1971-05-05

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
mr. Macdonald (EGmont)- answer to question concerning SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE DIVISION OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for Egmont rose on a question of privilege in relation to an answer given by the Solicitor General to question No. 1,199, which was reported in Hansard of May 3 at page 5423. The question asked by the hon. member for Egmont related to the security and intelligence operations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The minister replied as follows:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the main federal operational and investigative body in the field of security. Such authority-thefe is no explicit statutory authority-as does exist is derived from certain sections of the R.C.M. Police Act. It would not be in the public interest to divulge any further information in this connection.
The hon. member for Egmont claimed that the refusal of the minister to supply the specific information which he sought was a breach of his parliamentary privileges. In support of that contention the hon. member quoted citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition as follows:
Libels upon members and aspersions upon them in relation to Parliament and interference of any kind with their official duties, are breaches of the privileges of the members.
I cannot agree with the hon. member's interpretation of that citation. It is correct, of course, to state as a general principle that a member should not be impeded in the discharge of his parliamentary duties. I suggest that this in itself does not create an obligation on the part of the government to supply any and all information sought by a member, either by way of an oral question or a written question. Indeed, there are many precedents to indicate that from time to time ministers have refused to answer questions on the ground that it would not be in the public interest to do so.
Citation 181, section 3, of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition states that a refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege. A similar opinion is expressed by Bourinot in this fourth edition of his Parliamentary Procedure at page 314, which I would like to quote:
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by a minister on the ground of the public interest, nor can the question be replaced upon the notice paper, nor the refusal of the minister to answer be raised as a question of privilege.
The same principle is expressed by Sir Erskine May in the seventeenth edition of his Parliamentary Practice at page 351. Again I quote:
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by a minister, and the Speaker has refused to allow
supplementary questions in these circumstances. A question to which an answer has been refused, like any other question which has been fully answered, cannot be replaced upon the notice paper. The refusal of a minister to answer a question on the ground of public interest cannot be raised as a matter of privilege.
It may well be that the hon. member has a grievance. He may want to seek information by some other means, perhaps by way of a motion for the production of papers or in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which has before it the estimates of the RCMP. In any event, the Chair has to rule that the hon. member has not made a prima facie case of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.

[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the two official languages-Mr. Clermont.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Real Caouelle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a question of privilege to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on April 3 and 4 last, Creditistes from all provinces of Canada assembled in a National Council in Ottawa.
It was decided on that occasion to change the name of our party from "Le Ralliement creditiste" to "Le Parti Credit Social du Canada" in French and "The Social Credit Party of Canada" in English, or for short "Credit Social" and "Social Credit".
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this change will lead the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to give more consideration to Social Credit.

May 5, 1971
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Alexander: 1.	Which department, if any, bears primary responsibility for the development of research or demonstration projects to deal with solid-waste disposal?
2.	On what dates and by whom were recommendations made to the Department of National Health and Welfare advocating research studies into the problem of solid-waste disposal as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on December 14, 1970, in Hansard at pages 2026-2027?
3.	Are studies concerning any of the 28 items falling under the headings of Management and Regulation of Disposal Practices, Disposal Methods, and Environmental Effects referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary currently in progress and, if so, (a) by whom are they being undertaken (b) when are they expected to be completed (c) will these studies be available to the public upon completion?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. It is anticipated that the new Department of the Environment will bear primary responsibility for the development of research or demonstration projects to deal with solid-waste disposal.
2.	In October 1968, the Advisory Committee on Public Health Engineering instructed the Public Health Engineering Division to assemble reference material on the subject of solid-waste disposal for use by its subcommittee on Solid Wastes. After a thorough search of the current scientific literature, a Divisional manuscript report, "Research Needs for Solid Waste Management in Canada" was issued in December 1968. This contained all the recommendations cited by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on December 14, 1970 in Hansard at pages 2026-2027.
3.	The following research projects are sponsored by the Policy and Planning Branch, formerly of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, but now transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry: (i) Ground Water Technical Services, Montreal, P.Q. Pollution of Ground Water due to Municipal Dumps. This has been completed and is being prepared for publication, (ii) Dr. K. L. Pinder and Dr. R. M. R. Branion, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. "Fermentation of Industrial Wastes." (iii) Dr. E. R. Hayes, St. Mary's University, Halifax, N.S. "Treatment of Kraft Pulp Mill Effluents". (iv) Dr. R. A. Gallop, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Conversion of waste by-products in food processing to activated carbon, which can be used in wastewater treatment, (v) Dr. C. M. Cornwall, Waterloo University, Waterloo, Ontario. Dewatering of Sewage Sludges. In addition, a Public Health Research Grant has been approved by the Department of National Health and Welfare to: Prof. W. K. Oldham, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. "Anaerobic Treatment of Animal Wastes". All the above are ongoing projects, unless otherwise indicated, currently supported by grants for the fiscal year 1970-71. On successful completion of the studies, the results would normally be published in scientific journals by the investigators.


NEWFOUNDLAND-ACCIDENTS INVOLVING CANADIAN NATIONAL BUSES
Mr. Peddle: How many accidents have there been involving CN buses in Newfoundland since the inception of the bus service (a) on what dates (b) at what locations (c) were there personal injuries and, if so how many persons were injured (d) was there property damage involved (e) what was the dollar amount of such damages?


Mr. Gerard Duquei (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Since the inception of bus operations in 1968, 22 buses have covered a total of four million miles, carrying in excess of 300,000 passengers. During this period there have been accidents and incidents of varying degrees but none of a major nature involving the operations. There have been a total of 19 persons slightly injured and approximately $15,000 in personal injury and property damage claims filed against the Company. As settlement of some of these claims is still outstanding it is not considered appropriate to reply to the question in the detail requested. It may be said, however, that since 1968, 20 accidents have been caused by other parties and 24 other incidents resulted from poor weather or road conditions.


CANADIAN YOUTH HOSTEL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Does the government provide grants to the Canadian Youth Hostel Association and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Does the government intend to increase such grants and make use of this Association to apply its program for transient youths?
3.	Did the government make use of this Association in operating its armouries last summer for transient youths?
4 Has the government consulted with the Canadian Youth Federation on its program?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. No.
2.	Discussions are currently in progress between officials of the Department of the Secretary of State and the Canadian Youth Hostel Association, regarding that organization's possible role in the Summer '71 Program.
3.	No. Hostel facilities last summer were co-ordinated by the National Hostel Task Force, established by the Canadian Council on Social Development (Canadian Welfare Council).
4.	Such an organization cannot be identified. If such an organization exists, the Department of the Secretary of State has had no contact with it.

May 5, 1971


PUBLIC WORKS-OTTAWA LEASES
Mr. Sulatycky: 1.	How much floor space does the government lease in Ottawa above the tenth floor in buildings in the area bounded by Wellington, Elgin, Somerset and Bronson streets?
2.	(a) Who are the owners of each of the buildings in which such space is leased (b) what amount of space is leased above
Questions
the tenth floor in each such building (c) what is the total amount of space leased in each of such buildings?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	1,568,939 square feet.
2.	See list following:
2.	Building Address	2. Building Name
75 Albert St		. Fuller	
130 Albert St		. Varette	
467-473 Albert St		. Trebla	
200 Elgin St		. Elgai	
141 Laurier Ave		. Gillin =#1	
161 Laurier Ave		. Sir Guy Carleton	
219 Laurier Ave		. Canadian	
340 Laurier Ave		. Sir Wilfred Laurier	
400 Laurier Ave		. Centennial Towers	
100 Metcalfe St		. Berger	
222 Nepean St		. Vanier	
Nepean St		. Bell Canada	
110 O'Connor St		. Export Development	
190 O'Connor St		. O'Connor	
Place de Ville Tower "A".	.. Tower "A"	
Place de Ville Tower "B".	.. Tower "B"	
Place de Ville Tower "C".	.. Tower "C"	
66 Slater St		. Lord Elgin Plaza	
122 Slater St		. MacDonald	
130 Slater St		. National	
171 Slater St		. Vanguard	
275 Slater St		. Congill	
2(b) Leased Space 2(c) Total 2(a) Building Owner	above tenth floor Leased Space
Metcalfe Realty Co. Ltd	
Metcalfe Realty Co. Ltd	
Holcan Ltd	
200 Elgin Ltd	
Gillin Engineering and Const. Ltd	
161 Laurier Ltd	
Ottawa Commercial Realties Ltd	
Immeubles Laurentian Realties Co. Ltd	
Campeau Construction Co. Ltd. and Robert
Campeau	
Ottawa Commercial Realties Ltd	
Bona Building and Management Co. Ltd	
Bell Canada	
Narono Holdings Ltd	
Devonshire Investments Ltd	
Campeau Construction Co. Ltd	
Campeau Construction Co. Ltd	
Campeau Corporation Ltd	
Ottawa-Elgin Investments Ltd	
Metcalfe Realty Co. Ltd	
Ottawa Commercial Realties Ltd	
171 Slater Street Ltd	
Two Seven Five Realty Ltd	
4,165 25,701 12,230 10,147 3,909 53,395 54,611 65,312
118,925
85,488
10,910
286,504
14,571
5,096
107,581
166,476
287,543
66,012
9,642
27,381
36,300
117,040
66,237 25,701 128,659 118,330 88,160 126,480 198,675 311,862
359.165 183,726 128,100 286,504 147,161
59,500
219,875
295,168
467,581
157,028
99,070
133.166 151,668 189,574
Totals		1,568,939	3,941,390


ADULT VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS-PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Caouetle: During each year 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, what amounts were paid to each of the ten provinces and to the Northwest Territories for adult vocational training programs?


James Alexander Jerome: In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned the answer is:
Province	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70
British Columbia
& Yukon	$595,407	$ 818,250	$1,270,077Alberta	342,200	208,389	747,680Saskatchewan	402,324	603,168	880,898Manitoba	308,887	758,647	1,012,636Ontario	482,697	612,398	1,237,662Quebec	349,026	384,797	510,310Maritimes	* 94,335	* 213,927	* 352,714N.W.T.	743,211	1,155,919	1,603,489
The figures quoted are not payments to Provinces but rather are expenditures within the Province.
'These figures represent moneys spent in all of the Maritime Provinces since they come under the jurisdiction of one regional office.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the following amounts were paid to the provinces for the provision of occupational training:

Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.
-68 1967-68	5,523 2,122	1,085 325	4,072 1,6581968-69	3,767	662	4,5631969-70	5,802	1,008	5,956N.B.	Que.	Ont.	Man.2,053 2,146	36,580 11,750	22,360 20,155	4,136 3.0912,298	30,455	23,761	4,5733,282	43,767	28,541	4,025Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	N.W.T.2,740	3,376	3,477	321,562	2,963	3,259	-2,534	5,540	3,347	1653,785	9,085	8,510	132
'Payments made under the phase-out arrangements of the Technical Vocational Training Assistance Act.

May 5, 1971
Questions


ALBERTA-APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Has the Regional Director of Indian Affairs in Alberta been appointed and, if so, were the Indians consulted prior to the appointment?
2.	Who were the members on the Public Service Commission selection board for this position?
3.	What are the duties of each of the members and their respective salaries?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Yes. Yes.
2.	Mr. A. E. Wisking, Mr. J. B. Bergevin, Mr. I. Har-lock, and Mr. H. Cardinal.
3.	Mr. Wisking is an officer of the Executive Staffing Program of the Public Service Commission. His salary is in the range of $15,000 to $17,600. Mr. Bergevin is Assistant Deputy Minister, Indian and Eskimo Affairs, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. His salary is in the range of $24,000 to $30,000. Mr. Har-lock is Personnel Adviser, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. His salary is in the range of $20,000 to $25,000. Mr. Cardinal is President of the Indian Association of Alberta. His salary is not known to the Public Service Commission.


CBC-APPEARANCES OF PAULINE JULIEN SINCE OCTOBER 24, 1970
Mr. Comtois: Has Miss Pauline Julien been on any CBC program (either television or radio) since October 24, 1970 and, if so (a) how many times (b) on what programs (c) on what dates?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that since October 24, 1970, Miss Pauline Julien has appeared once on each of the following program series: "A la seconde" (December 14), "Les 2D" (January 5), "Zoom" (February 7) "Weekend" (October 25) and "Tuesday Night" (January 5).


CANADA CENTRE FOR INLAND WATERS
Mr. Sullivan: 1.	What is the estimated cost of the plans for the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters?
2.	How many persons are employed at the Centre and what is the breakdown of their classification of employment?
3.	What is the proposed date of completion of the Centre?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. The estimated total construction cost is $23,550,000.
2.	Research Managers, 6; Research Scientists, 22; Physical Scientists, 4; Chemists, 4; Engineers, 11; Scientific Officers, 9; Ships Officers, 6; Computer System Analysts, 4; Administrative, Clerical and Stenographic Support, 39; Engineering and Scientific Support, 123; Librarian, 1; Drafting and Illustration, 3; General Labour, 12. Total 244.
3.	October 1, 1972.


TURBO TRAINS
Mr. Sullivan: 1.	How many Turbo trains for the Toronto-Montreal run were built (a) by whom (b) what was the total purchase price (c) how many are now in operation (d) where are the remainder?
2.	How much has been spent to March 21, 1971 on repairs and modification of design?
3.	Is the said cost of repairs and modifications increasing the practicality of a profitable operation?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. (a) Five Turbo trainsets were constructed by United Aircraft of Canada Limited and are owned by that company, (b) Canadian National did not purchase Turbo trains, (c) and (d) None, as a result of an accumulation of operating problems the reliability of service declined to a point where schedules had to be changed and ultimately to the withdrawal of all units from service. The trains are located at the Montreal maintenance facility in Central Station.
2. and 3. The maintenance and modification of the trains were carried out during revenue service pursuant to an agreement between United Aircraft of Canada Limited and Canadian National and as elements with respect to the future of the trains are now in the course of discussion, it is not considered in the best interests of Canadian National to disclose this information at this time.


CBC-ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR PROVINCIAL CONVENTIONS
Mr. Caouetie: 1.	How much time did CBC allocate to the provincial conventions of (a) the Parti Qu6b6cois in February 1971 (b) the Rallie-ment creditiste-Quebec in March 1971, on both national networks (radio and television) ?
2.	In each case (a) what was the dollar value of the time offered free of charge as compared to the rates for such airtime (b) how many technicians did CBC use to produce these programs (c) what was the cost (i) of salaries (ii) of equipment (iii) for transfer expenses, for these programs?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The Parti Quebecois convention was a leadership contest and as such it was given more coverage than the Ralliement creditiste meetings. Actual convention coverage, excluding various interviews and other items in the framework of regular news and public affairs programs was as follows: Parti Quebecois: French Radio network: 3 hours 50 minutes; French TV network: 1 hour 15 minutes; English Radio and TV networks: No live broadcasting from the convention.
Ralliement creditiste:	French Radio network:	40
minutes; French TV network: Nil; English Radio and TV networks: No live broadcasting from the convention.
2. (a) The CBC does not sell time for broadcasting coverage of political conventions and does not place a monetary value on such coverage. It would therefore be unrealistic to attempt comparisons on the basis of commercial rates for such air time and difficult to arrive at meaningful figures, (b) 27 television and 3 radio techni-

May 5, 1971

cians for the Parti Quebecois leadership convention; one radio technician for the Ralliement creditiste meetings, (c) It has not been customary to require the CBC to disclose such details of its internal management and administration.


FEDERAL RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
Mr. Barnett: How much more, or how much less, did the federal government spend than it collected in each of the provinces in the fiscal year 1969-70 based on the same criteria used in the reply to Question Number 741 made Order for Return July 22, 1964?


James Alexander Jerome: An answer was possible to Question No. 741 made Order for Return July 22, 1964, because not long before, a special working-group had concluded several man-years of work accumulating and analysing the information for other purposes. A similar analysis has not been made for the period referred to in this question, and the information requested is not available.


TEMPERATURE CONTROL ACTIVITIES BY PHYSICAL OR CHEMICAL MEANS
Mr. Laprise: Have any corporations, agencies or persons undertaken research, studies or any activity for which the federal government granted a permit or licence, to affect the temperature by physical or chemical means since 1958 and, if so (a) what corporations, agencies or persons (b) has the federal government alone or in co-operation with any provincial government taken part (c) to the knowledge of the government, has any firm engaged in such activities?


James Alexander Jerome: No.


ALASKA HIGHWAY
Mr. Harding: 1. What was the total federal expenditure on the Alaska Highway for the fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and, what is the estimated expenditure for 1971-72?
2.	What is the total length of the Alaska Highway (a) how many miles are paved (b) where is the paving located (c) is any paving program planned for 1971-72 and, if so. what is the program?
3.	Have surveys been made for relocation of any sections of the present route and, if so, what mileage is involved?
4. Have discussions regarding cost-sharing of paving the Alaska Highway been held with other jurisdictions and, if so, with whom have discussions been held and with what results?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Fiscal Year
Expenditure
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
1971-	72

8.870.000	(estimate)
9.027.000	(estimate)
Questions
2.	The total length of the Alaska Highway from Dawson Creek to the Yukon-Alaska boundary is 1,221 miles, (a) 102 miles, (b) Mile 0 (Dawson Creek) to Mile 84, Mile 300 to Mile 301 (Fort Nelson) and Mile 904 to Mile 921 (vicinity of Whitehorse), (c) Mile 921 to Mile 928 is presently under paving contract and will be completed this year.
3.	Reconnaissance surveys for relocation have been carried out for Miles 206 to 278 and Miles 315 to 496. Detailed surveys have been completed only on Miles 206 to Mile 232. No reconstruction program planned for 1971-72.
4.	No discussions have been held with other jurisdictions for cost-sharing of paving of the Alaska Highway. The recent U.S. Federal Highway Act authorized the President of the U.S.A., acting through the Secretaries of State and Transportation to undertake negotiations with the Government of Canada. It is expected that an initial meeting will be held in May or June this year.


POST OFFICE-THORNCLIFFE PARK, EAST YORK, ONTARIO
Mr. Kaplan: 1 Does the government have any plans to locate a post office facility in Thorncliffe Park, East York, Ontario and, if so, what are they?
2.	How many locations has the government considered in the area?
3.	What steps have been taken with respect to any such locations?
4.	Has the government established any deadline for obtaining such facility?
5.	Has any budgetary allocation been made or sought with respect to such facility?
6.	When may the people of Thorncliffe Park expect an announcement?


James Alexander Jerome: There are six questions asked in this one question. The replies are brief. 1. Yes, accommodation for a front office operation to replace the previous suboffice now closed.
2.	Only one available location is considered suitable.
3.	Negotiations for a lease are under way.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	When results of negotiations referred to in part 3 are known.


PAYMENTS UNDER PFAA
Mr. Thomson: 1.	How much has been paid out to farmers eligible under PFAA in each of the past ten years?
2.	How much was paid into PFAA in each of the past ten years by (a) farmers (b) the federal government?
3.	How many farmers in the Prairie Provinces are covered by PFAA crop insurance?
4.	How many are covered by other forms of crop insurance?
5520

May 5, 1971
Questions


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisler of Agriculture):: 1. Crop Year		Amount Paid
1960-61		$11,029,116
1961-62		54,070,578
1962-63		15,503,921
1963-64		9,679,527
1964-65		12,724,525
1965-66		5,118,864
1966-67		3,142,315
1967-68		8,888,550
1968-69		8,316,987
1969-70		5,230,281
2.		
Crop Year Paid by Farmers		Paid by Federal Government
1960-61 $ 6,941,094		$ 4,088,022
1961-62	6,839,498	47,231,0801962-63	8,614,424	6,889,4971963-64	10,736,292	Nil1964-65	10,454,092	2,272,4521965-66	10,331,386	Nil1966-67	11,674,082	Nil1967-68	10,106,186	Nil1968-69	5,917,382	2,399,6051969-70	5,451,832	Nil3.	All farmers in the Prairie Provinces who do not purchase crop insurance policies under federally supported, provincially operated crop insurance programs or who are not otherwise excluded by the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and Regulations may become eligible for PFAA. payments.4.	This information will not be available until seeding of insurable crops is completed in the Prairie Provinces.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Goode: What was the number of aircraft movements at Vancouver International Airport for each year 1968, 1969 and 1970?


Gérard Duquet: The number of aircraft movements at Vancouver International Airport for the following years were: 1968, 152,642; 1969, 169,602; 1970, 149,521.


COMPLAINTS UNDER THE FEMALE EMPLOYEES EQUAL PAY ACT
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	How many complaints have been made by virtue of the Female Employees Equal Pay Act since Parliament passed the Act in 1956?
2.	What is the average period of time taken to settle claims under the Act?
3.	What is the longest period of time taken to settle a claim under the Act?
4.	Are plans being considered which would facilitate processing and disposition of claims?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1. Eighteen.
2.	Average period of time elapsing from receipt of complaints to date final action is taken: approximately 23 weeks.
3.	Fifty-one weeks.
4.	Bill C-228 now before Parliament proposes to repeal the Female Employees Equal Pay Act, and include equal pay legislation as an amendment to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. These legislative changes, and related administrative changes, will facilitate the handling of complaints.


HALIFAX HARBOUR-FIRE BOATS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is a fire boat being built for use in Halifax Harbour and, if so, what design will be used?
2.	Who is the owner of the design, and what was paid for its use by the government?
3.	What is the age of other vessels built on this design?
4.	Were Canadians approached to determine whether designs were available in this country and, if so, who are they?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): 1. No.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable.


COST OF BUTTER STORAGE
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): What was the total paid by the Canadian Dairy Commission for the storage of butter during the fiscal years 1968-1969 and 1969-1970 to (a) Cooperative Agricole de Granby, (b) Vermette et Fils, Saint-Agapit, Quebec?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The total paid for storage of butter was $972,493.93 in 1968-69 and $1,659,645.68 in 1969-70. Details of payments to individuals or firms are confidential.


LIFT PROGRAM
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the total paid by the government to Western farmers during the fiscal year 1970-1971 under the seed-bed reduction program?
2.	In 1970, what was the total number of acres not seeded under this program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. $57,310,319.
2. Farmers who submitted applications for payments under this program reported that their 1970 acreage seeded to wheat was 11,833,932 acres less than their acreage seeded to that crop in 1969.

May 5, 1971


VALCARTIER MILITARY CAMP-SUPPLIERS OF HEATING OIL
Mr. Godin: 1. During the past three years, what company supplied heating oil to the Valcartier Military Camp?
Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	During each year, what was the price paid per gallon?
3.	What is the usual duration of such contract?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2.
Year
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
3. One year.
Fuel Oils
Type 1 Shell at $0.1258/gal Imperial Oil at $0.1238/gal Golden Eagle at $0.128/gal
Type 2 Texaco at $0.1153/gal Texaco at $0.143/gal Golden Eagle at $0.111/gal.
Type 6 Shell at $0.0718/gal. Canadian Import at $0.065/gal. Canadian Import Quebec at $0.1171/gal.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Mazankowski: By department, what was the total expenditure on Air Canada travel for the fiscal years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969 to November 30, 1970?
Return tabled.


COPY OF SURVEY ON HYDRO-ELECTRIC POTENTIAL OF CENTRAL YUKON TERRITORY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 218-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the survey conducted by T. Ingledow and Associates Limited on the hydroelectric potential of the central Yukon Territory.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions for papers be allowed to stand.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 205 and 218 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservation concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions stated by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motions Nos. 205 and 218 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO FUTURE OPERATIONS OF ALBERTA NEW START CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 205-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents, memoranda, correspondence, etc., exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Province of Alberta, pertaining to the future operations of the Alberta New Start Corporation.
Motion agreed to.
24081-68J


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before voicing my first question, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement concerning the disaster which occurred last night at St. Jean-Vianney, near Chicoutimi?
On behalf of the official opposition I wish to extend our most sincere sympathy as well as our pledge of solidarity to the stricken families.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly can answer this question.
As soon as the federal government heard the news, I sent a telegram to the mayor of St. Jean-Vianney, in which I stated the utter dismay of this government and of the Canadian population generally. I discussed the matter at length this morning with the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) and with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) and it seems that units of the Canadian Armed Forces are already there busy with rescue operations. There are helicopters and medical support staff on the scene. They are acting on a voluntary

May 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
basis for the moment, since specific requests have not yet reached the federal government.
I should say also that the affected homes are insured for the most part under the National Housing Act. The minister responsible for Housing and Urban Affairs is aware of the situation and has sent representatives there.
For the moment, the government has indicated its complete desire to help the victims. Units of the Canadian Forces are on the spot, as I said earlier, and we are expecting further reports from our staff. And if, of course, requests come in from the municipal or provincial government, the federal government is ready to help as much as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like-


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for York South have a supplementary question?


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and in my own name I would like to express our sympathy to the families of the victims of this disaster.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I also proffer my sincere condolences to the afflicted families of St. Jean-Vianney. I know that locality very well having visited it on several occasions. I also express my condolences to the representative for the riding which includes St. Jean-Vianney. I am sure the whole population of Canada was dismayed this morning on learning the bad news.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues, on behalf of the people of St. Jean-Vianney, who will certainly appreciate very much the fact that the members of the House of Commons sympathize with them in the terrible disaster they have just suffered.
I should like to extend officially my heartfelt condolences to the stricken families and to inform this House of the magnitude of the disaster. There were 34 houses completely buried, 25 casualties and more than $2 million worth of damages.
Therefore, I urge the government to take speedy action, in these circumstances, and I intend to ask as soon as possible for financial assistance from the government.



FINANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the emphasis given to the matter by the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada and others, he proposes to adopt any new measures to assure a greater co-ordination of the economic impact of the various departments of the government in which he is Minister of Finance?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the economic impact of the various departments that are in the economic field, the government believes that there is ample co-ordination at the present time in that there is constant consultation between the ministers involved and they are on a committee which deals with economic matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view not only of the emphasis placed on this question yesterday by the chairman of the Economic Council but also the emphasis placed on it by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, will the minister not treat it as an urgent matter to re-examine the coordination, or is he in fact satisfied to have the efforts of his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, offset by his own rather hamhanded efforts?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, without referring to hamhanded efforts, on which the hon. gentleman across the way is an expert, I would simply like to say that we are constantly looking at the co-ordination of policies.



INCLUSION OF LONG-TERM PROJECTIONS OF ECONOMIC TARGETS IN BUDGET

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks of the chairman of the Economic Council may I ask the Minister of Finance whether it is his intention when he brings down his budget to make in addition to short-term projections, long-term projections of economic targets?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that the hon. member will have to wait for the budget speech.
$ $ ^



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT-DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC FINANCE MINISTER ON METHOD OF FINANCING

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I realize that the development of the James Bay project which is being discussed is a provincial matter, but in view of its importance to the entire economy I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether there have been any discussions between the federal and provincial governments, and particularly between himself and the Minister of Finance of Quebec regarding the method of financing this very expensive project over the next ten years?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there have not been such consultations to date but I should indicate that the government is very much interested in the matter and I presume we will be discussing the financial effects on the Canadian economy in due course.


David Lewis: Will the minister inform the House whether he will take the initiative to have such discussions in

May 5, 1971

view of the project's importance to economic conditions generally and particularly to the monetary situation? Would he also consider using his Canada Development Corporation, the legislation for which is now before a parliamentary committee, for the purpose of assisting this development with Canadian funds?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, before I could answer such a question I would have to know a great deal more about the project than I presently do. My knowledge is limited, as is the hon. member's, to what has been printed in the newspapers.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-RESEARCH INTO ECOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who, according to the Prime Minister's roster, was scheduled to be here today-I am sure he is away for good reason- may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry or some agency of government has gone into the ecological problems involved in the James Bay development and the way in which some research might be done, as suggested by one of the members of the Quebec cabinet, I think Dr. Gold-bloom, into the ecological and environmental consequences of the project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is engaged in British Columbia in receiving the Queen and helping her see that part of our country.
As far as relations between the government of Quebec and ourselves on this matter are concerned, I believe the only contact to date was with regard to the matter of energy itself. I know there has been some involvement between the National Energy Board and provincial officials on some aspect of this matter. As far as the ecology is concerned, like the Minister of Finance I am not aware of any request having been made by the province to the federal government. I do know, as does the hon. member, that Dr. Goldbloom has indicated the interest of his government from the point of view of the ecology. Certainly the federal government will also want, in so far as it is under its jurisdiction, to involve itself in any matters relating to the ecology.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC ON DIVERSION OF WATERS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether there has been any discussion with the province of Quebec about the diversion of waters and also whether it is the intention of the government to refer this whole matter to the committee of the House chaired by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich?
Inquiries oj the Ministry



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Roch LaSalle (Jolielle):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the importance of the James Bay project, could the minister at least assure the Quebec government that representations will be made to this government with regard to the issuance of special credits for the construction of the substructure required for this project?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if the province so requests, we will doubtless study the matter carefully.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: A supplementary question. Having regard to the example of co-ordination of government policies, my question has been partially answered by a couple of the supplementaries but from the answers of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion are we to understand that there has been no specific request, especially involving the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, in regard to this rather large project?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF INDIANS

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in his capacity as protector of the rights of Indians. In light of the objection by Chief Maxwell Gros-Louis, Secretary of the Indian Association of Quebec, that the James Bay power project will encroach upon the territorial and aboriginal rights of the Indian people there, will the minister on behalf of the government of Canada intervene to protect the rights of the native Indian people in that area?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my officials to look into the matter and as the hon. member knows, there is a committee composed of Indians and provincial and federal officials which studies all problems pertaining to Quebec Indians, and I hope that this tripartite committee will be in a position to study the problem as quickly as possible to ensure that Indian rights are preserved.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this subject and then go to the hon. member for Temiscamingue.

May 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry

In a few moments, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


Frank Howard: With respect to the committee to which the minister referred, are there any plans for that committee to meet immediately to go into this question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether an immediate meeting is scheduled between the parties concerned, but since the Quebec government announced this decision only a few days ago, I have not had time to contact the members of the committee. I shall, however, ask the government to place this item on the orders of the day.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Secretary of State, but I believe that I should perhaps rather make this a question of privilege.
On March 25, I had question No. 1,219 put on the order paper. It reads in part as follows:
1. How much time did CBC allocate to the provincial conventions of (a) Parti Quebecois in February 1971	(b) the
Ralliement creditiste-Quebec in March 1971,-
Now, I have just received the answer which prompts me to ask the Secretary of State the following question:
To Quebec separatists, the CBC granted five hours and five minutes of television and radio time compared with only 40 minutes of radio time to the Creditistes, and I would like to know whether the minister is willing to tell or request the CBC to give the various Canadian political parties at least as much consideration as the Canadian separatists?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the latter part of the question is obvious. It is "yes". The answer to the first part of the member's question is that the CBC only gave facts without any sort of expounding and I believe it is my duty, as spokesman for the Corporation in the House, to ask first what is the explanation for the disproportion noticed by the hon. member, disproportion with which I myself was struck, when I let him have the answer.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker.
Since he considers himself the spokesman for the CBC in the House, could he not take the same opportunity to inquire how come there were 27 technicians at the convention of the Parti Quebecois, and only one at that of the Ralliement creditiste?


Roch La Salle: I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask the minister responsible for the CBC whether the broadcast time allotted by the CBC on the occasion of a convention, is primarily based on the importance of each political party?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the government has yet come around to making up its mind as to the position it will take in the forthcoming reference in a few days before the Supreme Court of Canada involving provincial regulations which improperly restrict the free interprovincial flow of agricultural commodities? Will the government, as the guardian of the constitution for all Canadians, reassure them that it will clearly and unequivocally oppose such regulations?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government will be represented by way of intervention in that case, as I told the House last week, and I can assure my hon. friend that the constitution will be well represented by counsel.


Gerald William Baldwin: Since the current crisis has come about because of the government's failure to act courageously, will it not state what it intends to do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Egmont.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF MONEY ALLOCATED-METHOD OF ANNOUNCING ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECTS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. Earlier a number of questions were directed to the minister with regard to the adequacy of funds for the Opportunities for Youth program. Can the minister report whether more funds will be made available in light of the very large number of submissions and indicate the amount of funds needed in order to make possible the acceptance of at least some greater number of the submissions that have been placed before the government?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, in a very short while, Mr. Speaker.

May 5, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Egmont on a supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is that many times in your rulings, with great respect, you say that our questions are argumentative. I say to Your Honour, with respect, that, when answers are argumentative and evasive and we try to ask further supplementary questions, surely your rulings should apply to all equally.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may make this argument. The hon. member will recognize that it is the responsibility of the Chair to indicate when he thinks an answer or a question is argumentative. The hon. member sought the floor a moment ago to ask a supplementary question. He will be recognized in a moment. The Chair had recognized the hon. member for Egmont and I will, with pleasure, return in a moment to the hon. member for Calgary North. The hon. member for Egmont.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Since a number of projects are now being announced on a day to day basis, can the minister indicate whether they are being announced at random or whether there is some system under which these projects are being publicly announced, in order that some of the uncertainty related to these projects may be dispelled?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I understand the import of the member's question, but I can say that the announcements are made in a systematic way. In the first place, we communicate with the promoters of a project and send them a form for the conclusion of an agreement under which they undertake, for a grant, to perform certain works included in their project and it is only after conclusion of the agreement that a public announcement is made. However, as I have just said, there is some hidden meaning to the hon. member's question which I did not catch.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT SATELLITE CITY IN NORTH

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question either to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Have any of these funds been allotted to the idea expressed by the Prime Minister in Vancouver, the construction of a satellite northern city to be erected by
10,000	young Canadians? If so, can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicate what purpose that city would serve and whether the location has been selected?


Gerald William Baldwin: That is for net social benefit.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since neither of the ministers responsible in this area is prepared to answer, perhaps the Prime Minister would inform the House whether the government has seriously considered his idea of the erection of a satellite city in northern Canada? If so, have funds been allotted for this purpose, and what purpose would the city serve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been seriously considered by cabinet, but if the hon. member wants to submit any projects we will study them seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary to a previous question.



AGRICULTURE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the answer given by the Minister of Justice to the hon. member for Peace River. I am sure the Minister of Justice appreciates that it is his responsibility, as he suggested, to see that counsel represents the Department of Justice in the case in question. Has the Minister of Justice instructed that counsel, and what are those instructions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has accused me of being argumentative and the hon. member for Peace River of being noncommittal. In any event, they can work that one out.


Gerald William Baldwin: Evasive is a better term.


John Napier Turner: My role is to instruct counsel, and the role of counsel, as the matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada, is to present the case before the court because the matter is before the court. The hon. member will understand the government's position when counsel pleads the case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North on a last supplementary. There are not many minutes left before the end of the question period and perhaps we should move on.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the Minister of Justice said about his responsibility, but is there anything confidential about the instructions he has given to the counsel in question? What are those instructions? That is the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.

May 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



USE OF NET SOCIAL BENEFIT RATHER THAN GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AS INDICATOR OF PROGRESS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his speech in Vancouver in which he suggested that we should place less reliance upon the gross national product and replace it with a more revealing figure, a new statistic which might be called "net social benefit". I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is preparing such an index for determining progress and development in this country, and have instructions gone to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to set up the machinery for producing such a criterion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in a general sense the answer is yes, of course. When the government makes economic decisions, it always tries to put into the balance the social effects of its decisions and not only the economic effects. We do this every time we make a decision. I hope it is not a new notion to the hon. member. I can recall that more than 25 years ago economists were telling us about net national benefit. Apparently it was a surprise to some members of the press too. It is not a new motion. It is one which is very much in the mind of this government and has been for some years.
As to the second part of the question, whether it could be the subject of instructions to the Bureau of Statistics, the answer is that this is a very difficult suggestion. We do not think that the Bureau of Statistics is the source empowered in Canada to decide social or human benefit. This is the business of the government and, I hope, of the opposition. I am glad they are discovering this even though they are some 25 years late.


Gerald William Baldwin: Can you seasonally adjust it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No one is quarrelling with the idea of having a measure of special progress and social benefit. What I am asking the Prime Minister is whether this is to be merely a nebulous hypothesis which the government uses from time to time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or whether the government is prepared to produce in some statistical form the net social benefit and whether items like unemployment and pollution will be factors which will be contained in such an index?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the supplementary question, and to some extent the answer given by the Prime Minister, is more in the field of debate. Perhaps the matter might be considered on an occasion other than during the question period.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.

Does the term "net social benefit" come from the economist Keynes, Samuelson or Eric Kierans?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My question is supplementary to one asked earlier by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I think I understood the Prime Minister to say that consideration was given to social benefit in government decisions. In view of the drop in net farm income by over $500 million since he became Prime Minister, was due consideration given to social benefit in the programs of the government on agriculture?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should point out first that I did not use the term "social benefit" in my speech. I said "human benefit", but I cannot blame hon. members for believing what they have read in the newspapers. With regard to the second point, the answer is yes. Of course there has been a vast increase in social benefits to all Canadians as a result of many of this government's welfare measures.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that family allowances will not be increased in September, is the minister or the cabinet considering any interim increase to help needy families?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not under consideration. As I indicated, we are now having discussions and weighing various proposals for changes in family allowances which have been submitted by the general public, interested organizations and the provinces. We hope to use this as a basis to introduce legislation later in the fall.



INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT ON BIRTH CONTROL

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the question just asked, when will he be making his statement on birth control and contraception?


John Carr Munro: I hope to do that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

May 5, 1971



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER TORONTO HEARING-CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION FOR VHF TELEVISION BROADCASTING

Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South):: My question is for the
Secretary of State. Can the minister say yet whether the CRTC hearing set for September in Toronto will be widened so as to include an application for VHF by television channel 13 which would serve the area much better than the one that will presently be considered?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, instances were made to me by several representatives from Toronto in that regard. I could certainly discuss the matter with CRTC authorities, but I have serious doubts that myself or the government could do anything to change the date of a scheduled hearing by the CRTC.
In any event, I shall talk to the chairman about it.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to direct a question to the articulate and erudite Minister of Transport. Noting the announcement about the great improvements at Wabush airport in Newfoundland, can the minister now advise what he is doing to accelerate the acquisition of an instrument landing system and new property for the Charlottetown airport where the demand is really great and the need pressing?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: agree with the conclusion reached by the hon. member. I cannot answer the question as to dates but I will look into it and give him a written reply.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the restrictive measures taken by Ontario with regard to Quebec's FEDCO marketing board for eggs, the Quebec Minister of Justice, Mr. Choquette, has announced that his government would exercise reinforced reprisals against the neighbouring province.
My question is: Has this matter been referred to the Minister of Justice or has he entered into conversations with his Quebec counterpart about this matter?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not discuss the matter with the Quebec Attorney General. This question falls in the same category as those recently asked by some Alberta members. The government maintains its position that this problem will be solved with the passing of Bill C-176 by Parliament.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INFORMATION CANADA


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada. In view of the fact that Information Canada was established for the purpose of communicating government plans to the people, will the minister explain why the government felt it necessary to contract out the job of publicizing the census to two advertising firms at a total cost of $820,000?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, Information Canada has never been given a mandate to be the spokesman for the government nor to run the government's advertising program.
* *
*



NATIONAL SECURITY


Erik Nielsen: I have a question for the Prime Minister. When is the Prime Minister going to set aside a day for a debate on the report of the Royal Commission on Security so that we can discuss these matters?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When we get to the debate on the resolution now on the order paper on the matter of security and relating to the matter which was dealt with by the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, I expect the government will be able to participate in this debate and use the time available to make its views known on the matters covered by the Royal Commission on Security.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Pierre De Bane (Maiane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
I wish to ask him whether he would wish to consider with sympathy the idea of establishing a Social Affairs Council in line with the Economic Council of Canada, in view of his deep interest in all matters relating to social justice.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the supplementary question of the hon. member is rather a suggestion to the right hon. Prime Minister, and he must assume that it will be considered.
5528

May 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance which I have asked him very earnestly previously. When may we expect the minister to act on the recommendation which has been made for several years by the Economic Council of Canada that a short-range economic forecasting unit should be provided for Canada? I am sure there is no need for me to emphasize the importance of establishing such an organization.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is referring to an organization outside the government. We have ind cated that we would be willing to give limited support to the establishment of such an organization outside the government. We have indicated that we would be willing to give limited support to the establishment of such an organization but that basically it should be supported by industry in this country.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the government made a decision yet on the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council, especially with regard to regional tariff changes and particularly in view of the failure of the regional development policy to operate and fulfil its goal within the present framework of monetary and fiscal policies?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can now hear from the Minister of Finance who was rising simultaneously with his colleague.


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. In his
answer a few minutes ago in regard to agricultural products did he indicate that the settled policy of the government is to depend on negotiations between the provinces on trade policy rather than to establish the clear jurisdiction in this area either of the provinces or the federal government?


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



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Now that our dear friend has departed from the cabinet-I am speaking about the hon. member for Duvernay-is Premier Thatcher any closer to getting his grant for a pulp mill so he can call an election in June and the Prime Minister can call a byelection in Assiniboia?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting to the Chair that the question is in order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Mackenzie would like an opportunity of rephrasing his question.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether we can expect a decision within the next week on whether Saskatchewan will be given a grant for the pulp mill so that the premier may call an election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he has already had two chances to ask his question.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Mackenzie, who has had two strikes at the same question, might be allowed a third attempt provided it is the same question.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I hope it will not be strike three. I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask him whether the calling of a by-election in Assiniboia is contingent upon a general election in the province of Saskatchewan?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is out!

May 5, 1971



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


Mr. Gaston J. Serre (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Does the minister intend to follow up in the near future the recommendations included in the Bilingual Districts Advisory Board report, which was tabled in the House yesterday, and, if so, when can we expect the official creation of a bilingual district in this country?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the government intends to study in the most diligent and the most attentive manner possible the report which was tabled in the House, but I should like to bring to the hon. member's attention paragraph 5 of section 13 which reads in part as follows:
No proclamation.. .shall be issued.. .before.. .at least ninety days have elapsed from the day a copy of the report was laid before Parliament pursuant to section 17.
This means that the first districts could not be proclaimed under the law before midsummer or late summer.



POST OFFICE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
For well over a year the Lapalme boys have been parading on Parliament Hill in an atmosphere, shall I say, of frustration and humiliation. Does the minister intend once and for all to settle this conflict which in my opinion has become more of a social and humanitarian problem than a mere union conflict?
Is the minister in a position to tell this House that he intends to take the necessary action to re-open this file and to give some kind of satisfaction to the families of these people who are living in misery?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Acting Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the file is still open. Whenever I have the opportunity, I hire one or two of the Lapalme boys. Some 50 of them are already in my employ. Last December I made an offer whereby just about all of them could have been integrated into the public service, but they refused. I am not the one who is playing politics at the expense of the Lapalme boys.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the
Inquiries of the Ministry
Treasury Board. In view of the concern expressed by many public servants, especially those in professional categories, with respect to the recommendation made by the Clyne committee that quite a number of public servants be taken out of the range of collective bargaining, can the President of the Treasury Board assure us that the government does not intend to take action along that line?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I think the House is aware, this whole question is currently under review and should be the subject of specific recommendations, I hope, later on.



AIRPORTS


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the urgent necessity for air service in the Georgian Bay area and the bad condition of the runways at Collingwood, is the government prepared to provide assistance for the paving of runways at municipal airports, especially those needed for constant traffic?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will investigate the particular situation to which the hon. member refers and see if there is anything we can do.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of S.ate. In view of the interest in the ownership of offshore mineral rights, especially in Atlantic Canada, will the minister indicate whether any progress has been made in the negotiations with the provinces on this matter and, if so, whether any legislation will be introduced in the House prior to the end of this sesssion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as I heard the question I can tell the House that I believe almost two years ago the federal government did make some propositions to the provincial governments regarding the administration and division of profits or revenues from the exploitation of offshore mineral rights. Since then there has been a very long series of consultations with the provinces. There has been some progress, but I think it is fair to say that many provinces have not yet stated their position clearly. Therefore we cannot introduce any legislation until we know the final position taken by the provinces on this matter.
24081-69^

May 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH



ACTION TO PHASE OUT CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey-While Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. If I may revert to an old familiar theme, I should like to ask the minister whether he can indicate what progress is being made toward either an early announcement of legislation or a voluntary agreement by the industry to phase out cigarette advertising?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I can only state to the hon. member, as I have before, that the government has this proposal respecting tobacco under active consideration, and when a decision is made in regard thereto it will be announced in the House.



AGRICULTURE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice.
Earlier, in answer to my colleague from Bellechasse, the minister said that Bill C-176 would settle the current issue between Ontario and Quebec.
Could the minister be more specific as to how Bill C-176 would settle this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the minister should make this statement now. It would be more appropriate to make it on motions.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Has the minister received any representations from the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce in favour of preventing the closing of the Hewitt-Robins (Canada) Ltd. plant in Saint-Laurent so as to enable 60 Canadian workers to keep their jobs?


Jean Marchand: Personally, I cannot remember, Mr. Speaker. I shall inquire from the department in case these representations have not reached my office.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and I am sure he will agree with me that it is urgent and pressing. It is with reference to the vacant position of chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Prior to the Easter recess the minister indicated that an appointment would be made very soon, and might even be made during the recess. Is the minister yet in a position to announce the name of the new chairman of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and also the vice-president of the industrial development branch?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, no, not yet.
[DOT]i*	-i-	-i*



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. Would the minister indicate whether his department is considering closing, or has made any decision to close, the estate and gift tax section offices in Saskatoon and Regina and transfer them to Calgary and Winnipeg respectively?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the office will remain where it is now.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in the debate simply to say that this bill represents yet another of the government's measures which will add insult to injury for the farmers of western Canada. I was amazed when the minister talked about the government's great revolutionary provisions to

May 5, 1971

assist western farmers. This bill is consequential upon the inherent policy the government has adopted; it is simply another measure to sink the western grain farmer into complete oblivion.
This bill is based upon over-all government philosophy which is designed to remove two-thirds of the farmers from the agricultural industry by 1990. That is the government's solution or cure for the ills agriculture is suffering today. This has been spelled out abundantly by the task force on agriculture and is closely related to the philosophy expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the ministers responsible for discharging agricultural policy. As a result of this policy announced by the task force and the Prime Minister in June of 1968, we were faced with Bill C-176. That was more than a year ago. It was misleading in that it suggested it would cure the major difficulties faced by the producers, particularly in the field of marketing. By reading between the lines one can realize that this was nothing more than another form of bureaucratic control with the decisions of farmers being abridged and placed in the hands of an all-powerful council appointed by the minister.
We note in this bill also an adamant attempt by the government to gain control of the beef industry. This industry is one of the few which has survived without government interference. In spite of the promise of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to cattlemen that he would protect the industry, we find that as a result of the provisions of Bill C-176 the industry can be taken over. This was either a deliberate attempt to mislead the cattlemen or an indication that he has lost the confidence of his colleagues. We now witness massive public concern by the agricultural industry toward this bill. People are writing to members of the House urging us to detain its passage. They are concerned because this is another deliberate attempt to interfere with their right to make decisions.
The stabilization program announced some time ago by the minister was headlined by the statement that western farmers were to receive $100 million. This was misleading in that the program was designed on the basis of a rearrangement of payments. The minister must know very well that in 1968-69, as a result of revisions to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the covering of losses in pool accounts about 130 million were put into the federal treasury. I suggest this is simply a rearrangement of financial affairs respecting the storage and sale of grain. For one to go about this country suggesting that farmers are getting an additional 100 million is downright misleading; it is sheer nonsense. The farmers will not be misled or trapped into believing this. The new quota system disregards the small family farm. We are basically concerned about these entities. I am sure many others in this House share my view that a small, mixed farm operator is still the most efficient farmer and contributes greatly to society.
In this bill we note, in addition to the new quota system, provision for the removal of the unit quota system which was a safeguard to the small producer. The 400-bushel unit quota gave the small operator breathing
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act space in which to meet his current expenditures. This is being withdrawn. This is further proof that Bill C-239 is another step toward the eradication of the small farm operation in Canada. This can be compared with the policies of the Canadian Dairy Commission which became effective in 1967-68 and resulted in a decrease of about 50 per cent in registered dairy producers. In addition to this reduction and because of regional rationalization we have experienced the phenomenon of 80 per cent of our dairy products being produced in the two central provinces. This has caused severe hardship to the farmers of western Canada.
Let us also consider the application of the Lift program. At the commencement of this scheme farmers were to receive somewhere between $100 million and $150 million. We now find that there has been only some $55 million distributed under this program, resulting as well in huge administrative costs. In my own constituency some 40 per cent of the producers have participated in the Lift program. This program was, again, designed to help the large producer to the detriment of the small producer. Again we find in the program now being considered by the government another step toward the reduction in the number of small farm producers. This is spelled out very clearly. Obviously, this government wants to get rid of the small farm operation. This is also true of the farm adjustment and consolidation program announced some time ago by the minister.
We are frightened by these government policies because we envisage emerging from them a form of collective or communal-type farming. Under the adjustment program we will have more counselling and information services than we can shake a stick at. We will have rural counselling services, management farm services and agricultural adjustment services. The services provided by the farm adjustment program is different from the counselling provided by management specialists. Farmers need advice on how to maintain their small operations rather than having them taken over to facilitate the build-up of large entities. We envisage these programs as nothing more than a means of legislative merging. It becomes obvious that this government is dedicated to a program designed to eliminate the small farm.
There is no secret that there is a critical shortage of cash available to farmers in western Canada. We see the desperate shortage at this time when many producers are faced with heavy expenditures in respect of their planting and cultivating operations. Repayment of cash advances has caused them very severe hardship. I urged the minister to consider placing a moratorium on these advances until the movement of grain and sales were such that there would be sufficient capital generated to meet the advance payments, but the minister chose to embark upon another course.
With this measure we see a further strangulation of the small producer. Rather than his position being improved, we see any measurable benefit that was contained in the original legislation being removed. Under

receiving payment and then we can institute a more realistic program of planning.
I was speaking on the telephone yesterday with the president of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association. He told me it is now common knowledge throughout the international marketplace that Canada is no longer the logical country from which to buy wheat because of our inability to deliver and to fill the ships when they arrive. I also understand from the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association that the Canadian Wheat Board is now turning down sales of wheat because of their inability to deliver. I think the minister should comment on this situation and the facts should be placed before us.
A trade group has been studying the handling and transportation of prairie grain. What has happened to its report? Is it too embarrassing for the minister to reveal? Perhaps it is. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the problem with the grain trade today is not one of advances but of sales. I understand, also, that Iraq was in touch with the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association to see if they could assist them in the negotiation of an agreement involving 100,000 tons of wheat to be shipped to their country because they could not break through the crust of bureaucracy surrounding the Canadian Wheat Board.
This is a shame, because the success or the failure of the Prairie economy is to a large degree contingent upon the sale of wheat. When we look at the export figures for 1969, we find out that Canada for the first time in history became a net importer of agricultural products to the tune of some $35 million. This is a horrible situation for a country like Canada, a country which has the agricultural potential, the resources, the know-how and the technology. The source of the problem in handling facilities lies with our railroads, terminal and collecting facilities.


Mr. Lang:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but the minister is rising on a point of order.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I think I should draw to Your Honour's attention the manner in which the hon. member is straying from the bill before us. I recognize that there are three bills before the House in a group. If it is his intention to speak on them all at once, that would be a special situation. But what he is saying has nothing to do with the subject before us.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: May I say with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that the sale of wheat certainly has something to do with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, because if we had a minister in charge of the Wheat Board who would get off his fat fanny and provide the necessary leadership to sell and promote sales, we would not need this legislation.


Daniel Aiken Lang: We are having a record year.


Mr. Horner:: Why don't you fill up the storage space?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is not a record year for the farmers of western Canada, believe me. It is a record
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act deficit year for them. I suggest that the minister should go out west and do a little appraising. I am sure he would find that I am speaking the truth. The matter with which I am dealing has a great deal of bearing upon our ability to deliver.
Another thing that affects the whole question of advance payments and items relating to the sale and marketing of wheat is the Menzies report, this government's proposal, which indicated a desire to decrease the amount of grain in commercial storage and terminal storage positions. This, again, reduces the amount of cash available to the Prairie economy. I do not know exactly by how much the amount has been reduced, but it is probably in the order of 75 million to 100 milhon bushels, which means there is roughly $150 milhon less in the Prairie economy today than there was a year ago.
The Menzies report recommends the reduction of 250 million to 300 million bushels to be carried in commercial storage positions. This might be well and good if sales were made in fact, but if they are made simply on paper, such as those to which I have referred, it will not do the western farmer much good.
This bill, as I have said, is completely in line with other pieces of agricultural legislation. These pieces of agricultural legislation, this bill included, are not in conformity with the wishes of the vast majority of producers. I warn the government that a bill like this will do very little to placate the western farmer, to alleviate the apprehension, the frustration and the disenchantment that he is experiencing under this government. A bill like this will merely disturb him.
I urge the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture to very seriously consider the impact that these pieces of legislation will have on western farmers, because they are experiencing a deep feeling of anxiety and of alienation. We can ill-afford such feelings at this time because we are fast approaching the situation wherein rural communities will be destroyed, and I am sure the majority of Canadians do not want to see that happen.
Both ministers responsible have a moral obligation to avert this trend. All hon. members have that obligation. These measures, including Bill C-176 and the bill that will be introduced to include rapeseed, flax and rye under the auspices of the Wheat Board are not necessarily in accordance with the wishes of the producers and I urge the minister to consider the performance of the Wheat Board and its auxiliary agencies because I think therein lies a great part of the problem. Unless the problem is solved, we can have all the cash advances in the world and we will not be a darn bit better off.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on second reading of Bill C-239 I should like first of all to refer to a statement made by the Canadian Council of Rural Development to the Canadian Agricultural Congress as follows:
Rural Canada is currently going through a period of radical adjustment.
What happens to agriculture in the 1970s will not only affect the destinies of all rural Canadians, (hut will also) have con-

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
siderable influence on the lives of all Canadians whether they live in the country or in the city.
It appears to me that if you look around the House today and see how few members representing other parts of Canada are in their seats to listen to what is happening in the rural areas of Canada, the words of the Canadian Council of Rural Development ring very true. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that too many hon. members of this House fail to realize that from 50 per cent to 52 per cent of Canadians are directly or indirectly connected with the agricultural industry. When we see a bill of this nature before us to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, in effect it means that the government has not looked after the basic agricultural economy of the country, because if it had it would not be necessary for it to introduce such a bill.
I suggest that the government takes a cold, heartless approach to the whole agricultural economy. I believe that the agricultural economy must be helped by a government that cares, thus removing the necessity for introducing bills of this kind. In former years it was always the case that farmers formed a major part of our nation that was self-reliant. Farmers and fishermen combined formed one of the basic ingredients that went into making up our nation and in most cases they were self-reliant people. Now, when we see bills of this nature introduced we can only believe that self-reliance has become a vague, political term and the government does not really care whether the agricultural economy is selfreliant. It used to be the case that the vast majority of our people-this was true of thousands and thousands of farmers-could consider themselves to be very independent. Now the government has to bring in measures such as this to offset the errors it has made in planning the economy. Its planning has attached government strings to many sectors of the economy and the result has not been good.
I believe that the majority of Canadian agricultural producers would not wish to have this legislation if they could do without it. They would rather be paid a fair return on their investment and not have to rely on an advance payment in order to continue in the agricultural industry. In this connection I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald on February 13, 1969, because it bears directly on the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act:
Saskatchewan farmers are getting four cents more per bushel than it costs them to produce the wheat, a regional short course on the economics of farming was told Wednesday.
J. F. Hickie of the provincial farm management bureau said that current price is $1.67 a bushel-
This was in February, 1969.
__including an estimated final payment of 19 cents a bushel
compared with production cost of $1.63 a bushel.
He said the cash cost of producing wheat is $7.50 per acre with $2.80 per acre depreciation of equipment and $4.70 per acre labour return.
Added to these costs is the investment cost of $6.40 per acre which made $21.50 per acre for production. The investment cost
is a book entry which shows what the farmer could make if he invested money at 6 per cent interest instead of putting it into the production of wheat.
With an average of 60 per cent of cultivated acreage seeded, production cost of wheat is $35.63 per acre which, with a yield of 22 bushels per acre, worked out to $1.63 or just 4 cents less than current prices-
However, when evaluating current value of grain, it isn't even worth that much because of the market situation which results in some wheat not being sold for several years.
I relate those remarks by Mr. Hickie to the legislation now before us, because in the past Prairie farmers have always been self-reliant but now they are in a position where even those with the most efficient means of production have to admit they are not completely self-reliant and must depend on prairie grain advance payments. When farmers have to repay these advances they get themselves deeper into trouble because their costs are constantly rising and they cannot themselves keep up with the ever-rising cost of living.
Last November, in one of the areas that I visited I spoke to a hardware merchant who told me that it was the worst month in the history of his business. Despite all the big talk by Members of Parliament from central Canada about how much was being given in assistance to the agricultural economy, this merchant told me that November was his worst month ever. At that point, Mr. Speaker, some of the cash advances already had been paid and grain was moving into elevators, but despite that farmers could not pay this merchant for the credit they had obtained from him. That is a typical illustration that the government is really not concerned about the situation which exists in the rural areas of Canada, whether in the east, in central Canada or on the Prairies. The majority of members of this House represent 80 per cent of the large, urban centres in our country. I plead with them to give ample consideration to the rural areas.
When we look at this legislation, Mr. Speaker, we have to admit that the original act did help farmers in many areas when they needed assistance in times of stress. At the same time, I agree with hon. members who preceded me in this debate and said we must ascertain whether any attempt has been made by the government to keep up with changing marketing conditions which have been met and overcome by other trading countries. I am sure the minister is well aware of the fact that the President of the United States recently said he was going to pour more millions of dollars into that country's agricultural economy to make sure that the farmers, who are the backbone of the nation, realize a fair return on their investment. The time has come for our government to accept the fact that it, too, has an obligation and cannot rely just on bills like this which by their very nature show that the government is trying to evade its responsibility to make this a great trading country.
We must have good grain selling missions abroad. Farmers in the United States are not in need of legislation like this which provides a petty amount in cash advances which in the long run do not do the agricultural industry any good. The United States has always had a large number of concessional sales. I am pleased to note

May 5, 1971

that our government has moved to a better position in this regard and that we have made some concessional sales. But in the interim we have lost a tremendous number of markets, a fact which is well documented by the private planning commission which submitted an excellent report on this matter.
At the same time as the United States was making concessional sales it was developing cash sales. Over the past ten years Canadian agricultural exports to the European Economic Community and to the United Kingdom rose 10 per cent, while U.S. sales rose 37 per cent and were four times the value of ours. This does not speak well of our government's performance in those years. We also know that Canada concentrated on a slower growing product, wheat rather than coarse grains, and on a slower growing market, the United Kingdom rather than the European Economic Community. I suggest that the government has a responsibility to do something in this area.
The reason for the bill now before us is that in the early 1960s more U.S. wheat moved through concessional sales and it is suggested that these sales were used as an unfair bargaining lever to force countries to purchase a higher proportion of commercial wheat from the United States. This had a tremendous impact on world markets and adversely affected the Canadian wheat market. If the government had moved at that time or in the last few years to make more concessional sales before it lost the market, we would not be faced with this bill. At the same time, the United States passed Public Law 480 which depressed wheat exports, especially during the 1955-60 period and perhaps again in the past three years as large Soviet and Chinese purchases tapered off. Public Law 480 was one of the main reasons Canada lost markets when she was urgently in need of them.
I am sure we all hope that we can assist the agricultural economy. We know that farmers in Canada have never received their fair share of the national income. This is not a myth, it is a fact of life and the most recent DBS figures indicate how true it is. We also know that in order to provide assistance to people who have no cash input, we must provide some type of legislation such as the bill before us. This is not the whole answer, however.
As we go through western Canada in particular we find that the elevator men have been made bill collectors, because if the farmer does not pay his municipal taxes the elevator man must not accept his grain; and if he does accept it he must deduct the municipal taxes from the delivery. I hope the minister will comment on this situation. This type of policing regulation should be taken out of the elevator man's hands. We know how difficult it is for the farmers to bring their grain to the elevator and receive only half the amount they should receive because of the amount of their cash advance, and then to repay the loans they had to obtain in order to keep going.
No consideration is given to income and return on investment. I am sure the people in rural Canada are
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
looking to this House of Commons and wondering whether we are obsessed with the situation in large urban centres and have forgotten the problems of rural areas. It is high time we looked after the basic industries, which of course includes the fishing industry. If we did, then this type of legislation would not be necessary.
All this planning which we thought was so necessary could have been brought about not too many years ago. Our brokerage firms are not very concerned with selling Canadian grain. If they have a ship sitting in Australia, they will fill it before bringing it back to Canada to haul grain to an export position. The manner in which brokerage firms handle grain should come under review. This is the type of situation that lends itself to the provisions of Bill C-239. It would not be necessary to debate it today if we were really concerned about the over-all cash input of our prairie economy.
When we look at this bill, Mr. Speaker, we must ask why the farmer is not getting his fair share and has to be assisted. When we consider, for instance, the cost of farm machinery, we realize that the government has not taken any steps to institute an investigation under the Combines Investigations Act into this question even though Dr. Barber suggested that this should be done. People are having to use their cash advances to pay exorbitant prices for machinery. When the agricultural producer next marks his ballot he will remember this situation and how little this government has done to bring about the type of programs needed to ensure a return on his investment.
I am sure many other members wish to speak on this bill. As we look at the entire agricultural area we wonder whether bills of this nature are introduced only to get votes. In an address to 250 people, the Premier of Saskatchewan said that he did not want to tip his hand on when an election would be held in Saskatchewan, but that "it would be very nice to have those cheques in the hands of farmers before an election." I suggest the politicians are playing with the lives of the rural dwellers of Canada when they make this type of statement. It makes me think there is collusion between federal and provincial parties to ensure more votes at election time.
We all know that one of the greatest needs is to obtain a viable, economic farm unit. To obtain this the farmer must receive a reasonable price for his produce. While we will no doubt support Bill C-239 in order that it can go to committee-probably with many amendments to be made there-it is not the answer. It cannot be the answer to say, "We will give you more money today" and then vote it back, saying, "You are not getting a fair return on your investment". A short while ago I illustrated that in 1969 the breaking point was 4 cents per bushel of grain.
How can rural Canada remain in existence with the legislation before us? At one time it was said there are various ways of being a successful farmer, and I suppose it is the same thing when we look at cash advances. Many farmers will not take cash advances because they know the implications. It used to be said that all a farmer required was a strong back and a weak mind, but nowadays we know that a farmer must have a good head and

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
a wide education in order to understand the advice offered by city men and to select only that which will do the least damage.
In considering the legislation before us I sincerely say it is high time that practical and realistic people involved in the agricultural economy were brought into the picture. In his deliberations and consultations with various groups throughout the country I hope the minister will use their practical knowledge. Though we may pass Bill C-239, I would suggest that the regulations are most important. Unless practical people are consulted, all the legislation in the world will not help and we will go merrily on our way taking a hard approach to the rural agricultural producer.
It is high time everybody appreciated that the agricultural producer is the backbone of the nation. It is high time those who draw up legislation looked at the situation to see what return the agricultural producer is getting. The people who draw up the regulaiions should go into the rural areas of Canada before they attempt even to draft a bill of this kind. These remarks apply also to other bills that we deal with in this House, but particularly to the people concerned with Bill C-239. It is high time those people obtained the necessary knowledge in the field; they should not rely on university degrees only.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. I think almost all hon. members of the House, certainly those concerned about agriculture, agree in principle with these amendments. Cash advances on stored grain have assisted farmers over the years and have allowed farmers to obtain interest-free money on grain on hand. That money has tided them over until sales have been possible.
I believe some areas of the bill could be changed to the advantage of all. Certainly changes should be made to the bill to make it more workable from the standpoint of the farming community. Clause 6 of the bill, on page 4, is one area that gives me concern. It speaks of interest rates that may be charged back to the beginning of the loan if the loan was made in cash instead of taking the usual form of an advance against grain deliveries. If I am wrong in my interpretation, I hope the minister will correct me.
I wonder if the following situation would not be possible under this clause. Let us suppose a farmer took a cash advance against his grain and then decided, because of market conditions, to buy cattle or other livestock. Let us say that he fed the livestock with grain and did not sell his in the usual manner through the elevator system. If he fed this grain to his livestock and then repaid the advance in cash, would he not be penalized and possibly have to pay interest from the beginning of the loan? Would he be penalized because he fed the grain to his livestock instead of selling it through the elevator system? If he had not gone into the livestock business he would have sold the grain through the elevator system.
I do not think that there should be any discrimination in this area. I think a permit holder or bona fide farmer who has taken a cash advance should have the opportunity of repaying the loan in any way he may wish. After all, that would help the diversification of agriculture and bring about the flexibility that we need: it would be brought about if farmers had the privilege of paying these loans back in whatever way they wished.
Turning to clause 7 of the bill, I wish to say a word about the flexibility that is to be allowed to the Governor in Council with regard to the amount that may be paid against a bushel of grain. I am referring to loan repayment rates. I suggest that it should be a fixed rate. I do not think it is good to have a flexible rate, because the farmer must be able to plan ahead like any other businessman.
The farmer plans his credit as he plans anything else, and when he makes plans for the purchase of fertilizer, equipment and that sort of thing he must know how much of his income will come out of the grain that he delivers. If that item is too flexible and if the Governor in Council can vary the amount of the return, I think the effects will be undesirable. They might be disastrous for an operator who had made a long-term commitment and then found that his repayment terms had been altered. I suggest that this area of the bill ought to be looked at before the bill reaches its final form.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) referred to the regulations that are enacted with bills of this kind. In that regard, this bill is no different from any similar bill. Often the regulations and the bill are interpreted differently than was intended, possibly, by those who drafted the legislation. I think the regulations ought to be placed before the House together with the bill in its final form so that we may be aware of what we are dealing with. Too many times have regulations thwarted the real intent of a bill.
I suggest that the regulations ought not to be interpreted by people who lack the required background and an awareness of the situation which exists. Too often these people are more concerned about whether a bill is workable and about its drafting from a legal standpoint, than about its effect on the producer and the credit arrangements of the farmer. Before this bill reaches its final stage we ought to know what will be the regulations under it. There are certain hazy and hairy areas in this bill that might easily lend themselves to misinterpretation. The regulations could be interpreted in a manner detrimental to the farming community.
The whole business of cash advances has always met with ready acceptance in this House and across the country. I think we have come to realize that increasing and improving farm credit facilities, whether by way of cash advances, improved farm credit arrangements or farm improvement loans, have benefited the agricultural community. It all boils down to the fact that we must be more aware of the importance of agriculture on the national scene.

May 5, 1971

Improved credit facilities are not enough when we consider the real necessity, which is a higher price for the product. I attended meetings this past weekend in my constituency. When talking to farmers, machinery dealers and a cross-section of people from rural areas it was never so evident to me that time is running out for these people. They have extended their credit as far as they can. Their resources are stretched tight. They have borrowed as much money as possible from the banks. This is very evident from their arrears with the Farm Credit Corporation, which are well over the 20 per cent mark. Everywhere credit facilities are stretched to the wire.
Further cash advances and credit extensions will not be of value much longer. We are coming to the end of the rope and approaching the day of reckoning in the farm community. It is folly to say that any measures before the House will alleviate this situation. The government, through the FCC, banks, farm agencies and other organizations will not help the owners of a great many farm enterprises in the near future. There has not been any legislation before the House this session to alleviate the situation. We have been debating this bill for only one day, but we spent more than a year on the farm products marketing bill. There is not anything in that bill which spells out that producers will receive even one cent more for their products. If we look at the bill we can only assume that the administrative costs of the bureaucracy may be an additional charge on this product. The charge will probably be on the producer rather than the consumer.
I urge the minister to look at this situation where credit has run out across the country. Many people have gone broke already. I can stand here and say these things. Maybe it will sound like politics, maybe it will not. However, if we talk to the people in the farm communities they will tell us that they can only go for another six months, the banks are closing down on them and they are in arrears with the FCC. When we hear this, we know that we are coming to the end of the road as far as agriculture is concerned.
During the past weekend the National Farmers Union staged demonstrations in Edmonton, Regina and, I think, Winnipeg. A few years ago I did not go along with demonstrations. I do not really believe in government by demonstration, but when I look at the demonstrations staged today I think the situation is entirely different. The government has not shown any awareness of the problem. It has not responded to mere words and warnings. It has continued its course of grindmg-out legislation but this has not improved the farm picture. I say to the minister that one day the farmers of this nation will rise in anger and fall upon him. Unless he does more than he has in the past, he will deserve anything that happens. We cannot be responsible for their actions because their farms, businesses, life savings and dreams are disappearing. We in this Parliament merely talk about it and extend them a little more credit when they have already gone over the wire in that area. It is just like applying a band-aid to an amputated leg.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Some figures were quoted in this debate yesterday which indicated the amount of money funnelled into agriculture by governments of various countries. It was pointed out that Canada is spending approximately $350 on each person employed in agriculture. I gather that the figures quoted were for the year 1968. At the same time, the small country of Switzerland was spending approximately $1,502 on each person employed in agriculture. A little country like Switzerland funnels over $1,500 per person into agriculture, while Canada is only funnelling about $350. Compare the performance of these two nations over the years. Switzerland has continued right in the middle of a hornet's nest. Governments have fallen, governments have gone bankrupt, there have been wars and strife and yet Switzerland has remained stable. These figures indicate that the Swiss have read their history books and realize the importance of agriculture to a nation that hopes to survive.
It may be said that the main business in Switzerland is banking and that agriculture is not very important when looked at from an objective point of view from our distance from them. However, they feel it is important enough to funnel almost five times as much per person into agriculture every year as we in Canada-and Switzerland is not a forming nation; that is not their main business. If one looks at the relative importance of the gross national product of agriculture in Canada compared with that of Switzerland, he can see what I mean. It can be seen that they have read their history books well. They realize that any country or civilization must have a healthy agricultural economy in order to survive. Countries which have chosen to ignore this fact have disappeared into the dust, and the sands of time have swept over them. If the minister has put any effort into this matter, I feel he must put in three times as much effort. This country will rise or fall on the basis of our agriculture. Our farmers do not have much time left.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) quoted some very interesting figures from the Wheat Board's report. They show the difference between announced and actual sales, and the amount of sales that are uncommitted in contracts which we have with other countries. I was shocked when I heard these figures. The minister has made announcements in the House about the great grain sales that have been made to the Arab Republic and to Russia, yet according to the hon. member for Vegreville only a small percentage of the grain has been delivered. What these sales really amounted to was an open-ended contract with these countries. If these countries could buy their grain cheaper elsewhere, they shopped around and did so, whereas we were tied to the arrangement we had made.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Cliff Downey: I would be very pleased to receive one.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he would care to read the pages of the Wheat Board report referred to by his colleague. Perhaps he will

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act understand them in a way that his colleague did not, since in many cases the dates clearly show that the grain was to be delivered at a later period in the crop year. The hon. member then might realize that in almost every case the grain has been delivered under those contracts, some of which have been completed. But in almost every case the grain is going out, with the one exception where much longer time has been taken, the one referred to by the hon. member, the contract with the U.S.S.R.


Cliff Downey: Fortunately, I did look at the figures in the report, and when you speak of the time limit-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that he should direct his remarks to the minister through the Chair.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, since the minister asked me a question, might I be allowed to comment on it? I think it is more likely that you have not studied the figures very closely, Mr. Minister. The time limit for deliveries of grain to the bulk of the countries listed in the report has expired. I think only two had extensions of time, one until 1973, and I forget the other extension. But do not lead the House astray by saying that the delivery periods in the Wheat Board report did not expire in the case of the bulk of the countries named.
I was speaking about the difficult situation we are facing with our grain sales and relating this to cash advances. No matter what party a member belongs to, we all know that he does his work to best advantage. Nevertheless, at times we were disappointed by some of the provisions of the marketing board bill and various other pieces of farming legislation which we attributed to the various ministers who brought the bills forward. However, in a speech in June, 1968, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) set out all these programs even before he had appointed ministers to the various portfolios.
With all due respect to the Prime Minister, coming from an area like Westmount we cannot expect him to have an agricultural point of view and to formulate practical policies for grain marketing, and that sort of thing, in the same way as somebody like yourself, Mr. Minister, or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I feel sorry that you gentlemen are forced into the position where you have to try and perpetuate unrealistic policies put forward by the Prime Minister before you had anything to do with your present portfolios.
Another undesirable feature of our grain sales is the reduction of terminal storage. Over the long run I do not think this will prove to be a healthy situation. The Prime Minister is an intelligent man. However, knowing that his policies are not working-though I do not know that he cares about that-and bearing in mind some of the places he visits on his trips, I can only assume he is going to Russia within the next week or two to get some more ideas on how to rim this country. Certainly if any member of the House spent as much time in iron curtain countries as he does, there would be quite a large dossier on him in Ottawa.
I contend that if the credit difficulties on farms to which I have referred are ignored, then the government
will end up owning the farms of this country by default. The government itself will be in the farming business. The measures brought before the House are designed to give the government control, control and more control. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brings in legislation that is anything like the proposals contained in his white paper, then the government will control other segments of industry.
There was an interesting article in yesterday's Edmonton Journal regarding an announcement made by the Prime Minister in Vancouver. The article is headed "PM suggests city for youth in the north" and reads as follows:
Prime Minister Trudeau suggested Monday that 10,000 Canadian youths could begin a new city in Canada's northlands.
In a television interview the Prime Minister said building such a city would test the values of Canadian youth. He also suggested the government would be willing to help.
"You've got some engineers, you've got some doctors, you've got some groovy people-people who want to live in communes- go and stake out a new city up there."
Mr. Trudeau said that building roads in Newfoundland or paving the Alaska Highway would not satisfy Canadian youth today because they want to find different types of projects. He said he is sure the government will help set up such structures if there is a real desire for it.
Mr. Trudeau was in Vancouver for the beginning of a royal tour marking the British Columbia centennial.
Although the Prime Minister is talking of starting a beautiful city in the north for youth, he does not say how that city is to be supported. I do not know whether he plans to support such a city with welfare, or whether he plans to send all the farmers who are going broke to the north to populate this new city.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not one; we need five.


Cliff Downey: Yes, at least that many. Most urban dwellers would go along with the idea of putting more money into the agricultural industry if they realized the consequences of its failure in terms of social costs, the decrease in the cost of living and the associated problems. It is far more important that we maintain the price of farm produce, giving these people some real income rather than loans or cash advances. This must be the cheapest and most logical form of assistance we can provide in order to continue our success as a nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), although I was under the impression he had spoken. If that is not the case, he now has the floor.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I do not intent to take up too much time but there are one or two points in the bill that I think are worthy of note. I think it is good that it makes provision for cash advances under circumstances of crop failure because of an early snowfall. This provision regularizes something which has been done on two or three occasions when such action was necessary to handle the marketing of tough or damp grain. I hope this measure will correct some of the errors

May 5, 1971

which were encountered as a result of the last amendments made.
While payments under this bill will be severe as far as farmers are concerned, hopefully the farmer will not find himself in a position of obtaining cash advances and not being able to deliver grain until a succeeding crop year, hence not being able to make repayment. Farmers often find themselves in the very difficult position of having received advance payments on a year's crop, then not being able to make deliveries and ending up with an extremely limited income. Whether or not the provisions of this bill will avoid that difficulty, only time will tell. I suppose this will depend to a large extent on the volume of grain sold.
When looking at the present level of wheat quotas I am concerned whether we will attain the projected eight-bushel quota at the end of this crop year. If we do, it will only be on a lower acreage basis than that which existed a year ago. I have not looked up the figure, but I suspect it will not be more than two-thirds of what it was before the Lift program came into effect, with the consequential slowdown on wheat acreage.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This will involve 50 per cent.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As I say, this depends on the ability of farmers to deliver. The deliveries in April have been much higher than they were last year. This will take care of some of the outstanding advances. The sooner those advances are paid up or dealt with in some manner, the better off farmers will be. I agree with the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). If you get out into the country and talk to farmers, credit unions and bankers you will find that things are in tough shape. This situation will continue until the question of cash advances have been cleaned up and there is sufficient cash to take care of immediate needs.
I am somewhat concerned about clause 6 of this bill. It proposes that if a producer pays in cash instead of paying through the delivery of grain, interest will be charged. As I remember, the minister said there might be producers who would borrow money through cash advances with no intention of paying it back in grain. They might market their grain in some other way or perhaps use it as feed. This was the argument advanced by the minister in respect of this clause. I do not think this is a good idea. If a farmer obtains a cash advance and finds another way of selling his grain instead of putting it through the elevator system, why not encourage him to do so?
A farmer might decide to buy feeder cattle. That farmer might be able to obtain up to $6,000 in cash advances. This would not go very far toward the purchase of the feeder cattle, but if a farmer can accomplish this and pay back the $3,000, $4,000 or $6,000, why should we worry about it? I do not really see the point. There may be some justification for worry or concern about an individual who is able to borrow this amount of money and invests it in a trust company. There are some people who do this, but anyone who is in a position to follow this procedure is indeed in the minority.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
I believe this measure will be discriminatory as between a farmer who chooses to market his grain and the farmer who decides to use it to feed cattle. Another farmer may very well decide to obtain a cash advance and sell his grain to a feed company. Such a farmer would no doubt be selling grain to the company at a discounted price. Very few farmers manage to sell grain to a feed company or mill at a price equal to the price they might eventually realize. The farmers who do so are prepared to accept a discounted price in order to move the grain. Grain sold in this way does not go through the system. For these reasons I do not think the provision under clause 6 in respect of the amount of money it would bring into the coffers of the treasury would be worth the trouble of including it in the legislation. This, of course, is a matter of opinion and it is my opinion for what it is worth. We have many opinions in this House, but at least this is how I see it. I suppose when we get to the committee we will be out of order in moving such an amendment because it will have to do with the provision of government funds. But if I were able to move an amendment I would move that this provision be deleted.
I hope in the future the government will treat this cash advance legislation and such a proposal exactly as it is. It should not be treated as a substitute for sales of grain but merely as a convenience or device to allow some flexibility in the flow of grain to market, thereby relieving the pressure on the farmer who for a temporary period is unable to get his grain to market and realize money on it. That was the original objective of this program when it was proposed, incidentally, by the Farmers Union, accepted by the Conservative government and put into effect. This was the original objective of the proposal and this is what should be expected of it. It should not be expected that this proposal is a substitute for doing a good and effective job of marketing grain and getting it into the hands of those who can sell it and return the cash to the farmer.
It might help to slow down to some extent the depopulation of our rural areas which is taking place. I spoke to a dealer in a small town the other day and he informed me that in his area 21 farmers had closed out this year. This is not a large area. It is not as large as Biggar or Humboldt in the minister's constituency. It is a relatively small town with a more or less normal trading area. I know there are those in government-in fact, policy papers have been produced on this subject by the government-who believe we should drastically reduce the number of farmers. In fact, the methods have been set out. If I might quote from one of their papers, they say the problem becomes one of increasing the rate of adjustment and of finding ways and means of facilitating adjustment both within agriculture and between agriculture and the rest of the economy. On another page they say these policies depend for their operational efficiency on the effectiveness of the first set of programs, those designed to increase the mobility of the resources and grease the wheels of the adjustment process. What they

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
really mean is to grease the skids of the adjustment process.
Let me take this opportunity to say to the government that it is much easier to get people out of agriculture than it is to get them back in it. The trend in practically all industrialized societies such as our own is for the population to move from rural areas to the cities. It is very rare-at least, I do not know of any such example- that there is a trend to move from the city back into farming. People go from the city to the country in order to indulge in a hobby, or something like that, but not for the purpose of operating a farm. So I take this opportunity to say that the government should get a few practical people to sit among their advisers before they go completely overboard on this course which they obviously have set for themselves.
It is much easier to destroy the structure of a rural society than it is at some later point in time to rebuild it into a structure which the planners think is desirable. It is much more difficult, for example, to plan a totally rural society than it is to plan an urban society, because in one case we are dealing with the forces of nature which are not under our control. In the city we have much greater control over the forces of nature and therefore much more control over any plan thought to be desirable. This is not always, in fact very rarely, true of the farming community. So, Mr. Speaker, having said this I shall close by urging the minister to give consideration to reviewing the position taken with regard to interest being paid on cash advances in the circumstances described in Clause 6.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in general I must support Bill C-239 as being necessary at the present time for our agricultural community in the west, although I deplore it in the sense that it is too bad we have to have it. This means that the products of the farm do not move fast enough and in large enough volume to provide the income necessary to maintain a viable farm economy without the assistance of legislation such as this. This type of legislation has been around for some time. I have been a member only since 1968 and therefore am not too familiar with the previous regulations. However, the advent of the new quota system or new regulations has no doubt meant that there must be considerable change in this piece of legislation. In general I would have to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the grain farmers of western Canada are entering the most regulated period they have ever experienced or since the advent of farming in western Canada. The other day I spoke to a farmer 77 years of age who is still active. He has been farming since the First World War. He told me he had never seen such a regulated period when there was so much uncertainty concerning what a farmer should do and what he should sow in the coming year.
Although the aim of the regulations is to assist farmers, presumably, in planning logically, I should like to inform the minister that my experience is that this spring the farmers are more at sea than ever before. When I ask them what they are going to plant this year,
how they feel the regulations will affect them and how the quotas will affect them, the answer I receive is, "I don't know". Then I ask what they are going to plant and they say they intend to plant a little of everything no matter whether they should or not, because they will have it on hand and hope they can sell it in order to get by and remain alive on the farm.
The advent of these regulations is very important. Just the other day the minister brought forward an amendment to the Wheat Board Act which will give the board jurisdiction over the sale of flaxseed, rye and rapeseed. Rapeseed in particular has been a very important commodity in the last few years and certainly in my area it has spelled the difference between an almost disastrous year and one which has been reasonable for many farmers.
The unfortunate announcement of the minister was made apparently without discussion with the rapeseed producers, the provincial Rapeseed Association of Canada and the crushers in western Canada. This would allow the government to take over rapeseed and put it under the Wheat Board. I believe the minister has stated publicly that the government does not intend at this time to bring rapeseed under the Wheat Board. Regardless of this, everyone knows-even those members of the public who are unfamiliar with the government

that this legislation enables the government to put rapeseed under the Wheat Board without referring the matter to Parliament, and indicates the government's intention.
What has been the effect of this announcement on the industry? So far, the cancellation of open contracts has been considerable. On May 3, 101 contracts were cancelled, representing 5,000 bushels, and on April 30 there were 418 fewer contracts. This means that there has been a sharp drop in open contracts for rapeseed on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, with a consequent drop in sales and pricing.
Notwithstanding the fact that the minister gave the assurance that there was no intention at this time to bring oilseed under the Wheat Board, his announcement has had a bad effect at a time when we are most anxious that rapeseed production be expanded. I think everyone is hopeful that it will be expanded but we must remember that the market in rapeseed is very competitive. We are competing against soybeans and safflower oil throughout the world.
I hope the minister can give a firm assurance to the trade and to our exporters that the placing of rapeseed under the Wheat Board will not be detrimental to our trade and will not impede in any way either the selling or the buying of rapeseed on world markets. Some people believe that the Japanese exporters and crushers have been in favour of having rapeseed under the Wheat Board. Others have stated that it is not so. It would be most interesting to know just what the facts are.
There is another item in the bill which I think is important, that is, the provision regarding the phasing out of the levy for PFAA. I am sure that over the years

May 5, 1971

the Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been a very useful piece of legislation. It has been almost social legislation in that it has helped small producers and small farmers to keep going for another year. I know of a considerable number of small farmers who have benefited from PFAA. I do not know what program, if any, the government intends to put forward in place of PFAA but I would like to remind the minister that the grain stabilization program does not in any way assist small producers who experience a crop failure. This program has not always been favoured by the large and efficient producers but it has assisted small farm units to stay viable and it has kept families on the farm for another year.
Now I would like to make a few comments on the bill itself. I should like to say a few words on the setting of interest rates. The bill mentions that the prescribed interest rate is to be set by the cabinet. I hope that the interest rate on advance payments will not be any greater than the interest rate on farm improvement loans. I am afraid that the interest rate on cash advances may be increased to such an extent that it would become a hardship to the individual producer taking out an advance payment, particularly at a time when he may be in difficulty.
There are plenty of precedents for the setting of a maximum interest rate and I am sure it could be worked out satisfactorily. My suggestion is that the interest rate on cash payments should be no higher than at present, and lower if possible, because we are dealing with an individual who is taking a cash advance at a time when he is in financial difficulty.
Turning now to the matter of repayment, it seems to me that an attempt is made to close a gap that should not be closed. I am referring to a farmer repaying a cash advance which was taken out on another product, for instance cash from the sale of cattle, or hogs or of other products, the interest on which he would have to pay from the day he took out the cash advance. I think this provision indicates that the government is overzealous. I think that the producer who thought he would not be able to deliver his grain and turned his attention to a feeding program should receive the benefit of the doubt.
I would point out to the minister that a producer could well get around this provision by horse-trading with a neighbour and suggesting to him that in order to avoid paying the interest he would borrow barley. They would then split the interest, and although each of them would be out by a small amount the government would not recover anything. I think this provision lends itself to manipulation and it does not make for good business. We have to assume that those who take cash advances do so in good faith and will be reasonably honest in fulfilling their commitments.
I also think that the interest rate should not be charged from the day the cash advance is made, but from the day the farmer is declared in default. It is only fair that this should be so. It seems unfortunate that when a farmer is in default, interest must be paid from the day when the cash advance was made. Most people who are in default are in this situation not through any fault of their own
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act but because they guessed wrongly and are genuinely poor business people. They are not in default because of some illegal transaction. Therefore, I strongly urge the minister that the legislation be reconsidered so that interest is charged when an individual is declared in default.
The formula on which advance payments will be estimated seems to be quite complicated and presents some difficulties. I will be glad to hear what the minister has to say about this in committee. So far as the Wheat Board is concerned, presumably by August 1 they will have to estimate how many bushels of grain they expect to sell. Then they will have to estimate the number of acres that will be designated by the producers and, finally, according to my interpretation of the legislation, they will have to estimate the grade which will contain the largest number of bushels and which they will be able to sell. But turning to the individual producer, Mr. Speaker, presumably by August 1 he will be able to apply for a cash advance based on his own designated acres. However, it would appear that during the ensuing fall, as I understand the quota system, the suggestion is that a farmer will be able to redesignate his acres, partly on the basis of what he has grown that year, how his crop has turned out, and presumably also on what basis he hopes the particular grain will move.
I can see some difficulties for a producer in not being able to supply the grain required that he has designated, if for instance he took a cash advance on his permit book as designated on August 1 and yet in October he had a chance to redesignate his acres. As a result, it might be hard for him to deliver the grain. Individual producers may find themselves in an unenviable, almost impossible situation in having their advances repaid by the end of the current crop year.
Like other hon. members who have had experience with the Lift program, I would not say that operation Lift as conceived, particularly so far as the regulations were concerned, was an unqualified success. I think history will show it was of less value than other programs which might have been introduced. All hon. members have had cases brought to their attention where the regulations seemed to work a hardship even upon the farmer who had studied the matter carefully, planned his acres in 1970 in order to get the benefit of the program and yet found himself unable to realize the benefit because of the regulations.
I urge the minister to supply each individual taking a cash advance with a booklet or folder, written in layman's language, giving an explanation of the regulations and the law. I do not think it is enough that the elevator agent be the one who is in charge of the regulations on a local level, or the agricultural representatives, because even they became confused about the meaning of some of the Lift regulations. This at least would give the farmer something to hang his hat on. It would give the individual farmer a chance to make sure that he would not be caught-out contravening the regulations.

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
In my area some farmers were left out of the Lift program and suffered loss of income even thought they applied to the so-called experts. Due to the late spring and fall in 1969, wheat acreage in Manitoba dropped considerably. In other words, Manitoba farmers did in 1969 what farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta did in 1970; they reduced their wheat acreage. In recognition of the 1969 drop in wheat acreage and of the unfairness in taking only 1969 as the yardstick, the department, the minister and the Wheat Board agreed to allow 1968 to be used. In brief, the agricultural representatives, or ag reps as they are known everywhere in western Canada, and other people in the Manitoba Department of Agriculture met with the officials who were administering the Lift regulations and most of them were under the impression, particularly one in my area, that if 1968 wheat acres were to be used then the 1969 summerfallow and forage acres had to be used.
This went on all through the summer of 1970 and farmers who were working under the Lift program and hoping to benefit relied on this. However, a problem arose and was referred to the department for a ruling and a ruling was made in November or December, 1970, that if 1968 wheat acres were to be used then the 1968 acres of summerfallow and forage also had to be used. Farmers who were under the impression that the 1969 summerfallow and forage acres had to be used had planned their 1970 crops and plantings on that basis, but now sadly found they were out of luck. A good many of them were out as much as $300 or $400. Many of them were farmers who could have planted rapeseed and done much better by doing so. I suspect there are still some farmers who are unaware that they were eligible to use their 1968 summerfallow and forage acres and as a result have not applied.
I am sure that the Lift officials, who have been most helpful in making sure that those who qualified have received the utmost attention, are aware of this situation, but I deplore the fact that the ruling was not made until November. It should have been made before March or April of 1970. For this reason, again I urge the minister to supply people taking cash advances with an explanatory folder or other document to prevent unnecessary mistakes being made and consequently unnecessary suffering for individuals. I hope answers will be given to some of these questions in the committee. I also think that improvements can be made to the bill.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length on this bill. I can well imagine the thoughts that are going through your mind as well as the thoughts of hon. members whose constituencies are not greatly concerned with agriculture. It may seem strange to a number of hon. members who represent urban ridings that we on this side of the House seem to be opposing most of the agricultural legislation that the government is putting before parliament.
Hon. members have heard my colleagues say today that there are many good features in Bill C-239 regarding
cash advances for farmers. It is right that they should say that, because in the first place this legislation was put on the books by a Conservative government at a time when the Liberals said it could not be done. It was done and it did work. But I am at variance to a slight degree with some of my colleagues because, if I understood the minister correctly, this bill does impose another restriction on the farmer.
In the first place, the government has control of what the grain farmer sells, and later I will have something to say about the cattle industry and this government's legislation in that regard. As most people here and anybody who reads the newspapers know, the grain farmers have had many problems. Coming from the area he does, the minister is in an ideal position to realize that and he must know that the problems are the result of the agricultural legislation introduced by the present government. When I read this bill it seems to me that the minister is handing out a few kudos but is changing the agreement with the farmers in regard to cash advances which were satisfactory to the farmers, to make them demand notes.
As any businessman knows, one of the prime requisites of establishing a business is operating capital. Without this he would be bankrupt. It may well be that this government is endeavouring to bankrupt people engaged in agriculture. Their whole agricultural policy is based on the idea that agriculture in Canada must be reduced. The reason I say this is because with state control, which I think all this legislation is directed toward, production can be controlled to the markets you want. However, I do not think this is what our western farmers want.
The explanatory note of this bill reads:
This amendment is consequential on the proposed change in the rate of interest payable on an advance payment in certain circumstances from a fixed rate of 6 per cent to a top rate prescribed for the crop year in which the advance payment was made.
Is this prescribed rate a bank rate, an international, stabilized rate or is it a rate set by some bureaucrat in Ottawa? There are many clauses in the bill which relate to interest. The minister has said, and I assume this to be the case, the main part of the bill is an adjustment of interest and method of payment. It must be remembered that it is through no fault of their own that farmers cannot pay the interest and principal. They have the grain stacked up to the eaves, but because this government is negligent in getting rid of that grain the farmers are without a cash return. I blame the government because, unlike other countries, they have control of the marketing of grain and have accepted that responsibility. We know that markets exist and wonder why they are not selling the grain. Surely the government's policy should be oriented toward marketing and production, not reduction.
The minister has tried to tell us that there are no markets for our grain. In a moment I shall ask him whether this government has turned down any sales this

May 5, 1971

year. We understand that if the transportation system were reorganized there would be markets at the points of delivery. When the strike came there was no grain in position and sales had to be turned down. The farmers are trapped by the inaction of this government and now it is trying to penalize them by increasing the interest on the money they owe and by trying to make a demand note out of an existing agreement. This agreement is to be cancelled because the government has the power to do it. That is what they have always wanted-power.
Just yesterday the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked where this whole thing had started. It started in 1963 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a speech to the Liberal party down east and said they wanted power. The people of Canada gave them that power. I hope the people engaged in agriculture understand the result of it, and I am sure they are sorry. If the coupons I receive daily are any indication, I am sure former supporters of the government have changed their views. I doubt if any Liberal, including the minister, could be elected dog-catcher in western Canada right now. I know what has happened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) in his riding in southeastern Alberta because I receive many letters from his constituents asking me to oppose the legislation that he is trying to put through the House.
My whole argument, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is doing its utmost to destroy the agricultural industry, and I ask why this is so. I am informed that their premise is based on the analysis that of the 430,000 farmers in Canada, some 200,000 are redundant. Farm organizations and farm economists are coming to the conclusion that the policy of the government-I have already said that their policy is one of reduction-is not to raise the productivity of these 200,000 farmers but to get them out of agriculture.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if you have heard all the arguments and will listen to other arguments as these agricultural bills come before the House you will understand that is the reason the government is implementing these measures at the present time. I do not really blame this minister for what he is doing to agriculture, any more than I blame the Minister of Agriculture for what he has done, because I believe both are just puppets. They are not even good front-men. The whole thing goes back to the philosophy of the Prime Minister. I will say this about the Prime Minister; I do not think he has told an untruth but it has taken some of us a long time to catch on to what he meant. At a meeting in Toronto he was trying to explain the white paper on tax reform and said:
We will not be bullied or blackmailed by hysterical charges and threats. Such tactics will not distract us from the fundamental objective of our reform. In many ways our white papers introduce a new concept of government for Canada.
He has diligently followed that course ever since. What is that new concept of government for Canada? Surely the people are entitled to know, rather than to be hoodwinked by this piecemeal legislation, this destructive legislation that the minister is trying to introduce in regard to agriculture. Do not forget that one of the
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act quickest ways to put people out of the agricultural business is to take from them any operating capital they might have. I suggest that this bill is designed to take away from them any operating capital that they have.
This bill says that interest will be charged on loans right from the beginning, from the time the loan is taken out. The previous legislation said that farmers would be given a certain period in which no interest would be charged. That has been changed. As one of my colleagues in the House has said, the government is trying to legislate people off the farms. It is doing a good job in getting them out of agriculture. That is what is happening and that is the purpose of this government. As the Prime Minister said, we need a new concept of government for Canada. What is that new concept? I have a good idea: I suggest that it involves government control, state control, social control or whatever you want to call it. In short, it is government control.
The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) said, without touching on this subject in quite the same way as I have, that the government is forcing farmers out of business. I wish I had been sitting close to the hon. member when he spoke, because I would have suggested to him that that is the purpose of this government. They are pursuing their purpose. They are trying to force
200,000	farmers off the land and making a good job of it. The minister tried to correct the hon. member for Battle River and suggested that he did not understand the situation. I say to the minister that we do not understand his philosophy or that of the government. When he goes back to his constituency on the Prairies he will have difficulty in making the people he represents understand his philosophy. I dare say that many things have changed since he first came to this House.
May I now talk about the income of farmers. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics shows that at least 85 per cent of a farmer's income goes toward operating costs on the farm. If this legislation is passed, a farmer's operating costs will rise by another couple of percentage points and he will be left with between 12 or 13 per cent of gross income for operating his farm. Farmers today will tell you that it cannot be done. Their gross income is not large enough, and the reason is government inactivity or activity in the wrong direction. I suggest that the government should be bending their efforts toward marketing and production.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) McIntosh: Is it not strange that within the last few years Canada, with its great prairies and great potential, with its eastern regions and its north, and so on, has become an importer of agricultural products if one excludes grain. We have imported more than we have exported. The net income of the livestock industry has been over $1 billion, yet the last figures I have of imports and exports suggest that Canada in 1968 imported over $1 billion worth of agricultural products. To me that is ridiculous. It is ridiculous that a country like Canada,

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act with only 22 million people and the potential of producing all the agricultural produce we want, should import agricultural produce.
I say again that the task of this government ought to be the search for markets. The markets are there, if we want them. If our transportation and handling systems are inadequate, then for gosh sakes let us change them. I am sure that the people of Canada will not mind any money we vote to rectify that situation.
We have made suggestions from time to time which the government has ignored. We have suggested the building of all-weather terminals in positions which will enable ships to come to them in winter and summer and take away our produce. The government has ignored these ideas. We ought to build terminals in Europe and elsewhere near our markets so that we have ready access to any customer. Also, no customer ought to be too small. The minister ought to learn from some of the business people operating in that part of the country he represents. Let him look at the subsidiary of a large company, the Canadian subsidiary of Imperial Oil. That company handles millions and millions of dollars' worth of products. The people on the Prairies know that Imperial Oil is concerned about small markets as much as big markets. I th'nk all oil companies are. I have mentioned Imperial Oil because I know about it. Practically every oil company on the Prairies will send a service truck to a farm at almost any time to deliver any number of gallons of gas or oil that the farmer wants. The oil companies are hungry for business.
That reminds me of what happened when we had surpluses prior to 1957. The attitude of the then Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Howe, was this: If customers want our produce, let them come and get it. Anybody with any experience in business knows that the customer will not come unless you entice him or invite him to come and see your product. We produce the best agricultural products in the world right here in Canada, and the minister says that we cannot sell them. I would hate to let some American salesmen in here and get hold of our products. They sell an inferior product but they get markets for their grain. American salesmen have gone into the world markets with an inferior product and taken away our customers from under our noses. This is ridiculous.
Perhaps I am finding too much fault with the minister. Presumably he is an intelligent man. He has been a member of this House for some time and dealing with our wheat problems. He knows the problems that are encountered in the selling of wheat. What excuses has he made? At one time he blamed the government's failure on the cold weather which froze the trains and did not permit the grain to be put into the correct positions. The next time he said it was a strike and once more it was impossible to get the grain into position. Similar problems have been encountered by previous governments.
Surely this government can learn its lessons. If we ought to be searching for markets, I wish the minister would say why he is not doing so. Why is he not putting his efforts forward in that direction? Surely there must be some merit in our suggestions. As I said before, if the

minister supports the Prime Minister's policy of reducing the number of farmers, he is going about it in the right way. I do not know what the advantage of that action will be, Mr. Speaker: I fail to understand it.
May I refer for a few moments to the minister's remarks on introducing this bill. He said, as reported at page 5491 of Hansard:
The hill before the House to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is a further step in attempting to rationalize and improve the situation of the grains industry of this country.
I cannot understand how he could make a statement like that. He went on to say:
Over a period of recent months, we did a significant number of things to allow the farmer to put his remarkable efficiency to better use by improving the system which faced him and over which he had no control.
He admitted that farmers have no control over the way grain is handled at present, that it is the responsibility of the government to sell the grain and that it is not living up to that responsibility. He went on to say:
Perhaps the most notable thing done which is related to this bill was the alteration in the quota system announced for next year by the Wheat Board, which was in part also in effect this year.
I remember what he said when introducing the Lift program legislation. What that program was to do for the western farmer! What it was to do with regard to the enormous surpluses we had on hand! I am sure the minister now realizes that that program backfired. Certainly, its purpose was to reduce the production of grain and it reduced that production. But why was that done in an expanding market? Has anybody ever heard such a thing? That is hard to understand. He went on to say:
As a result of that change in the quota system, the ancient special bias toward wheat compared with other grains has been removed in order that the farmers' decisions about which grains to grow might be more directly related to market conditions-
What market conditions was he referring to? The market conditions that he has created within Canada? Or was he talking about worldwide market conditions? If he was talking about worldwide market conditions, I would ask him to take another look at them. Either he is getting wrong advice from his advisers, reading the wrong books or acting in the wrong manner.
I ask the minister who represents western Canada to change his philosophy with regard to marketing grain to one which will be beneficial to those engaged in agriculture. Do not put these people off the farms. They are going to be necessary. One cannot pick up a paper today that does not deplore the fact that there are many starving people in this world. I don't know how we should get the food to where there is a problem, but we have the food and are capable of producing much more. This is one matter in which the minister should be interested.
Contrary to the belief of most people in Canada, there are very few subsidies paid to the agricultural industry in this country. This industry has less protection here than it has in any other country. The European Common
May 5, 1971

Market is having difficulty trying to control production. Possibly the European Market is based on the same idea that the present government has, namely, the control of the industry. I am told it is not what you know about agriculture, but who you know and whether you can get a licence. I hope it does not come to that, but I am afraid it might.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) McIntosh: There will be more said about this matter in a few moments. All the legislation which this government is bringing forth on behalf of the agricultural industry points toward that type of trend-control, control, control. Canadians are asking the purpose of this. Is this participatory democracy? If so, we do not want it.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Weiaskiwin):: We agree with the need for cash advances at this time, Mr. Speaker, and admit that the climate in which producers operate is far from ideal. If this were not so, there would not be any need for cash advances. I remember the good old days when the farmer's produce could be sold. When a producer is forced to accept cash advances because he has no other way of obtaining cash, he is put in a position of being in debt to the government. With these amendments, this will be done at an increased rate of interest. I am sure it is rather frightening to the producers to realize that they are becoming more and more dependent upon the government as well as more in debt. This seems to be in line with the government's take-over policy, its desire to get control of this industry and to take over the land. This is something which must be watched in the future.
When discussing farm legislation in Canada we are always at a disadvantage when we realize one fact. This was ably pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey). The fact is that this government is niggardly in its policy of assisting agriculture in comparison with governments of other countries with which our producers must compete on the world market.
I have some interesting DBS figures respecting the grain growing provinces of Canada. If Your Honour will bear with me, I will quote the figures for the three Prairie provinces. Farm cash receipts from farming operations in Manitoba dropped from $351 million plus in 1969 to $336 million plus in 1970. In Saskatchewan, farm cash receipts dropped from $709,703,000 in 1969 to $690,-
996,000	in 1970. In Alberta, they dropped from $727,471,000 in 1969 to $694,104,000 in 1970. These are the total farm cash receipts for those provinces. They are very significant figures.
I would like to comment on the point made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) concerning the regulations for any government program. I emphasize the fact that the regulations sent out to farmers with regard to the Lift program were not clearly understood. If they were clear, they were not understood. In fact, they were misunderstood to the extent that there was confusion and a resultant loss of income.
In the former legislation, specific advances of $1 a bushel for wheat, 40 cents for oats and 70 cents for
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act barley were allowed. This is no longer the case. This bill contributes to the government's argument for having rye, rapeseed and flaxseed under the Wheat Board. I wish to read the following passage from the May 1 edition of the Free Press Weekly:
Canadian-Wheat Board Minister Otto Lang put his head on the chopping block of prairie farm opinion last week by introducing a Commons amendment that could give the board marketing control of flax, rye and rapeseed.
If it became law, the proposed amendment to the Wheat Board Act would give Ottawa order in council power to lump flax, rye and rapeseed together with the three grains the CWB now controls, namely wheat, barley and oats.
Despite Mr. Lang's statement that no such permissive legislative provision would be implemented without "thorough discussion" between the federal government and those affected by a possible changed status of flax, rye and rapeseed, the prairie grain trade-and especially rapeseed grower groups- made their opposition crystal clear.
It is interesting to note what was said by a former member of this House, the former member for Assiniboia who was a grain farmer and quite knowledgeable on these matters. I quote from page 3403 of Hansard of February 15:
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.
Clause 7 of this bill has removed the statutory amount that the government may advance to farmers for their crops. In his speech yesterday the minister stated that listing the amount available for a cash advance would tend to encourage certain production. By not having anything listed or available, the farmer is left in the dark about what to plant this spring. It has been my experience that if you take the advice of the government through the Department of Agriculture you can be in more trouble than if you had not heard the advice in the first place.
These changes are hard on the small farmer. We might say, "What else is new?" First, there is an increased rate of interest. There is no guidance as to what to grow. As I have said, we might be better off if we did not know. It is also possible that prairie farm assistance will be withdrawn. All of this discourages farmers from becoming flexible and at the same time seems to make the powers of the government more flexible. It all seems to be aimed at the removal, even the eradication, of the small family farm in this country.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, as I view this piece of legislation I consider it to be part of the government's grand design to take absolute control of the agricultural industry. It is merely one part of several legislative items, the most important of which is probably Bill C-176, also before the House at the present time. There is also legislation dealing with the stabilization of incomes in the western agricultural economy, and legislation proposing the expansion of control of the Canadian Wheat Board over rye, rapeseed and flaxseed. As far as I

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
am concerned, none of these proposals will have the
effect of aiding the western agricultural economy.
I was interested in the minister's description of this proposal as one further step in allowing the farmer to put his remarkable efficiency to better use. This appears to me to be another example of the government's perversion of words, probably the best example of which is its use of the word "reform". The classic example of this is the government's white paper containing proposals for tax reform. Most people consider a reform to be a change for the better. In my view there is nothing in the tax proposals-which are really an attempt to gouge more money out of the people-that changes things for the better.
With regard to the present proposal to allow the farmer to increase his efficiency, on a fairly close look at the legislation I can find nothing that allows the farmer to do anything, though I do find that people other than farmers are allowed to do certain things. For example, this legislation allows the government to change the present 6 per cent interest rate to a rate that is euphemistically called the appropriate prescribed rate. The people of Canada have had experience before of Liberal governments which started to fiddle around with interest rates. The Bank Act was amended during the last Parliament so as to permit an increase in interest rates from 6 per cent. A great many of us have had cause to regret this change. I cannot say that I had any responsibility for it because the change was made before I came to this Parliament, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the action taken by the former Parliament has had an adverse effect on my pocketbook.
The argument was used at that time that, although there might be a temporary increase in interest rates, competitive forces would prevail and in the long haul the economy would be better off with the freeing of the interest rate. As we all know, the tight money situation continued to prevail after the interest rate was freed and the interest rate went up. I can only look on this proposal to change the fixed rate to a varying rate as an effort by the government to increase the interest rate on loans made under this legislation, which I do not think is an appropriate thing to do at this time, particularly in this segment of the economy.
The legislation would also allow the government to decide, after an advance has been made, how the money will be repaid from deliveries, that is to say, what proportion of a delivery will have to be taken by the government in repayment of any advance. At least, that is how I interpret the legislation; if I am wrong I am sure the minister will correct me.
The legislation also allows the government to direct the farmer to deliver the kind of grain that it wants delivered. I really cannot see, as I have already said, how this legislation allows the farmer to do anything. It simply allows the government and its bureaucratic servants, who do exactly what they are told by the executive, to direct the farmer in the discharge of his occupation. It allows the government to vary the rate per bushel and the number of bushels per quota acre on which advance
payments may be based. So that we do not know with certainty what will be the effect of this legislation.
This brings me to another point and it is the question of certainty. In his introductory remarks I believe the minister said that this legislation would help the farmer decide what he was going to grow. The bill provides that the decision as to the rate per bushel and the number of bushels per quota acre will be set by the Governor in Council immediately prior to the commencement of the crop year. If that is the case, I think serious consideration should be given to changing the date of the commencement of the crop year since August 1 is surely well into the growing season of any crop that is produced in western Canada.
If these rates are set during the month of July, which would be immediately before the commencement of the crop year, then seeds will long since have been put into the ground and the setting of the rate will be of no assistance whatever to the farmer in determining what he should plant in order to enable him to take advantage of this legislation. This is assuming that the legislation is in fact designed to benefit the farmer, though I doubt that it is. There is no way in which the farmer can intelligently plan a crop on the basis of an announcement that is going to be made in the month of July, a time when seeding has been completed. At the very latest, seeding is completed by the middle of June, though in most cases earlier than that.
The minister says that this legislation is another step in rationalizing and improving the grain industry. In my view it is another example of the government's perversion of words and their proper meaning. Just what has this meant in other cases? In the case of the railroads it has meant a reduction in service, and in many cases no service. In agriculture, this process of rationalization has produced a catastrophic situation that is seriously straining the strong and destroying the weak.
The rationalization program relating to agriculture also envisages a reduction in the number of elevator delivery points to which farmers can take their grain. This rationalization program has in fact resulted in a swelling of the welfare rolls in our cities and the ranks of the unemployed in general.
What about some of the steps the minister seems to be so proud of, many of which form the basis of this legislation? Quite frankly, I have not yet met one farmer in my riding who has anything good to say about this government's approach to the agricultural economy. In an effort to find out the true facts of this matter I sent out a questionnaire to every farm home in my constituency. On the basis of a 25 per cent return it disclosed the following points. The first question I asked was, "Do you feel the federal government's attitude towards rural Canada is satisfactory?" In answer to that question 6 per cent said they were satisfied and 86 per cent said they were not satisfied. During the last election the Liberal candidate in my riding received about 30 per cent of the votes. It is gratifying to see that this support has been reduced.

May 5, 1971

Dealing directly with what this government has done and is proposing to do, I asked a question regarding approval of the block system of handling grain. As a result I found that 61 per cent of the residents indicated they thought this was an improvement over the old system and only 19 per cent were of another opinion, leaving 20 per cent undecided.
The program which is causing most disappointment in my riding at the present time is Lift. The question asked was, "In your opinion was Lift a successful program?" Some 25 per cent answered yes, 67 per cent answered no and 8 per cent were undecided. The government has also taken steps in respect of what it refers to as the reform of the quota system. The question asked was, "Do you approve of the new quota system?" The response was more evenly divided in that 39 per cent said yes, 47 per cent said no and 14 per cent were undecided.
The matter of rye, flax and rapeseed is very important in relation to the legislation before us, in that it proposes to bring these grains under the provisions of this measure. The question asked was, "Do you feel rye, flax and rapeseed should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board?" In response to this question 32 per cent said yes, 57 per cent said no and 11 per cent of the respondents were undecided.
The government has also indicated it is going to make changes in handling charges for grain with a view to increasing these charges. In response to a question, 84 per cent were opposed to this step, 9 per cent approved and 7 per cent were undecided. The stabilization program envisages the termination of payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. In response to a question in this regard, 30 per cent approved, 47 per cent disapproved and 23 per cent were undecided.
The major legislative proposal of the government is to be found in Bill C-176. This questionnaire was conducted during the month of March and I believe the figures would be somewhat different at this time. In any event, I give the government the benefit of the doubt because I am sure its position has not been improved as a result of this legislation. The next question asked was, "Are you in favour of national marketing boards administered by the government controlling production and sales?" In response, 11 per cent said yes, 84 per cent said no and 5 per cent were undecided.
Another interesting fact disclosed by this questionnaire was the attitude these people have in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board. No one used to be critical of this board. In fact, it was something of a sacred cow in western Canada. Anyone who had the temerity to criticize it was running quite a risk because it was a popular measure at one time. As a result of the administration of this government, I find that the feeling in my constituency has changed. The question asked was, "Do you feel the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a satisfactory job?" The response was 37 per cent in favour, 55 per cent opposed and 8 per cent undecided. That is a very sad commentary on the administration of this government; 55 per cent of the farmers in my riding are not satisfied with the job they are doing.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
This legislation creates uncertainty. Farmers will not be aware at seeding time of possible advance payments or what grains should be grown to satisfy repayment of advances obtained. This measure does not assist farmers very much. According to the minister's remarks it is designed to discourage wheat production. I do not know how the minister can reconcile this with the government's own assessment of the situation regarding wheat. In "Mini Outlook March '71", a publication of the Department of Agriculture, economics branch, we find this statement at page 26;
For the first six months of the 1970-71 crop year (ending January 27), Canadian exports were 192 million bushels compared with 120 for the similar period in 1969-70. Sales opportunities have improved this crop year. In addition, Canadian wheat is competing strongly on world markets and the government's expanded credit program has been facilitating sales to developing countries. Quantities needed for seed are likely to increase by 10 million bushels.
On page 27 of the same publication we find that there is a continuation of Canada's more competitive policy. It is very gratifying to find an admission in a government publication that we now have a more competitive policy. This would indicate that last year, the year before that or even the year before that we did not have a very competitive policy. We never could get the government to admit it was sitting on its butt at that time. The facts, however, certainly indicated that is what happened. In any event, it is nice to see it is admitted that we now have a more competitive policy. This document states, further:
With the continuation of Canada's more competitive policy, exports in 1971-72 even without the special circumstances this year, should be 350 to 400 million bushels. Total wheat disposal could, therefore, average 550 million bushels a year in 1971-72 and 1972-73. There is a good chance of high yields in 1971 because of the substantial acreage of summerfallow in 1970. Thus, 20 million acres are likely to provide adequate supplies of wheat with possibly a small reduction in stocks. An acreage exceeding 20 million could result in an undesirable increase in carry-over and also a smaller quota per acre. Unless new circumstances arise, the 1972 acreage should remain the same.
I suggest the indications are that we should be doing substantially better in respect of selling our wheat. The government probably is proving by this proposal that it is still a little behind the times concerning what will be the true situation in respect of wheat, and we could find ourselves in the same position with regard to that commodity as we did with barley. As a result of the government's action last year, we are short of barley this year and are unable to meet possible sales which would do a great deal to improve the western economy. The same authority has this to say about rapeseed, at page 34:
Rapeseed production in Canada, by November estimates, amounted to 71.3 million bushels, more than double the 1969 production of 33.4 million. At February 10, exports for the crop year were 19 million bushels compared with less than half that amount during the previous year. With Japan lifting its quota in April 1971, the prediction of last November of 35-40 million bushels seems quite a reasonable one. Prices of Canadian rape-seed have been higher than expected in late 1970 and early 1971. Vancouver cash prices in late February 1971 were about $2.95 per bushel for No. 1 rapeseed.

May 5, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) referred to rapeseed as the Cinderella crop of the western agricultural economy. Surely the foregoing quotation confirms his description. As we all know, this success has been achieved without recourse to any of the so-called steps the government has taken to improve the farmer's efficiency. I would urge the minister to reconsider this attack. I consider this legislation to be part of a concerted attack on the most healthy sector of our grain industry. We have never had to worry about quotas on rapeseed until this year, when somehow or other the farmers are having difficulty in the handling of rapeseed.
It has always been understood that because rapeseed did not come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, it was not subject to quotas and could be sold on the open market. We find that a futures market was maintained on the west coast until interrupted recently, probably largely at the instance of this government. In any event, I know several farmers in my constituency who have done quite well on rapeseed. They have entered into contracts, for example, with western Canadian seed processors at Lethbridge.
The regulations issued by the Canadian Wheat Board, so far as these farmers are concerned, did not appear to hamper practically unlimited sales to these oilseed companies. In one case I am thinking about, the farmer delivered 12 bushels per acre of his rapeseed crop to the Lethbridge receiving plant. He hauled it there with his own vehicle and therefore did not interrupt the railway situation or deprive other farmers of the ability to deliver their wheat by tying up boxcars. The quota book was left at the elevator. It appeared that he was able to deliver 12 bushels to the elevator when the quota conditions permitted such delivery. So he took that step. Much to his surprise, however, and to the surprise of the elevator agent, after he finished delivering the 12 bushels to the elevator the Wheat Board representative came around and picked up his quota book at the elevator and
he was without it for about three weeks. He had no prior notice that he had done anything wrong.
Since that time I have been in contact with the Canadian Wheat Board to determine under what authority they took such a step. To add insult to injury, this farmer was visited by a corporal of the RCMP and asked to make a statement. After he had had conversation with the RCMP corporal, the corporal said that he could not see how he had done anything wrong and that he did not know why he had been instructed to come to see him. In any event, I asked the Canadian Wheat Board under what authority they took this step and I have been awaiting an answer for over a month.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-18, an Act to implement a Supplementary Income Tax Convention between Canada and Finland, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

In following this debate, as a farmer myself I was greatly encouraged to see, either due to the eloquence of hon. members or due to the subject under discussion being agriculture, that the galleries had attracted, at least for 15 minutes, a very large number of distinguished ladies who seemed to be very much interested. I am very thankful for this diversion.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME V