29 per cent and Manitoba's was 16 per cent. So if this stabilization plan becomes operative for this crop year and distributes $100 million to Prairie farmers as expected, about $55 million will find its way directly into the hands of the grain farmers of the top grain growing province of Canada, Saskatchewan.
Now I want to make a few comments about the grain income stabilization proposal to which reference was made earlier today. It seems to me that most farmers accept the plan in principle, but there are changes we would like to see made to parts of it. The major change has to do with the contribution farmers would make toward the plan. That contribution, it is proposed, would be as much as 3 per cent of their gross receipts for the six major grains-wheat, oats, barley, rapeseed, flax, and rye-to a maximum of $10,000 in any one crop year. Right from the beginning I have said that a 3 per cent deduction off the gross grain income is too great a burden, especially when net income from grain farming is very low or non-existent at the present time. Responsible farm organizations have asked that the deduction be no greater than 1 per cent of gross grain receipts and I urge the government to give serious consideration to that request.
Because stabilization payments to individual farmers, in those years that the formula would require such payments, would rise or fall in accordance with the individual farmer's success or otherwise in obtaining grain income, much concern is felt in parts of the Prairies which are subject to crop failure. They fear the strong possibility that they may suffer two or three successive crop failures at the time a stabilization payment became available. There are several ways in which this danger could be at least partly overcome. Farmers might be given the option of using the three best years in the past five or six to determine their three-year average. This might pose severe administrative difficulties but it is certainly worthy of investigation. Another proposal is to count crop insurance, hail insurance and PFAA benefits as grain income for purposes of the stabilization plan. This seems to be a very appropriate suggestion and I ask the minister to give it favourable consideration.
Because all-risk crop insurance is very vital for grain farmers and will become even more vital with this stabilization plan, I again urge all those responsible to make the existing plans in the Prairie provinces more attrac-
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities tive to farmers by improving the coverage, reducing the premiums, or both, so that farmers can and will protect their individual incomes against the many hazards in grain production in the west. The very least that should be done is to make crop insurance available to every part of the Prairies. As many members will know, the federal and provincial governments each pay half the administrative costs of federal-provincial crop insurance plans, and the federal government also contributes 25 per cent of the premium cost. I take this opportunity to again ask the federal government to increase its contribution toward these crop insurance premiums from 25 per cent to 50 per cent.
There are many other suggestions I could make for minor improvements to the stabilization plan but I will discuss these again, as I already have, with the ministers who are developing the plan. However, I must refer to the lack in the plan of any protection against inflation. If it stabilizes grain income at the average of the five previous years, and if the value of our dollar continues to go down as it has through most of Canada's history, we are not really stabilizing incomes. Instead of stabilizing at 100 per cent of the five year average, we should stabilize at 100 plus "X" per cent. The "X" per cent would represent the change in the value of the dollar over the five-year period or the inflation in the cost of production, which is almost the same thing. All in all, I believe the stabilization plan is a good one and is acceptable to farmers, especially if it can be amended in accordance with some of the suggestions I have made.
There is another feature of the October 29 announcement regarding grain production that I would like to comment upon. The suggestion that high initial prices might be used to persuade farmers to grow certain kinds of grain which might appear to be in demand, with any losses resulting therefrom becoming a charge against a future pool of the same grain, received the same universal rejection which I registered as soon as I heard it. I believe such manipulation is unnecessary. I believe that if farmers are assured of a market for a certain kind of grain they will undoubtedly produce it with the normal type of initial pricing we have known throughout the years.
If farmers themselves were making decisions about the level of initial payments, it might be defensible to suggest that they be held responsible for any consequent losses; but since the Wheat Board is not a producer-controlled board the government should continue to stand behind the initial prices they set. If all the same producers were in consecutive pools it would not be too bad, but there is continuous change in the list of producers of a particular kind of grain. New producers enter farming, other producers cease farming and many move in or out of the production of one or more of our grains from year to year. The greatest objection to such a proposition is that while it might stimulate production in the first year of its operation, it could have the opposite effect in disastrous proportions in subsequent years if it became apparent that there would be a loss chargeable to the next year's pool.

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
Because some opposition speakers have tried to leave the impression that Liberals have no concern for grain farmers I would now like to spend a few minutes reviewing this government's record with respect to the grain industry. This government has done many things in the past 2.5 years to assist grain farmers. Interest free cash advances were doubled, the Export Development Act was passed to provide better credit terms to our grain customers and the "block system" was devised to improve our grain transportation system.
On July 1, 1969, the government appointed Charles Gibbings to the Wheat Board. He is a Saskatchewan grain farmer who had been president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for several years. The performance of the Wheat Board has been steadily improving ever since. Our antiquated quota system was investigated by a government-appointed committee which included the vicepresident of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Ted Boden. This report has already resulted in some improvements and others are to be made in the coming year.
A two-price system was begun in March, 1969, which pegged domestic wheat at $1.95.5, while export prices fell nearly 20 cents. The Canada Grain Act, unchanged for 40 years, has been revised-I might say, over the strenuous delaying tactics of the Conservatives-and soon protein grading will be a reality. A Durum payment of 25 cents per bushel was made last spring by special action of the government, which put $6.5 million into the hands of Durum producers which they otherwise would not have received. Incidentally, I believe that my efforts had a great deal to do with the government's decision to provide special funds for the Durum payment.
Over a year ago the government appointed Hon. Otto Lang as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. This was the first time a federal minister had been given exclusive responsibility for the grain industry. He started an aggressive campaign to sell wheat and feed grain, and sales are going steadily upward. He persuaded the government to budget $100 million for a wheat acreage reduction plan, called Lift. In spite of its shortcomings, this plan succeeded in cutting wheat production in half in 1970 and is putting $60 or $70 million of new money into our Prairie grain economy.
A former government appointed a task force on agriculture. This government has convened two Canadian congresses of agriculture to discuss their report, one in March, 1969, and another in November, 1970. Never before had we had a national meeting of all segments of agriculture to look at farm problems and consider possible solutions to them. The government has been paying increasingly larger sums to the Wheat Board for wheat storage. Thus accounted for most of the 12 cent final payment we received in the spring of 1969. Last year there was a deficit in the Wheat Board accounts, which required the government to put up $58 million to support the initial prices on wheat, oats and barley for the crop year 1968-69 and to allow that extraordinary 25 cents payment on 1968-69 Durum Wheat.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has stated that he will announce the initial prices for 1971-72 before March 1, 1971, and will at the same time indicate expect-

ed quota levels for the following crop year. He has already given preliminary recommendations for seeding next spring. These call for a 65 per cent increase in wheat, a 60 per cent increase in barley, a 50 per cent cut in flax, a cut of 35 per cent in summerfallow, an increase of 10 per cent in grass and not much change in other crops such as rapeseed and oats. The $10 an acre incentive to plant forage, spread over two years-which was a new program in 1970-will be continued for perhaps another two or three years. It was tied to wheat acreage reduction in 1970 but will not be so related in 1971.
The government has steadily increased Canada's food aid program. This year it is buying about $100 million worth of our grain for this purpose and is now one of the Wheat Board's best customers. The minister has two very important studies under way at present, one on the marketing methods used by the Wheat Board and the other on ways in which our grain handling and transportation systems can be made more efficient and less costly. Both of these hold great promise for a brighter future for our grain industry.
Time does not permit me to describe the many other programs which benefit grain farmers and which the government has maintained or expanded. There is the Farm Credit Corporation, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, accelerated depreciation on grain storage, removal of excise tax on manufactured grain bins, crop insurance, PFAA, PFRA, feed grain freight assistance, and so on. There is absolutely no question that the federal government is concerned about Prairie grain problems and has been taking meaningful action to provide assistance.
The government and Parliament have budgeted funds for a farm adjustment program. I hope this program will be announced soon and that it will make it possible for low-income farmers to get the assistance they need to attain viable units. Consideration should be given to better credit arrangements so that young, would-be farmers can get themselves established on an economic basis. Older low-income farmers should be assisted so that they can continue to live on their farms with security and a reasonable standard of living.
I again take this opportunity to impress upon the government the case for a much more satisfactory and equitable two-price system for wheat. Another cent or two on a loaf of bread added to the price the consumer pays would add $1 or more per bushel to the price of wheat obtained by farmers. This would be only modest compensation from our high-priced domestic economy to assist grain farmers, most of whose products are sold on world markets in competition with heavily subsidized grain producers in other countries.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to return briefly to the grain income stabilization proposal. I want to emphasize that this is not the cure-all for all our grain problems. Most of the current programs such as crop insurance, PFAA, interest free cash advances, international food aid, and so on, will be continued. The stabilization plan is not an insurance plan, a guaranteed income plan or a deficiency program. It is purely a stabilization
February 15, 1971

plan which will help every individual farmer in years when grain income is down, and it will have a great stabilizing effect on our small rural communities and on the industries that serve grain farmers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert B. Douglas: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the six o'clock recess I yielded to the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose). I am glad I did so, not only because it gave him an opportunity to go home and nurse his cold but because it gives me an opportunity to reply to something he said. He referred to the old Socialist doctrine that is being revived again by a prominent gr oup in the NDP, which maintains that the state should own all the land and that farmers should be only tenants. Let me tell you that farmers did not settle on the Prairies to become sharecroppers for the state. The old CCF party in Saskatchewan spent many years in the wilderness and it was not until they disowned the doctrine of state ownership of the land that they managed to gain power. This resurgence of the radical left wing Socialists who stridently advocate state ownership of almost everything, including farm land, is all that is needed to ensure the demise of the NDP in rural Canada.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, based on the enthusiastic reception accorded the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet in Saskatchewan on February 12 and 13, that the Liberal party is well on the way to regaining its rightful position as the dominant party in rural Canada. I am confident that the majority of Canadians support the government in its efforts to be fair to people in all parts of this great nation, which will remain united under the progressive and flexible leadership of our outstanding Prime Minister. Therefore, I cannot support this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, may I ask Your Honour if there is not a rule of the House of which the hon. member who just finished needs to be reminded? This is the sixth or seventh occasion on which he has treated us to a recitation read at violent speed, and I think there is a rule of the House which prohibits the reading of speeches.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has referred to a practice of the House, and it seems to the Chair that sometimes it is honoured in the breach. In any event, at this point the hon. member has concluded his remarks and so I will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret that this motion will not come to a vote. It will not
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities come to a vote because of what I consider to be one of the major inadequacies of the new rules of the House, and I hope that those rules will be reviewed before this House becomes nothing but a mere rubber-stamp for the government. And, Mr. Speaker, there is a great danger of that, especially as you look around this empty chamber tonight at a time when this country is in the midst of the highest unemployment it has experienced in many years.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What about the empty opposition benches?


James Aloysius McGrath: I make no distinction. I refer to empty benches all over the House. But the government has special responsibility and it is not discharging that responsibility. Its members should at least come into the House and listen to the legitimate representations of the members of the House who are daily subjected to the cries and the appeals of the unemployed and the disadvantaged. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) can relax. He will not have to wrestle with his conscience because he will not have to vote for or against the motion.
In examining the serious, critical problem of unemployment, particularly as it relates to the disadvantaged people of this country, we must examine it in the context of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and the charge placed upon him by Parliament when at the beginning of this Parliament it enacted legislation setting up his new department. Parliament gave him special powers to create new jobs. He was given broad and sweeping powers and it was generally conceded that they were needed if he was to succeed in bringing regional disparity and its consequences to an end. But today we find ourselves in the midst of critically high unemployment, once again examining the functions of the minister and his department to see if they have been discharged properly. There is very little we can go on.
Certainly we cannot get much enlightenment from the minister's speeches. When the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion does make a non-partisan speech outside Quebec-and that is very rare-he very rarely says anything worth while. Last Friday during the government's crusade to western Canada the minister made one of his rare non-partisan speeches. I found it difficult to read anything into what he said because in actual fact he said nothing. He said nothing to enlighten us on how he is living up to his responsibilities in this period of critical unemployment. The only thing I could find in his speech worthy of quoting was the following, and I quote from his speech on February 12 at Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan:
While we are working largely with economic tools, our basic concern is with improving the lot of people. In the last analysis. our success or failure will be measured by the extent to which we have helped the disadvantaged gain fuller access to the benefits of our Canadian society.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very noble objective. It is an objective with which nobody can quarrel. It is an objective with which everybody will agree. Certainly every

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities member of this House will agree with that statement. But is the minister doing that? Is the new department doing that? I ask what consolation it is to the 800,000 Canadians who are unemployed to hear that noble and high-sounding phrase from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Hon. members may think that I am exaggerating when I say 800,000 unemployed in this country but I am quoting from a speech the minister made in this House a few days ago in the budget debate. What advantage can the poor people of this country draw from that phrase? I submit they get the same consolation they got from the phrase "just society" which is now, mercifully, forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, the people of this country expect more than high-sounding and noble phrases. They expect action, and the facts indicate that they are not getting it. What is more important, they are not getting it from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who has special responsibility in this area. The performance of the minister does not stand up to critical analysis. It is only fair to say that nobody expected miracles. When Parliament set up the new department and gave this minister these new powers, nobody expected him to create jobs overnight.
Everyone agreed that this would be a long-term program because it was a program to end regional disparity-the age old curse of confederation. Everybody agreed, Mr. Speaker, that this could not be done overnight. It was generally conceded by all members of the House that it would take time to restructure lagging economies and to create the type of economic climate in disadvantaged regions of the country that would provide the necessary jobs for the people to give them those advantages to which the minister alluded in his speech in Saskatchewan a few days ago-to give them, to use the words of the minister, "fuller access to the benefits of our Canadian society."
We were prepared to wait, Mr. Speaker. We figured that perhaps it would take ten or fifteen years. We did not expect the economic situation in the Atlantic provinces to be cured overnight. We did not expect the economic situation in northern Ontario or in parts of the west and northwest to be cured overnight. We felt that it would be a long-term program. But something happened. In the middle of this program there was an election in Quebec and a new government came into power. It came into power on the promise of creating 100,000 new jobs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What nonsense!


James Aloysius McGrath: That was the promise made by that government, and now it finds itself having to fulfil an election promise to create 100,000 new jobs. That changed things, because the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, whilst he has this responsibility in the government of Canada also has special responsibilities in the government, both political and constitutional, with respect to the province of Quebec. Because of these factors the federal government felt it had an obligation to the new government of Quebec. It felt it had to move to
get them off the political hook as a consequence of that irresponsible political promise.
I do not mean to diminish in any way the seriousness of the unemployment problem in Quebec. It is very serious. The latest DBS figures indicate that the province of Quebec has 234,000 people unemployed. That is more than twice as many as the new jobs they were promised by their government. The federal government then felt that it had to move in, and nobody quarrels with that. My quarrel is with the way in which they moved. They changed the whole philosophy of this long-term program to end regional disparity; it was a long-term, growth-oriented philosophy. They changed it by amending the Regional Development Incentives Act and they brought these amendments in just before the Christmas recess. They amended this particular statute, which is the cornerstone of the government's regional development policies, by declaring the city of Montreal a regionally disadvantaged area. That was the consequence of what they did.
They amended the act and designated the city of Montreal in the same terms as St. John's, Newfoundland, Halifax, Saint John, New Brunswick, or some of the more disadvantaged areas of the country. They changed the whole philosophy from a long-term regional development philosophy to a short-term program to cope with the situation of its own creation. Unemployment in Canada's largest city was created as a consequence of the government's monetary and fiscal policies to fight inflation. In doing so they destroyed the whole philosophy of regional development in this country. They did this by declaring the largest city in Canada, Montreal, a regionally disadvantaged area. At the committee stage we had an opportunity to examine the government and we heard evidence during the course of the amendments to that act. One of Canada's foremost experts on regional development, Professor Brewis, stated:
The proportion of the population falling within designated regions of one sort or another will be increased from one third to one half. As a result the efficacy of the legislation to aid the formerly designated areas will be diluted. How far it will be diluted is open to question but there is no question that some of the formerly designated areas are going to be relatively worse off.
We are going to be worse off because the government changed a long-term regional development policy into a short-term policy to fulfil a political obligation in the province of Quebec. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to bear the consequences of that action. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had something to say about this. Indeed, it seems that every time the subject of unemployment is raised in the speeches of the Prime Minister or any of the ministers they point to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion: it is the government's panacea to cure unemployment and the problems facing the country as a consequence.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Only nine members in the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: We face empty government benches every day in this House. The most we can hope for is ten ministers, but they had 18 in Saskatchewan. During the course of a speech in Saskatchewan when referring to

February 15, 1971

the government's policy to combat unemployment, the Prime Minister said:
1.	Creating new jobs in those regions of the country and in those industries hardest hit by slowdowns, and
2.	Providing additional assistance to those individual Canadians facing the greatest hardship.
Mr. Speaker, I submit the government has failed in both objectives. If time permits I shall show where they failed in objective No. 1. In the second area they have failed by refusing to give the provinces a better deal under the Canada Assistance Plan to cope with the extraordinarily high welfare payments which the provinces have to pay as a result of the government-inspired high unemployment.
They have failed in the first instance, as indicated by the most recent figures showing the performance of the Regional Development Incentives Act up to November 30, 1970. They show conclusively that the program does not create jobs in the disadvantaged areas; that it creates jobs in the areas of highest employment and lowest unemployment. For example, the number of jobs created per application in the province of Newfoundland was three; the number created per application in Prince Edward Island was 26; the number created in Nova Scotia was 20; the number created in New Brunswick was 19; the number of jobs per application in Quebec was 60 and the number per application in Ontario was 77. That province has the lowest unemployment and highest employment. In that province were created the greatest number of jobs per application under this program. And so it goes across the country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree unanimously to allow the hon. member to continue?


Stanley Howard Knowles: For one
minute.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will not take advantage of the indulgence of the House. I merely want to conclude that part of my remarks which refers to the Prime Minister's statement about the success of the government's regional development policies in creating new jobs. My point was that the number of new jobs per application was highest in the provinces with low unemployment and lowest in the provinces with the highest unemployment.
I think the statistics I have placed on record, beginning with those for Newfoundland, the province with the highest unemployment in the country and with the lowest number of jobs per application, and ending with Ontario which has the lowest unemployment in the country and the highest number of jobs per application, show the failure of the government's regional development program. I shall place other statistics on the record during a future debate which will show the futility and
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities utter failure of the government's regional development policies in coping with the very serious problem of unemployment in this country. More particularly, they will show the failure of the government's regional development policy in fulfilling the obligation placed upon it by Parliament; the obligation of creating an economic climate in the regionally disadvantaged areas of the country which will make it possible for the people of those areas to find suitable employment.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will not exceed the time allowed members for the present debate.
Since today is an allotted day set aside for the opposition, it is quite normal that more opposition members than government members are present. The simple reason for that is that they want to air their grievances against the government.
To criticize is easy, and I find it rather strange that opposition members should do today what they have always done, that is to base their criticism on non valid and unfounded arguments. It is always easy to criticize when one is a member of the opposition, because one always dreams of being one day on this side of the House.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, a sentence written by Jean Rostand which I quoted last Friday: One may say that science has made men out of us without first having made us people worthy of the quality of human beings. I could say of the hon. members of the opposition that politics has made gods of them before giving them the quality of true politicians. That may be why they have not been listened to very attentively by the government and why their criticism, which could often be constructive, most frequently shows hatred and lack of responsibility.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) tabled in the House not long ago a white paper on social security which I could qualify as a masterpiece. The matter was under consideration for several years and was well established. In view of the available tax revenues, it was the best policy which the federal government could carry out, in order to help underprivileged citizens. He accepted the principle of redistribution and selectivity rather than that of universality. It is a principle which is all to his credit and this without burdening further the budget of our fellow citizens.
Those various programmes will inject almost half a billion dollars into the economy in favour of the underprivileged. It is an extremely satisfying initiative which will certainly enable a great number of people to have a more decent living than at the present time.
This principle was studied, worked on and analysed by several experts who finally opted for selectivity rather than universality. It is simple: 70 per cent of Canadians draw a salary of less than $10,000 per year. Obviously, we had to redistribute the money in a better way, so as to increase their standard of living and to pull these

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities people out of the misery into which they had been for some years.
It must also be said that the principle of selectivity was chosen over that of universality because 20 per cent of the people earn only $4,500 per year or less, and that 640,000 Canadian families, out of 3 million, include children under 16. This means paying allowances to 1,560,000 recipients who will profit, up to a certain point, by family allowances, which means 50 per cent of the 3,000,000 Canadian families.
Needless to say that this is a very fortunate redistribution and a formula for the 70s that no government could object to.
Mr. Speaker, the government is often accused of sins it has not committed but which could well have been committed by the provinces mainly as regards social security which is constitutionally under their jurisdiction.
But had it not been for the federal government, I wonder what our social security programs would be today. It is always the federal government because of its concern about our citizens which initiated these programs.
And today I wonder, mainly as regards social assistance for which the government gives the provinces 50 per cent of what they have to pay to recipients, if fewer sins would be laid at our door if the administration of social security were assured by the federal government rather than by the provinces.
There is no need for figures. It is enough to take a walk through Ottawa and Hull to find that the people on welfare do not even know that the federal government is paying 50 per cent of the money they are getting, and that poor management by certain provinces is to blame for the fact that people on welfare cannot live decently.
During federal-provincial conferences, it has been suggested that these responsibilities should be given back to the provinces. Perhaps this is true but we should be careful and see to it that the provincial programs have the same objectives as the federal programs.
The federal programs generally follow the individuals wherever they go. Everyone knows what provincial programs are. For instance, as regards health insurance plans in force in the provinces, if a recipient leaves his province for three months, he is covered for three months by the other province, but after three months, he must pay taxes. Should he become ill and have nobody to care for him, no hospital will be able to look after him. He will receive extraordinarily high bills, because he will not be covered any more.
Federal programs keep up with the individual while provincial programs expire at the end of the period of time set by each province.
It is true that the lot of the underprivileged in Canada is an unfortunate one and that we should do more for them, but it is wrong to say that we should give $150 to everyone 65 and over. It would merely be a piecemeal solution.

Mention was also made of a guaranteed annual income. That would probably be the ideal solution but the society in which we live is not an ideal one, far from it. One has but to listen to the opposition members to know that we are far from an ideal society.
Such piecemeal solutions may make headlines in newspapers but are absolutely worthless in practice, for the Canadian citizens will be the ones to be taxed again, in order to refill the treasury and to redistribute that money to the ones who need it. But the levying of taxes must stop somewhere. Now with its intelligent policy, the government meant to provide better redistribution of tax revenue.
I do not think that quibbling and insults will help us to to do anything. I always thought that a frank and open discussion could bring tangible results, not tales like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. I cannot see what good it does to tell people in high government places that they have failed to keep their promises and to accuse them also of a host of other misdeeds.
Be it understood that on this earth, no man is perfect, and even less any government, since it is comprised of men. However, one cannot say that governments deliberately fail to do their duty. They do their best with the means available to them. I need not look long for examples. Not so long ago, we had a non-Liberal government, with a sweeping majority in the House, and it was defeated four or five years later. How can this be explained? Were there too many bright people together? Did high voltage cause the instrument panel to explode? It is probably so.
In their pride, did the members all cover the same post? Perhaps. Anyway, there are no perfect men: there are only ambitious men, especially in politics. In fact, it would seem that everybody here is born a prime minister.
I believe that our Prime Minister is extremely clever and gifted. I do not speak those words to praise him; the truth is that everybody, including the press, throughout Canada says so. He does his best, but he is human and so are the members of his cabinet. The federal government is the best government organization in all Canada.
My hon. friends might say that politics has become a career. In politics, you cannot make a career, you cannot become a politician, you can only play petty politics and you can do it by resorting to arguments you heard from the other side of the House.
You become a petty politician because you have the ambition to make politics your profession. They are sincere politicians, but not unlike seasons, they fade away. Whoever makes politics his profession loses his credibility with Canadians. Those who have been here for too long are not listening to their constituents any more. They have become the professionals of politics. They talk about all sorts of things, about Viet Nam or some other remote country, all things which, even though they should get some degree of attention in the House, are none of its everyday concern.
We know that we have an unemployment problem on our back. In March of 1970, there were approximately
February 15, 1971

570,000 unemployed. This year, this number has grown considerably. However, unemployment is not Canada's own problem, it affects other countries, too. Why? Because modern technology is and has been moving forward.
The problem lies in the educational system. We set up schools of sociology and other somewhat "variable" sciences. We establish new departments with an enrolment of as many as 10,000 students when only 400 jobs or so a year are provided. This is how unemployment springs up by itself.
It is none of the federal government's business to go and tell the provinces what they should be doing. They are supposed to know their way around. They have become unemployment mills and I think that we should concern ourselves with this situation, even though it is not of our jurisdiction, because we are providing the funds. As a matter of fact, it would seem we are encouraging unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I sincerely regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but his time has expired.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in rising to support this motion which reads as follows:
That this House condemns the government's lack of leadership which has humiliated the disadvantaged, dislocated the finances of provinces and municipalities, and caused injury and decline to our rural communities which are already seriously damaged by the government's failure to provide adequate agricultural policies.
A few minutes ago the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) objected to a suggestion made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) that all farm lands should be socialized, or something to that effect.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Stanley James Korchinski: I did not hear what the hon. member said; the objection was raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia. My point is, why is he raising this objection now? By the time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) is finished with us through his proposed estate taxes in the white paper on taxation, the government will own them anyway. Despite all the protests he made in reading his speech, which was well prepared and documented-


An hon. Member:: Are you not reading now?


Stanley James Korchinski: -the Premier of Saskatchewan was interviewed over television last Sunday on the program "Question Period" and he protested that his province was not receiving proper attention with regard to the unemployment situation. He felt that the federal government was not giving Saskatchewan all that was necessary to keep the residents of the province happy.


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said on Saturday night.


Stanley James Korchinski: I don't know what he said on Saturday night, but I saw him on television on Sunday. I rise
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities because last Thursday the minister responsible for the Wheat Board stated in the House that despite all the efforts made at Geneva, the International Grains Arrangement had not reached a successful conclusion. I quote some of his comments:
We wished to include price levels which would reflect adequate returns to efficient wheat producers... While it is a matter of serious regret that an agreement including pricing provisions could not be concluded we are not unduly discouraged or pessimistic over the lack of such an agreement at this time.
Perhaps the minister is not discouraged or pessimistic, but I think a lot of the farmers are discouraged or pessimistic because of the position in which they have been placed. Most farmers are familiar with the old International Wheat Agreement which served them well over the years. At least they knew there would be a basis for price stability and that anything outside the agreement would be sold as a result of other arrangements. However, because the negotiations in which this government took part covered many other commodities beside grain there was a breakdown of the International Grains Arrangement. I wish to quote from the Star-Phoenix of January 16, 1971, as follows:
Critics have suggested that the 1968-71 International Grains Arrangement, with its dazzling pledges of big price increases, sagged partly because negotiations were linked with huge tariff bargaining on industrial goods. The strength of the wheat agreement was reduced in exchange for industrial tariff concessions.
This underlines the fact that various concessions were given. I understand that the chemical industry was well treated as a result of this arrangement. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) was hopeful that Britain's entry into the European Common Market would not hurt us generally, although he admitted it might do so as far as agricultural products are concerned. Other factors would compensate for the loss suffered by agriculture. Having made that blunder before, I wonder whether they tried to get out of the agreement with the suggestion that the western farmer was not looked after during the negotiations. Hardly was the ink dry when prices began to slump. As a result of this slump, the last several years have been years of near-disaster for wheat producers. In fact, they have been years of disaster for many. Many farmers have pulled out of the business.
In the few minutes left to me I wish to place one or two suggestions before the House. I am disappointed that no agreement was reached at Geneva. I am disappointed because after the old agreement expired, prices dropped from around $2.12 to $1.70. That is a drop of around 40 cents a bushel, a serious blow to grain producers. Since the government was not successful in negotiating an agreement I think that in line with the minister's policy of maintaining a fair price the government has an obligation to introduce a reasonable two-price system-not $1.95, the minimum under the old agreement, but a realistic figure.
An arrangement of this kind is an accomplished fact in the United States where wheat producers are assured of $2.85 a bushel for domestically-produced wheat. Similar assistance is an accomplished fact in the ECM and in

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
Australia. This is what we have to face, and it is no longer reasonable to expect that the Canadian wheat farmer should be left high and dry without any kind of government intervention. A Canadian can buy a one-pound loaf of bread which it takes him four minutes to earn. It takes an American six minutes to earn the cash for the same sized loaf, a Frenchman 11 minutes, a Russian 12 minutes and a Japanese 27 minutes. This is an example of the take-home pay of Canadians generally- those who are employed. Is it not reasonable to expect that the Canadian farmer should have a corresponding return at least for wheat consumed in Canada?
The hon. member for Assiniboia paid special attention to the grain production and receipts policy. I should like to place before the House a table which I have prepared on the basis of an answer to a question on the Order Paper; I believe it was question No. 606. I shall read the table. I took the receipts from 1956 to 1969. I chose the year 1956 because that is the year in which the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act was passed. From then on, payments were made under the act. The figures are as follows:
WHEAT RECEIPTS 1951-1969 Million Dollars
Year	Receipts	Previous 5-Year Average	Comparison of Previous 5 Year Ave. to Receipts Deficit Surplus	1956	.. 452	448	41957	.. 367	458	91	1958	.. 420	417	31959	.. 423	374	491960	.. 427	397	301961	.. 467	418	491962	.. 510	420	901963	. . 578	450	1281964	. . 715	481	2341965	. . 642	539	1031966	.. 784	562	2221967	. . 742	646	9G1968	.. 582	692	110	1969	.. 459	693	234	TOTAL	.. 7,568	(a) 435	1.008
Total deductions as proposed (3% of receipts-
(b)	 227
Grant reauired fa-b)	 208
Payments under temporary wheat reserves
Act (1956-69)	   584
Payments under stabilization plan	 208
Loss of income to farmers in same period...	376
The point is that only in 1957 was there a lower realized income from wheat than the previous five-year average. The next year was 1968-69. In all other years there was a higher income derived than the previous five year average. Under this stabilization program the government will not contribute anything. As a matter of fact, in 14 years they would have contributed for only 
three years. In 1957, the deficit was $91 million, in 1968 it was $110 million and in 1969 it was $224 million.
During those years 1956-1969 the total contribution to the farmers would have been $435 million under the stabilization program. With the 3 per cent deduction, $227 million would have been taken from the farmers. In other words, the only contribution that the federal government would have made would have been $208 million. During the same period, payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act were $584 million. With payments under the stabilization plan of $208 million, there would have been a loss of income to the farmers of $376 million. This is the plan that the minister has told the Canadian farmers is going to be the answer to their woes. I should like to quote from an article written in the Globe and Mail of June 3, 1968, by Anthony Westell:
A self-sustaining program to maintain farm incomes during bad years, without cost to the taxpayer, and a new idea on how to aid small farmers without perpetuating uneconomic operations were features of a major statement on agricultural policy issued last night by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau.
The article goes on to say:
Liberal party aides said the plan would probably be on the insurance principles with farmers contributing in good years and drawing income in bad years. They said the only cost to the government and the taxpayer would be. in loans that might be needed to get the program started.
Up until 1968 this fund would have had a surplus of $12 million. In 1967, $91 million would have been paid out, and $110 million would have been paid out in 1968. However, total deductions up until that time would have been $213 million. In other words, the federal government would have contributed nothing. How can any farmer accept such a proposal as this? There are many other disadvantages to it. For example, the initial payment is not a guarantee. Any money put into the fund in the future to replenish it would be from future sales. The proposals should be a supplementation, not a substitute. I think that if the federal government has not the nerve to ask the consumers of Canada to pay an extra $1 a bushel, then it should contribute from its own fund an amount equivalent to 50 million bushels. If the government has not the nerve to ask the Canadian consumer to pay a couple of cents more for a loaf of bread, then it is obligated to make up the difference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member whose time has expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I support the motion moved by the official opposition. One part of the motion particularly attracts my attention. It is the part that reads "and caused injury and decline to our rural communities which are already seriously damaged by the government's failure to provide adequate agricultural policies". In my opinion the policies followed by this government and its predecessors ever since the end of the Second World War have coldly, calculatedly and deliberately been designed to eliminate hundreds of thousands of farm families, with the result that hundreds of prairie or rural communities of 500 to 5,000 population
February 15, 1971

have become ghost towns and cities only slightly larger than that are dying on their feet.
The farmers of rural Canada have continually been told to rationalize, to be efficient and to diversify. There is not another industry that has become more efficient since the Second World War than the agricultural industry. The only one that comes even close to agriculture is the steel industry, though they lag some way behind even at that. So talk about farmers becoming more efficient is just talk.
So-called ex-agricultural experts and government spokesmen of whatever political stripe have been talking this way for the last 20 years. When they talk about efficiency, let me tell them that rural Canada has "ef-ficiencied" itself to death. Not one other industry has kept pace with technological advances as has agriculture. Not one other industry has listened so closely to what experts have said about diversification. Agriculture has been through that mill more than once.
When the farmers were told to specialize, they specialized. When they specialized a little too well they were told to diversify. When they diversified too well they were told to specialize again. The farmers have been round and round the same circle several times since the Second World War. In 1946 there were 740,000 farm units in Canada. We are now down to 400,000. The proposals that the government are now putting forward mean that another 100,000 to 150,000 farmers have to go; they are given no choice. As a consequence, the felonies that we continue to perpetrate on the citizens of Canada are being compounded.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has presented proposals that I believe are designed to accomplish two things. First of all they are designed to reduce government involvement in agriculture. In other words, they are designed to save the government money, and the effect of these proposals will do exactly that. I submit that any amount that the government puts into the stabilization fund-if it puts any in at all-will amount to less than it would otherwise have had to pay under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
The second purpose of the proposals is to eliminate small farms. This is more of the so-called rationalization of the agricultural industry. The proposals of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board take no account of farm costs or farm net income. It is a good, businesslike proposition in the sense that it evens out cash flow, but if the cash flow, be it even or uneven, is insufficient to allow farmers to survive, then the stabilization fund is not worth the paper it is written on. The minister's proposals fly in the face of any sensible, reasonable or civilized approach to the establishment of a stabilization fund. I submit they pervert the whole principle of a stabilization fund. Certainly they fly in the face of any concept of a guaranteed income or any concept that would stabilize not only farm income but rural communities in Canada.
Abolition of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act means that the minister's proposal will cost the government nothing. The government is supporting the uranium industry to the tune of $120 million. I do not oppose this;
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities it means the preservation of the livelihoods of a lot of workers in many towns and communities. But if the preservation of this industry is valid and logical, surely it is equally or more valid and logical that the same thing be done for agriculture and that the whole nation share the cost of storing a reasonable amount of all six of the grains.


An hon. Member:: But how much?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Any figure you like to mention. I suggest 100 million or 50 million bushels of each grain. All that is required is for the government to accept the concept of a national granary that will be supported by the nation as a whole. This would provide for a minimal amount of grain storage, if for no other reason than to fulfil sales commitments.
Earlier this evening the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) stated he believes that the stabilization plan is a good one and will be accepted by the farmers. I do not know what kind of farmers the hon. member has been talking to or from which country they come, but certainly I have not found any farmers in Canada who agree it is a good plan. Just prior to the supper recess members of our group met with a delegation from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Members opposite are also meeting with the same group at this moment. If Liberals can read-though I sometimes wonder-I do not know how the hon. member for Assiniboia is able to say that the stabilization plan is a good one. Let me put on Hansard what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has to say about it:
But we must on this occasion stress as strongly as we can that the government grains receipts and stabilization proposals- which clearly will be on all our minds as we meet here today-do not represent an adequate undertaking by the federal government to assist and protect the position of prairie grain producers.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be plainer than that. For the hon. member for Assiniboia to suggest that the plan is good and accepted by farmers is blatant nonsense which I cannot accept. Perhaps the only people who would accept it would be those who served coffee last weekend at meetings of the Regina Lake Centre-Assiniboia Liberal Associations. That is the only exception. No farm group supports or agree with the agricultural stabilization plan which the minister in charge of the Wheat Board proposes.
The hon. member for Assiniboia believes the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has been given exclusive responsibility for the Wheat Board. Boloney! He is the minister in charge of manpower and immigration. What is the Department of Manpower and Immigration for- laughs? When one looks at the unemployment rate, it is good for laughs and that is about all. It is also good for tears. But all the government's activities and programs in respect of grain in western Canada have been treated as nothing more than a sideline job by this government. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) had the job for a few months. He did not know one end

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
of a boxcar from another, and it was taken away from him. I am sure it was offered to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) but he would not touch it with a 10-foot pole because he wanted to stay elected. He neither wants nor needs the Canadian Wheat Board under his jurisdiction. In fact, he needs it like a hole in the head. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) got the job, but he is the minister in charge of manpower and immigration and the Canadian Wheat Board is still treated as a sideline. That is all it has been in the eyes of this government every since it was elected. The hon. member for Assiniboia believes that if farmers were assured of markets they would grow grain. That was a brilliant statement, but he forgot to tell us about the International Grains Arrangement negotiations which collapsed last week. The government of Canada refused to place its power behind the farmers of Canada and consistently has refused to do so since the days of the International Wheat Agreement and since the first International Grains Arrangement was agreed to. No other country in the world apart from Canada refuses to support and back up their grain producers-no other government except the government of Canada be it Liberal or Tory.
Mr. Speaker, the negotiators on behalf of Canada at the International Grains Arrangement talks at Geneva were betrayed by their own government. Their own government refused to put behind the negotiators the strength and wealth of this nation. If some of our competitors in the grains industry wish to play unfair pool, Canada has some cards to play-but Canada refuses to play them. Farmers, in this instance grain farmers, have been betrayed again. The proposals the minister has placed before us now and the policies followed by the government have perpetrated what has been going on in Canada for 25 years.
I am not trying to be sentimental about this. The quarter section and half section farms in my riding are very efficient and some have survived better than have some of the one or two section farms, but the elimination of tens of thousands of family farms and farm families, whichever way you wish to put it, has forced thousands of people into the cities of Canada and has cost our nation much more than it would have cost to permit these people to operate a farm which would be economical and viable and make it possible for them to maintain a decent standard of living.
No one has ever counted the cost on the other side of the coin. All the major cities of Canada, if not another soul moved into them, would need ten years to catch up with the problems they have now in respect of urban pollution, housing, education and everything else. Yet we keep forcing more people into these cities. We can think of the towns and villages in rural Canada which have streets, sidewalks, water systems, electrification systems, curling rinks, community halls, and so on, and yet this government asks these people to walk away from them. This is how the government is dividing us. The proposals which are put forward are not worth the paper they are written on. I believe the motion is a perfectly valid one

which deserves the support of members on all sides of this House who come from rural Canada.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this opposition motion because it is about the economy, unemployment, the exodus from rural regions of Canada, and the problems involved. That is very close to me because I represent a completely rural riding.
I listened to some of the speeches delivered today; more particularly, I listened attentively to the hon. members of the opposition, and I expected to find good ideas, ideas that would help solve the problems. But as always, there was nothing too stirring in their remarks, whether they were about the economy or regional development.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) does not have to worry, because I have a little more respect for the backbenchers of the New Democratic Party and the Ralliement Creditiste than I do for the members of the official opposition. At least, what they say, they say it with conviction, whereas there is confusion amongst the members of the official opposition, unless they deliberately want to mislead the Canadian people.
Indeed, the opposition objects to every budget intended to bring unemployment to heel, to nurse back to health the economy. They constantly preach that the present economic unrest is solely due to the government, that it is alone responsible for it and that it is to blame for regional disparities.
Yet it is very clear-and any economist will agree on that score-that what normally follows a period of steady growth, in any country whose economic system resembles ours, is a period of inflation and slower economic growth, rather than a recession. Now when I say that I have a little more respect for NDP members it is because some of them-and Creditistes-advocate a socialist doctrine. They claim they would have a closer control over economic growth from year to year and would curtail unemployment. Yet, the leaders of those parties-I say leaders because now they have one, two or perhaps three-are afraid to talk about socialism, because they want to be re-elected in the next election.
I understand why the NDP leader, his assistant and their financial critic do not want to admit they are socialists; they simply want to garner votes. They know quite well that socialist principles would not be accepted and while I do not agree with them, I respect their views. I respect the view according to which in a socialist system, the economy could be better controlled. However, our country cannot adjust itself to such a system. In any case, those arguments could be raised in another debate.
The official opposition, through the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), tried to blame the government for the depression. He was pleased to note that there were no Cabinet member in the House this evening. Now, if the ministers wasted their time to listen to such statements, the country would be in danger.
Inflation and unemployment do not only exist in Canada. The rate of increase of the national gross prod-
February 15, 1971

uct in dollars in Canada and in the United States was almost comparable, at least until 1960-1965. Now, our rate is slightly lower than the American one.
We have presently a high unemployment rate as in the United States. This is unfortunate, and I do not want to look complacent about the fact that, in my own riding, the present unemployment rate is probably between 15 and 20 per cent.
As I said, it is unfortunate. I agree with members of the opposition when they say that in human terms, it is terrible, but what can you do? What is the use of crying for years and making long speeches to blame the government for mere political purposes?
I feel that the government has taken steps so as to fight inflation, but that one of the unfortunate results of this action was unemployment. I would like to ask those who do not approve of the policy against inflation, what the unemployment rate would be in Canada today, if nothing had been done to stop inflation. What would be our export prospects for next year? What would the export situation be in Canada today? What would be the foreign investment rate in Canada in this year 1971? I suggest they would be much lower than they are now. In support of my comments, I shall read an article published in Business Week, as quoted in today's Le Devoir:
It seems that the economic situation in Canada is better than in the United States.
Maybe this is nothing about which we have reason to brag, but it is nevertheless true. I quote further:
Compared with that of the United States, the Canadian economy is doing well, according to the February 13 edition of Business Week.
The Canadian economy is ready for a new boom in 1971-
That is what counts.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is a bunch of friends of the farmers if I ever heard such.


Herb Breau: I really do not understand the hon. member's remark. I am not talking about farming; I do not know very much about it. I listen with interest to the hon. member when he speaks about the rationalization of the farming industry and the disadvantages it causes in the rural areas, and I sympathize with him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How are you going to vote?


Herb Breau: There is not going to be a vote, and if there were I would vote against this very irresponsible motion moved by the official opposition. I think that the trend of debate we have had for the last month or two from the official opposition, indeed from the three opposition parties, has been pretty irresponsible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the way you look.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) makes a speech I will listen to him because he really yells, but I cannot hear what he is saying now. I am saying that-
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities


James Aloysius McGrath: Why don't you save it for your caucus?


Herb Breau: There is another one of those enlightening remarks. It is just as brilliant as the speech I heard about half an hour ago from the hon. member speaking on regional disparities. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was trying to criticize the government's policies on regional development and he did not succeed very well. He was trying to say that regional disparity is very bad in Canada. I agree. There is no way I could disagree, because my area of the country, my province, is a slow-growth region. It is a depressed area, and more particularly my region of the province of New Brunswick. I agree with the hon. member up to that point, but when it comes to solutions-


James Aloysius McGrath: Go back to your text.


Herb Breau: The hon. member had a text but I do not have one. You see, the research people in our caucus do not work at preparing speeches and we have to prepare our own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: When it comes to the matter of solutions I suggest to the hon. member for St. John's East that he speak to some people in his caucus who know something about the development of the Maritimes. I suggest that he speak to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming) who was a very distinguished Premier of the New Brunswick.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: I am glad the hon. member applauds. I would applaud myself if I were not speaking. It would be kind of funny to applaud when I am speaking. I hope that members of the official opposition notice that the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte does not take part in these long drawn-out, say-nothing debates, like the hon. member for St. John's East, because he knows that if we have regional disparity in Canada it is not due to the government of the day; it is due to long standing circumstances that began when we joined confederation, when Canada was born. That is when it started. There are a lot of things, a lot of natural, geographical circumstances which contribute to the existence of regional disparity.
I agree with all hon. members from the Maritimes when they talk about the terrible things that are caused by regional disparity. I have lived with this problem; I still live with it; I know what it is. But they only try to distort the issue by blaming the government of the day when everyone knows that at no other time during the history of confederation has so much attention been paid to the Atlantic provinces, has so much been spent on the Atlantic provinces and has so much planning been done for the Atlantic provinces. That is the important thing.

Mr. Speaker, as we have succeeded in fighting inflation and restraining price increases, I think that prospects for the Canadian economy in 1971 are good. I regret the

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities present unemployment rate, particularly because many young people under 25 are out of work.
We live in a certain economic and political context, and it is necessary to find solutions to the problems which arise. As I said earlier, at least the New Democratic Party offers a solution. So do the Creditistes and they strongly believe in theirs. But on the side of the official opposition, the greatest confusion prevails.
Maybe Progressive Conservative members want to mislead the people, or else they have no knowledge of the Canadian or the North American economy.
It is perhaps still federalism to want a free enterprise economic system in the framework of a federalism where the Canadian Parliament would have no control over-all expenses, or where an increase or a fluctuation in expenses by a few billion dollars could make all the difference. They advocate an economic system such as ours and say it is the wrong way to fight inflation.
They claim that unemployment was deliberately created. That is the biggest intellectual mix-up I have ever seen and it calls for explanations.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That isn't confusion; it's a fact.


Herb Breau: It is intellectual confusion, and that is a real fact. That is what I said. I am glad the hon. member across the way got the translation right.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Six hundred and thirty-eight thousand out of work is a fact.

Let them explain to me in an economic context like that of Canada and North America how one can fight inflation without having unemployment.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (M. Stanfield) has made a lot of charges against the government the other day. He charged it of economic incompetence without suggesting anything positive however. Let me explain to me what would be today the economic outlook of Canada if we had not fought inflation! Let him explain to me what would be the unemployment rate today! The members of the Official Opposition will not say, because they know very well that the unemployment rate would be at the very least as high as it is now. They know very well that the economic outlook would not be good and that there would be less investment in Canada. They also know that their arguments are used only to serve their political aims, to justify their position and to try to mislead the electorate.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) that when he made his statement on the dairy policy of the government last week, the agriculture committee of which I am a member was touring Western Canada to receive and study submissions by agricultural agencies and the provincial ministers of agriculture.
Consequently, I did not have the opportunity to comment on his statement. I might say today that I appreciate the price improvements. When someone takes an action that has been expected for a long time, we have to be honest about it and it would not be ethical for a member to say that it is a step backwards when it is a step forward. This I admit and appreciate, but it shows that I was right last year and again this week when I said that farmers, particularly industrial milk producers were treated as poor relations.
I made that statement in the House when I introduced the petition from 25,000 industrial milk producers in which they were requesting more justice and an emergency debate on the serious problem of dairy production. That petition was never taken into account and I find it regrettable. If the government House leader never informed the House before the end of the previous session, I disapprove him for I feel this is a blow to democracy.
Nevertheless, I think that we have made a step forward and that the claims contained in the petition from 25,000 industrial milk producers were justified. Therefore we will have to keep on fighting to ensure fairer income for those who are involved in the production of industrial milk and that they receive a fair share of the national income.
I reiterate my request on behalf of the people I represent so that when the new dairy policy for the year starting April 1, 1971 is announced, the Minister of Agriculture will propose a new policy likely to satisfy the legitimate demands of this hard-working class.
On the other hand, by speaking on this motion, I wish to call the attention of the government to the general problems of Canadian society and especially those of my area and also, to suggest some solutions to these thorny problems.
We are sometimes blamed for criticizing and offering no solutions, which is not always correct, far from it. The previous speaker, in his remarks, recognized the merits of my statements, and I appreciate his doing so.
The economic situation in general is deteriorating in Canada. Consequently, instead of moving nearer the coming of the just society, we are getting further from it every day.
The economic situation of a great many farmers is worse than ever. That of a great many workers-especially those who are unemployed-is most difficult, and God knows what a problem it is when a father who needs to work every day to support his wife and children is deprived of a paying job. God knows in which condition, in which anxiety this father is living!
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) said recently that there was no reason to get upset about the high level of unemployment as this level was normal. Normal? Yes, if you look at this problem from the point of view of the possibility to produce, while man is displaced more and more by machines. Then, if you produce for the sake of production, you can do it without man's contribution, because machines can do the job. If that is the objective, it is normal. But in the present situation it seems to me abnormal that in order to have access to the goods, to the available pro-

February 15, 1971

February 15, 1971
Economic Conditions in Rural Communities
otherwise some will go bankrupt as was the case in 1970 As a matter of fact, a newspaper dated January 31 published the following, and I quote:
2,200 CANADIAN FIRMS WENT BANKRUPT IN 1970
Here is the last paragraph:
The survey shows that the majority of bankruptcies were registered in manufacturing and services' firms, especially manufacturers of transport equipment, machinery, leather and glass products.
That happened in Canada in 1970. In order to set up new industries that will not go bankrupt, we must provide them with a market and assist those who are in need: the unemployed, the families, the underprivileged, the poor, so as to provide them with an income, a purchasing power that will enable them to buy at least the necessities of life, to provide for their essential needs.
The previous speaker was saying earlier that the government could not fight inflation and at the same time prevent unemployment from settling among us. However, the Chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, who is indeed not a friend of mine, stated the following:


[Stage Direction]
He said so on January 31, 1971. I am quoting Mr. McLaughlin, the Chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada. I now resume my quotation from a report on what he said:
-considers that should the government reduce taxes not only the taxpayers but also the government itself would benefit.
In his annual report, produced a few days ago, he said, in fact: "The type of inflation we are now fighting was never the result of excessive demand,
He went on to say: that personal and corporate income taxes should be reduced if we wanted economy to bounce again. And he concluded with these words:
It must be said that we were misled concerning inflation; it resulted not from an increase in total demand nor from prosperity prevailing among the great majority of our citizens, but rather from thoughtless increases in prices. Afterwards, prices went down and it was said that inflation declined. In fact, the purchasing power of the low-income people decreased.
This is what I said to the House, last year, during a debate on that matter.
Mr. Speaker, we must do something. We must grant the provinces and municipalities the facilities Canada has provided to some countries in Europe, Africa and Asia. We have loaned $419 million to those countries to help them develop. The loans are refundable over 50 or 60 years and are interest-free. Those countries will refund their loans if they can, later on, when we are no longer there. Anyway, we do help them and the government tells us, and rightly so, that Canada will benefit. Such countries will buy Canadian products which, in return, will provide work for our workers. I agree on that. However, the same results would be achieved if we granted interest-free loans to our provinces suffering from economic stagnation, to our municipalities no longer in a position to borrow or even to get rid of their snow because their

budget funds are exhausted. That type of money would help those municipalities to undertake public works, the property of which they would keep. Some people sometimes say: But with your monetary philosophy, you the members of the Ralliement Creditiste, business transactions with foreign countries would no longer be possible. I shall tell you a short anecdote. I need only two minutes-
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion are considered to have expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order before we proceed with the adjournment debate. Perhaps the acting House leader can say what the business will be for tomorrow and Wednesday.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is the intention of the government to call Bill C-207, the government organization bill, for consideration by committee of the whole tomorrow. I believe it is the intention to deal with the same item on Wednesday if it is not disposed of tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a subject this evening which is causing a great deal of alarm among the majority of Canadian mothers who have children aged anywhere from two to 100. I want to discuss the arbitrary and high-handed way that the government, through the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), is threatening to withdraw from Canada one of the finest educational tools ever devised for the purpose of teaching young children. I am referring to a program which is well known to all members of this House. I am sure some of them who arrive late stay home to watch this program: it is known as "Sesame Street".
The CRTC is planning to remove some of the categories affecting the classification of programs in terms of Canadian content or foreign content. "Sesame Street" has been labelled as neutral content. It may be that this particular program does not contain anything which is obviously Canadian but on the other hand it does not
February 15, 1971

contain anything which is obviously American, so I think a neutral category is a good place in which to put it.
From an educational point of view the program has been highly successful. When I refer to education I mean education in its wider sense, from learning to count to awareness of social questions. The program is the product of a United States non-commercial television system. It originates in New York. Progressive teaching methods are used and audiences are made up of children from various ethnic groups and socio-economic classes including Puerto Ricans, Italians, American Indians on occasion and, sometimes, children from outside New York. Originally the show was done on an experimental basis but it rapidly proved extremely popular and is now carried across the continent.
I wish to quote from a famous Canadian magazine, Reader's Digest. I see the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) scoffing at the idea that this is a Canadian magazine but I would remind him that the government he supports classified this journal as a Canadian magazine during the postal debate last year.
There has never been anything like it before-on television or in education. Filled with fun, surprises and excitement it is an experimental show whose bold aim is to use television not only to find new ways of teaching pre-school children numbers and letters but to introduce them entertainingly to a multitude of people, places and things in the world into which they are growing.
"Sesame Street" had its origin four years ago. In 1966, children's programs on commercial television were a swampland of tasteless cartoons filled with mindless violence, and a vapid, low-budget studio shows smothered in commercials. Parents were reacting with disgust.
According to recent psychological findings, children are in their most crucial stage of intellectual development in preschool years-ages three to five. Between birth and age four, according to these studies, half of all growth in human intelligence takes place; another 30 per cent occurs between the ages of four and eight.
Thus, two-thirds of a person's intellectual development occurs before he even begins his formal education. For many children, particularly children of poverty, lack of intellectual stimulus pre-ordains almost certain disaster in school and adult life. By the age of five or six, according to one report, slum children trail so far behind middle-class children that they are already remedial cases.
The program has been devised with the co-operation of a professor of education and development psychology, a board of professional educators, child development experts, psychologists, film-markers, illustrators, television producers, audience researchers and advertisers. All these fine people got their minds together to produce this show. I will read this sentence to show its popularity.
A recent survey indicated that it was already reaching more than six million children a day.
In view of these facts and the tremendous concern that many mothers are expressing, I would ask the government what action it intends to take. All across the country petitions are being presented with the idea of trying to encourage the government to see the value of such a program and not to be so narrow-minded in its view of nationalism as to classify the program non-Canadian and threaten to remove it from the view of Canadian children.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity on behalf of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) to respond to this question tonight. The issue raised by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) is well known to me personally. Indeed, this program is very highly regarded in my own city. I should remind the hon. member that Parliament in its wisdom has delegated to the CRTC responsibility for carrying out the broadcasting policy that Parliament, not the government, has decided upon. Accordingly, the responsibility in this area lies with the CRTC as constituted by Parliament, not with the government.
With respect to the program, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has informed the Secretary of State as follows. Many people think that the CBC and the CRTC are responsible for keeping "Sesame Street" from being televised. Actually, the problem is that it is an American, non-commercial program that is presented five hours a week. Thus, the burden falls on the shoulders of stations who are affiliated with the CBC. A program such as "Sesame Street", because of its non-commercial nature, has not proven lucrative to the smaller affiliates when they carry it. Instead, they are turning to less-educational programs in order to acquire higher revenues.
Due to its high educational value and to the considerable number of requests from the public, the CRTC has authorized the CBC to carry "Sesame Street" for the 1970-71 season. Generally, the CBC is authorized to carry 30 per cent American programming, but in this special case the CRTC has given permission to exceed this 30 per cent limit-providing the excess is due only to the showing of "Sesame Street". As for next season, the CBC is willing to continue televising this program but this matter is presently under study by the CRTC and a final announcement is expected shortly.



GRAIN-LIFT PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PAYMENTS FOR HAIL DAMAGE

Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate the answer given to a question that I asked the minister in charge of the Wheat Board on February 11, regarding the possibility of making payments to farmers who were hailed out after the July 15 deadline. I refer to payments under the Lift program. The question I put to the minister, as reported at page 3281 of Hansard, was as follows:
In view of the fact that payments under the Lift program fall far short of the $140 million allotted to the program, would the minister say whether he is now prepared to adjust the deadline date of July 15, 1970, in respect of payments for hail damage so that farmers who suffered hail damage after that date may now qualify for payment under the program?
The minister replied as follows:
There is no intention to alter the date on which the land must be in a particular condition to comply with the Lift provisions. Of course, the amount of money available for Lift always depended on the extent to which farmers participated in the program, and participation has been regarded at the rate

February 15, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
of $6 per acre and it will be rewarded at the rate of $10 per acre for forage, using the amount of money for which farmers have applied. The other figure to which the hon. member referred was always hypothetical. It was based on the total possible participation by farmers.
Mr. Speaker, the world "hypothetical" is the one which grabs me because all across the country during the summer when the Lift program had its inception, the minister created the impression to the farmers and the general public that this program would pour some $140 million into the western grain economy. This message immediately spread across the country. I have a number of press clippings here and shall refer to one in particular from the Leader Post of March 4, 1970. It states:
Ab Douglas, MP for Assiniboia, received mixed reaction Saturday when he spoke to more than 400 farmers here about the federal government's wheat acreage reduction program.
It continues:
Mr. Douglas said the program could inject up to $140 million into the western economy-
I note the words "up to". I am not saying he said $140 million, but he did indicate to the people of Canada that there would be a considerable amount in excess of $100 million pumped into the economy. Up until last Friday night $56,396,025 was paid out under the Lift program. That is a fairly up to date figure. It is estimated that the final amount will be something like $57 million. Actually there is a possibility that with forage the cost will be another $6 million. However, since it was stated there was forage seed for one one million acres last year, the figure will likely be at the most another $4 million. It is not likely that more than $61 million will be paid out. The Lift program will cost the federal government considerably less than the complete figure unless the cost of administration is much more than we think.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that farmers who were hailed out up to July 15 were paid under the Lift program, as well they should have been. Farmers who were hailed out two days later received nothing. I went to the minister with a list of 14 farmers in the Bashaw area whose crops had been wiped out by a vicious hail storm around July 19 or 20. Their crops were totally destroyed. I have a letter here from a Mr. Entrup, secretary of Unifarm in Alberta. I shall quote the letter in part:
-the executive secretary of Mr. Lang assured us that Mr. Lang had taken immediate action and had stated that he was standing behind his promise made at the meeting in Heisler.
I believe this was on July 17. The letter continues:
Even if letters were received from the appeal tribunal rejecting applications we were assured that cases out of the Viking storm area were going to be reviewed again and this time approved. As we understand an additional seven day's extension were granted after July 15, 1970.
I have a letter here from another source. There were cases of people who were insured and whose premises were inspected. The government covered the cost of inspection. Some, however, were later notified that they were late filers. There was evidence on the record that on
September 14 one field, that of Mr. Ed Eisler whom I know, was inspected and on December 22 Mr. Eisler was notified that he was a late filer. Mr. Speaker, I am saying that this government can spend millions of dollars on bilingualism, on pornographic programming by the CBC and on an aircraft carrier which it then junks, but there is not enough flexibility or humanity in their souls to look after a handful of farmers who happen to be hailed out a few days after the deadline for the Lift program.
I suggest that if they paid each farmer in western Canada who made application, because he was hailed out, after this deadline the sum would be less than $1 million. That, Mr. Speaker, constitutes my problem and the problem of many farmers.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing in the presentation made by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) in addition to what he raised in the question the other day. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board gave him a reply then and the contents of that reply are just as valid now as when he gave it.
The hon. member ought to realize that when you set up a program like this you have to make provision for a deadline. It does not make very much difference when the deadline is set, because there will always be some difficulty about it. The hon. member of course failed to mention that because of some late applications regarding the physical condition of all of these fields up to July 15, the board of review, or appeal board, were given authority to make adjustments for those late applications. That means that those applications came in stating the conditions as of and up to July 15 and not after that.
Anyone who had seeded his crop and the condition of the field changed because of having plowed it down, because he swathed a cover crop, because of hail damage or whatever, had an opportunity to amend his application up to July 15; and even if the application did not come in until after July 15 that was taken into account. But with regard to anyone who had not changed his application prior to July 15, what was contained in his application was valid.
So far as the $140 million is concerned, the hon. member answered that question for himself. That was the total offer if there had been 100 per cent participation by western farmers based on their wheat plantings in 1969. Of course, as the minister replied to the hon. member, the total amount that would be paid out would be in compliance with the offer that was made. If it were 50 per cent, and that is what it was-from 24 million acres down to about 12 million acres-then 50 per cent of the estimated cost would be paid out. Of course, that was not determined by the government; it was determined by the farmers. That was the amount for which they applied.
In addition to this, when we talk about the other money the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has already announced, as has the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, some time later this year, and hopefully sooner

February 15, 1971

than later when the new stabilization program comes in there will be an additional $100 million transferred into the wheat economy.



PENSIONS-OLD AGE SECURITY-ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF BASIC INCREASE BY CERTAIN PENSIONERS- USE MADE OF MONEY

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) regarding old age pensioners who are sending in contributions of 42 cents, this being the figure by which the basic amount of the old age security pension was increased in January. I asked this question because I felt that old age pensioners who are making this gesture should be assured that their contributions will be acknowledged, and also because I felt that these pensioners had the right to know to what use their money is being put.
I confess I was quite surprised when the Minister of Finance in his reply indicated that he had received three of these contributions, and I took it that he meant he had received only three. This led me to a quick check of my own files this afternoon and I found that I have had seven letters from individuals who have told me that they sent 42-cent contributions to the government. Let it be clear that although most of them were sent to the Minister of Finance, in a couple of cases they went to the minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
In addition to these seven I have before me a couple of letters to the editors of newspapers. One is from L. Wright to the Editor of the Toronto Telegram and the other from C. G. Stockley to the Winnipeg Tribune. They indicate that they sent 42 cents either to the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister. That adds up to nine.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) indicated in the House a few days ago that he had received one of these 42-cent contributions and I understand that he transmitted it to the Minister of Finance. That makes ten. Some days ago the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) told me that he had received two of these contributions and had sent them to the Minister of Finance. That adds up to 12 within my direct knowledge. That is why I was surprised at the statement of the Minister of Finance this afternoon to the effect that he had received only three. I hope that the parliamentary secretary who is representing the minister tonight will have this matter checked. I have quoted only cases which I can document, but from the letters I am receiving and the cases I read about in the newspapers it strikes me that a great many of our pensioners are participating in this attempt to help the government out by providing it with these 42-cent contributions.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I have before me tonight some additional contributions. The last questioner raised a matter that would cost the government money, and we are often asked where the money is coming from for projects which we advocate. I have some
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of it here tonight. I have a Canadian postal order for 42 cents made out to Mr. Edgar Benson from Mr. George Anderson of Suite 11, 220 Jamison Avenue, Winnipeg 15, Manitoba. In his letter he suggested that I transmit this postal order to the Minister of Finance and that if the minister needed it for pipe tobacco he could use it for that purpose. I have two envelopes each containing 42 cents in cash-at least it says so on the outside but I have not opened them. They were sent in by Mr. J. Drinkwa-ter of Suite 1, 239 Victoria Street, Kamloops, B.C. These contributions have come directly to me with the request that I transmit them to the Minister of Finance.
In addition, I have a cheque which was sent to the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather). It comes from Mrs. Mabel A. Hamilton of North Surrey, B.C., and is a cheque on her savings account for 42 cents made out to "Someone in need, care of Prime Minister P. E. Trudeau". Finally, in addition to the 42-cent contribution which the hon. member for Kootenay West sent in the other day I have another which he received since and which he asked me to present tonight. It is from Mr. Edward Hall of 1827 - 5th Avenue, Trail, B.C., and it consists of four dimes and two pennies scotch-taped to a card. It is addressed to "Scrooge and misers Benson and Trudeau from an old age pensioner and also a veteran from the First World War."
Mr. Speaker, here are five more of these contributions, and they add up to $2.10-quite a boost to the government. Perhaps the chief page would be good enough to take these across to the parliamentary secretary, together with a list of the donors and their names and addresses so that these contributions can be properly acknowledged. I hope that a record will be kept of them. This afternoon the Minister of Finance said that he was sending them to the Receiver General of Canada. He may have to open a special account and may even have to come back to Parliament for guidance as to what is to be done with the money.
At any rate, in addition to receiving this money from these people and confirming the assurance that they will be acknowledged, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) will convey to his minister and the government the motive behind this gesture on the part of these people. The plain fact of the matter is they, and many thousands of our senior citizens, feel insulted by such a small increase at a time when the basic amount of the old age pension ought to be increased substantially.
We have been debating today a motion in which there was the phrase that the government "has humiliated the disadvantaged." It is bad enough to be hard up or disadvantaged. It is even worse to have humiliation added to it. That is what these retired people feel about a basic increase in the old age pension of only 42 cents.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has had the opportunity to look further into this matter since the question was posed this afternoon. There have indeed been a number of payments of the

February 15, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
nature referred to by the hon. member. These are being acknowledged and, where the payor can be identified, the payment is being returned. Where the payor cannot be identified, the money is, as the minister said, being deposited to the credit of the Receiver General.
The government has fully informed the people of Canada of the cost of maintaining all programs as they existed when this government assumed office following the last general election. One of the possiblities was to continue the programs unchanged at increasing costs, which would lead in time to a level of taxation unacceptable to Canadians and, indeed, detrimental to the Canadian economy. Rather than accept that, the government has reviewed and proposes changes to a number of programs, including the federal old age pension, with a view, to providing both improved programs and an acceptable level of taxation.
In dealing with the old age pension, the government has rejected the option to continue to pay all pensioners regardless of need an amount inadequate for those actually in need. Instead it has elected to limit the amount paid regardless of need and to effect a meaningful increase for those pensioners who actually require more assistance. In raising this question the hon. member deals with that
portion of the federal old age pension payable regardless of need, the old age security payment. He ignores the guaranteed income supplement, the amount of which depends on need.
There are two very substantial improvements proposed for the GIS. Firstly, the limits of elegibility will be raised so that many more of Canada's senior citizens will be helped by the GIS. Previously, single pensioners with annual income exceeding $768 and married pensioners with income exceeding $1,536 were not eligible. These limits will be raised to $1,320 and $2,304 respectively.
Secondly, with implementation of increases in the guaranteed income supplement, federal old age pension payments will increase by as much as $23.59 per month, from $111.41 to $135.00 for a single pensioner and by as much $32.18 per month, from $222.52 to $255.00, for married pensioners. In annual terms, this represents an increase from $1,336.92 to $1,620.00 for a single pensioner and from $2,673.84 to $3,060.00 for a couple. It is expected that in the first year the substantial improvement in the federal old age pension will amount to $194 million in total.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, February 16, 1971