1971-09-21

PRIVILEGE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given notice. My question of privilege arises out of news reports last night and this morning that representatives of the three prairie governments will seek a meeting with the federal government in respect of Bill C-244. In view of this, surely it is unfair to the House to ask members to proceed with Bill C-244 until after such meetings have been held. I therefore address my question of privilege to the government House leader in the hope that he will schedule some other legislation for today.


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that questions of privilege are normally addressed to the House generally and to the Chair. This one comes before us in a novel way. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that this is not a question of privilege in the traditional terms; it is rather a submission which he is making at this time to the government by way of a question of privilege. I do not think I should rule further on the matter.



WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-SUGGESTED CONSIDERATION OF MOTION TO ESTABLISH IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask Your Honour to consider arguments as to why there should be put before the House a motion for the establishment of an impeachment committee. This motion is couched generally in the terms of motion No. 48 which appeared on the order paper for Monday, September 20. There are some changes in it so I shall read it as it is only a few lines. My right or the right of any member to put such a motion forms the subject of my point of order. The proposed motion reads as follows: That a special committee of five members having the power of a standing committee under Standing Order 65(8) be appointed to examine and inquire into the continuing refusal by government ministers to bring about the payment as required under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, Chapter 2, 1956 Statutes of Canada, of such sums as are lawfully payable to the Canadian Wheat Board for the benefit of certain Canadian wheat farmers and to draft and recommend the form of articles of impeachment for this misdemeanour.
When I first filed my private members' motion I asked, in the form of a letter to the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen), whether the government, because of the importance of this issue related as it was to the business of the House, would see fit to accelerate the bringing forward of that motion under terms of an agreement which would limit the time for debate but would provide for the question to be put at the end. The House leader refused that request, as of course is his privilege, and this with other reasons accounts for my bringing forward the proposed motion now.
The question then is for me to place before the Chair sufficient facts and precedents to warrant the request I have made that the motion in the terms indicated above be put to the House after receiving due debate. The facts, of course, will be limited to those which I think should be made known to the Chair and will be submitted not to argue the merits of the motion in terms of trying to persuade hon. members to accept it-I hope that will come later-but merely to convince the Chair that this is a motion of substance which needs to be put and, of course, that the precedents and practices of the House warrant the Chair in entertaining the motion and, by putting it, placing it in the custody of the House. What in fact is in issue is the right of myself or of any other member to bring forward a substantive motion of this kind and have it put to the House. The gist of the facts is not really in issue, but I think the Chair is entitled to have at least some knowledge of the facts so it may be understood that there is in fact a prima facie case, in the same way that a person who has been charged must first go through a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to warrant him being committed for trial.
Most of the facts have been well ventilated. There is an act called the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which places a mandatory burden upon the government and, in particular, upon the Minister of Finance to make certain payments to the Wheat Board, which in turn are used to defray expenses of the board and thus indirectly benefit the farmers who have their net receipts from the Wheat Board as a result of the sale of wheat increased to that extent. The government has admitted, by returns filed in the House which are a matter of record, that moneys are owing for one crop year and for part of another. The act provides that the moneys are to be paid on a monthly basis. Various members of the government have repeated unequivocally that they do not intend to make these payments. I would add in this regard that if the action of the Minister of Finance, who under the act is charged with responsibility, is, as I assume it to be, the collective action of the government and the cabinet, then they are all tainted with the same misdemeanour and this would be in

September 21, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
effect a collective agreement to break the law, a form of conspiracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: The core of the defence is that the government has indicated that there is other legislation which will have the effect of repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and, this being the case, they have merely ignored the requests which have been made that the funds should be distributed. In short, Mr. Speaker, has democracy come to this, that the government need only signify its intent to legislate for that intent to be accepted as holy writ? I suggest that intent is part of the issue to be considered here. For that reason I find that the offence of the government has been aggravated by facts which have just been brought to my attention recently.
I have before me the final volume of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, it being the volume which contains the indices and which I only read two or three days ago. It has been in our possession for only a few days. The Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, were brought into effect pursuant to a statute of this Parliament in 1965 which placed upon the Minister of Justice, under sections 2 and 4, the responsibility for examining the Revised Statutes of 1952 and placing in the form of the Revised Statutes of 1970 those statutes of 1952 which have not been either repealed or consolidated. I find, on looking at page 57 of this last volume, that chapter 2 of the Statutes of Canada, 1956, which is the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, has set against it in the appropriate column the letters "Om.". On examining the page containing the glossary of terms, the letters "Om." are stated to, mean, "omitted and repealed by revision". This statute, in spite of what the government says, is still alive and well. It has not been repealed. Yet the Minister of Justice and his colleagues and those who were on the committee charged with the responsibility of preparing the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, have taken it upon themselves to repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act while it is still in existence and part of the law of this land.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: I think that shows intent better than anything else that could be said. In this issue intent must be part of the facts which I must establish in order to make a prima facie case.


Mr. Stanfield:: Impeachment is too good for them.


Gerald William Baldwin: The government has seen fit to bring the agricultural stabilization bill back before the House today, unless they yield to the request made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar a short time ago. I suggest to the House and to Your Honour in particular that, taking into account the facts and the decision you have to make, it does not constitute any real change in the situation to bring back Bill C-244 for discussion. I think this action is merely a tacit admission of guilt on the part of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the profession to which I and other members have the honour to
belong, Your Honour will know and admit that the law speaks ever, speaks continuously. From the minute of the day when a statute comes into effect the law speaks every month, every day, every hour and every minute. Even as I pause for a few seconds, the government has breached the law of this land because it has failed to carry out the terms of a statute of this country.
The purpose of an impeachment in the modern sense, as I will endeavour to convince Your Honour, is not to punish as in the older types of impeachment cases. It is a means of declaring that certain people holding high offices are not fit to hold those offices. Even if Bill C-244 is brought back for debate there will be every reason to debate the number of amendments which are before the House at reasonable length. But even if that bill should pass, with or without amendments, that still will not purge the contempt that the government has shown because for a period of much more than a year it has failed to obey a law which is in existence. If the bill is passed there will be a detriment to the farmers because they will not receive the benefits under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which they would have received. Its passage also cannot alter the fact that for a significant period of time members of this government, as I hope to suggest to Your Honour, have been in contempt by their failure to observe the law of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Passage of Bill C-244 will not constitute a retroactive pardon. I might point out in passing the famous case of impeachment of the Earl of March who, a great many years ago, was impeached, found guilty and beheaded. The next year Parliament found it had made a mistake, repealed its act of impeachment and pardoned the Earl of March. Unfortunately this did not place his head back on his shoulders. Passage of Bill C-244 will not constitute a retroactive pardon for these improper actions on the part of the government.
There are a number of volumes dealing with the question of impeachment. The book by Mr. Alex Simpson deals fully with impeachments in the United Kingdom and the United States. It cites a number of instances where impeachment proceedings were taken. To show the resemblance to the present situation, I will cite cases where impeachments were in fact taken and brought into the House of Commons and House of Lords. Lord Treasurer Middlesex was impeached on a number of articles, one of them being that he refused to pay the merchants importing sugar the impost paid on importation, contrary to direction given by His Majesty's letters patent. In other words, refusal to pay moneys lawfully appropriated for a specific purpose constituted a valid ground for impeachment. In the case of Lord Melville, which I will deal with later, it was a valid reason for impeachment that money was paid for certain public services before the act authorizing the payments had in fact been passed.
There are other interesting cases. The only other one to which I will refer is the case of a man called Benyon. This may be of interest to people who are connected with, but not in, the House. It is a valid reason for impeachment to falsely and maliciously give out and utter divers, bold, arrogant, false and scandalous statements in derogation and in contempt of the privileges of Parliament.

September 21, 1971


Mr. Hees:: That's our boys.


Gerald William Baldwin: The power of this House to proceed by way of impeachment is embodied in the British North America Act, in statutes of this Parliament and in the Standing Orders of the House. The preamble to the British North America Act provided that Canada shall have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Section 18, as amended by the Imperial Act of 1875, provided that the privileges, immunities and powers of the Senate and House of Commons are as defined by act of the Parliament of Canada but are not to exceed those of the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Section 4(a) of the Senate and House of Commons Act, pursuant to that constitutional provision, states that the privileges, immunities and powers of the Senate and House of Commons are those of the United Kingdom Commons of 1867. Standing Order 1 of this House states that, in all unprovided cases, the usages and customs of the United Kingdom House of Commons apply as applicable.
I have here a very ancient volume, The Rules of the House of Commons as of 1912. The first Standing Order, which is worded somewhat differently, says:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the rules, usages and forms of proceeding of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in force on the first day of July, 1867, shall be followed.
I believe I am correct in saying that this House and this Parliament have done nothing to remove from the members of the House the right to proceed by way of impeachment. It is a right which did exist, which has not been taken away and one which, modified by the circumstances and conditions of today, is a right and a privilege of this House to be exercised when circumstances warrant. The concept behind this power is the right of Parliament to control and punish the use, misuse and abuse of power by persons to whom Parliament has entrusted political or administrative authority. The procedural remedy used to enforce this control is the power to impeach.
Over the centuries the power of impeachment has been refined by statute and in some cases rendered dormant by the provision of alternative remedies. Dormant it may be, but it has not been extinguished. I have here the most recent parliamentary dictionary, Abraham and Hawtley. It contains a definition of impeachment on page 113. I shall not take time to read it. I simply say it is placed before people involved and interested in parliamentary matters, and nowhere does it suggest that this particular right has been extinguished. In fact, illustrations are given of cases in 1816 and 1848 where motions were moved revolving around a question of impeachment.
I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that as recently as 1959, according to a volume of the memoirs of Harold Macmillan-I think it is in the third volume-a debate took place in the House of Commons in 1959 relating to a request by motion that the House approve the Anglo-Egyptian financial settlement following the Suez Canal crisis and the Leader of the Opposition, Hugh Gait-skell-I think this appears on page 641-made a very interesting speech. It was a good debate and at the close
Withholding of Grain Payments
of the proceedings the Leader of the Opposition called for the impeachment of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Gerald William Baldwin: I mention this to Your Honour so you will realize that even within so short a period as 12 years ago consideration was given by the United Kingdom House to impeachment as a valid means of punishing those who occupy high places.
In the United Kingdom there have been certain alternatives to the use of impeachment. By their Standing Order 9, which is the equivalent of our Standing Order 26, after debate upon an urgent and pressing matter the Commons could find that there was a prima facie case against a high official of abuse of his power and a select committee would be appointed to inquire into the matter. Because this proved susceptible to political expediency, the United Kingdom passed the Tribunal of Inquiry Act of 1921 which provides that where there is a matter of urgent and pressing importance there can be a resolution of both Houses for the appointment of a committee. We have no equivalent procedure. In any event, it was not a procedure to extinguish the remedy of impeachment but was an alternative or additional power which could be exercised.
In Canada this House has never had that alternative. Standing Order 26 operates in a vacuum. There is debate on the motion to adjourn to discuss an urgent and pressing matter, but there is no provision, under the interpretation that has been given by our Speakers, to conclude with a motion to appoint a select committee to investigate, make findings and recommendations. I think there is no question that that is what is accepted. Under these conditions, I submit to Your Honour that the onus is upon those who would argue the contrary to convince Your Honour and the House that there is not still present in the House, as there ought to be, the right to make a motion to impeach. To those who suggest otherwise, who suggest that the right is no longer valid, I point out that all of the rules, cases and statutes to which I have referred suggest that this is a right imported into Canada and into this House of Commons, and until extinguished by specific act it is a right which in extraordinary cases should and can be exercised.
Why is it that this right has not been used in recent years either here or in the United Kingdom? I think the answer is very simple.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have never had a government like this before.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, as my leader says, we have never had a government like this before, and that is part of the argument I propose to develop.
After the reform act of the United Kingdom and following upon responsible government in this country, for a number of years we had a situation where certain wholesome restraints were capable of being exercised against the executive. I shall have a later opportunity if and when Your Honour grants the motion to argue that this government is the worst offender, but there has been a tremendous and fantastic growth on the part of the executive, perhaps required by the conditions of the society in which we live. Nevertheless, I would suggest to Your Honour

September 21, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
that this growth, coupled with our decreasing power and opportunities for exercising that restraint which this House possesses, should make us alert and vigilant to find ingenious ways of controlling a capricious executive. I therefore suggest I am entitled to make this motion and to urge upon Your Honour that this argument regarding the use of the remedy of impeachment is one that should be considered.
I have almost completed what I want to say, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to put my final argument on as high a plane as I can. It is this. I would commence by citing a remark made by Lord Brougham referred to in the book I mentioned on federal impeachments by Alex Simpson. Lord Brougham made this appropriate comment, that the right of impeachment was so large and so capacious that he could place no bounds on it either in space or time. He went on:
The House of Commons might impeach for whatever was indictable but they might also impeach in cases where no indictment could be found ... In short, this maxim has been laid down as irrefragable and whatever mischief is done, and no remedy could otherwise be obtained, it is competent for Parliament to impeach.
This is supported in a Canadian publication by Alpheus Todd. In his book, "Practices and Privileges" of the House of Commons, this is stated at the beginning of chapter 18:
The High Court of Parliament is the supreme court of the Kingdom, not only for making, but also for the execution of the laws by the trial of great offenders ... by a method of parliamentary impeachment. This custom of impeachment, says Blackstone, has a peculiar propriety in our constitution. It may happen that a subject entrusted with the administration of public affairs may infringe the rights of the people and be guilty of such crimes as the ordinary magistrates either dare not or cannot punish.
On the next page it is stated:
It is absolutely necessary for the preservation of our liberties and the safety of our constitution that the Commons should possess this extraordinary power of bringing great offenders to justice.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can forget that over the course of the last 15 or 20 years, particularly in the last eight or nine years in Canada, there has been this fantastic increase in the powers of the executive, with the result that in the parliamentary structure, through changes in rules and practices, it has become increasingly difficult to deal with an arbitrary and arrogant executive.
If there is any doubt about the right of the executive to be bound by the law, I would refer Your Honour to a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia by Mr. Justice Norris, dealing with the case of Mr. Gaglardi, a minister of the Crown in that province. He said:
It is the duty of members of the executive to obey the law, not to disregard it, and they must ascertain the law in order to obey it. The matters of the practice and policy of the government or any department thereof cannot override the duty of obedience to the law, nor will it avail a minister of the Crown to say that he acted on legal advice when it turns out to be wrong.
This judgment is not necessarily binding on Parliament but I adopt and concur in those words, and I say they are the words which Your Honour should have in mind. I suggest that these conclusions follow: This House possesses and enjoys the power to impeach high officials of government in respect of their conduct in office; the House as a whole has no alternative procedural remedy to

the power of impeachment although the government possesses the preliminary aspects of a substitute power in its control of the Inquiries Act; the House, possessing this right and having no alternative remedy, cannot be deprived of the exercise of this right and it is for the House to determine the incidental procedures and orders necessary to its exercise.
Finally, I suggest that it is the crowning glory of the parliamentary system that it has this flexibility, that wherever there is a wrong there must be a remedy, and wherever there is a difficulty there must be some means found by this Parliament to deal with it. I suggest it is a duty falling upon every member of this House and upon the Chair, who is the guardian of the privileges, duties and obligations of the House, to be ingenious to assure our supremacy, and that the writ of this highest court of the land must be made at all times to run above even the views of the Prime Minister or cabinet ministers.
The Prime Minister has said, as have others, that we are entering an era of contest, a contest between the rule of order and reason and the rule of violence in the streets. If those who are sitting in authority above us refuse to obey the rule of order, what hope is there for us to win this battle?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the long statement made by the hon. member on the other side of the House on what he described as the process of impeachment in the Canadian House of Commons. In spite of the long statement and the call to you and to the House to respond, the hon. member has not made clear yet what that process is, what an article of impeachment is and, if an article of impeachment is framed-whatever that is-what you do with it, and if you get it and it is carried what happens to the person who is impeached.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not really know from what the hon. gentleman said whether an impeachment is a benefit or an injury to an individual. It is just a word that has obviously appealed to the imagination of the hon. member who ingeniously decided to throw some dust in our eyes at the very time when the House is being asked to pass the agricultural stabilization bill which will provide for the payments complained about by my hon. friend and will in fact provide those payments plus more.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are still wrong.


An hon. Member:: You missed the main point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where is your argument and your credibility?


An hon. Member:: What credibility?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am getting much more reaction from the House than did my hon. friend.


An hon. Member:: You deserve it.
September 21, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: I said something worth listening to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not know whether that is a good reason for impeaching the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), but in any event, having stated that the hon. member did not really make clear what he means or what he is asking us to do, what the process of impeachment is or when it was used last, let me say that I read the hon. gentleman's private notice of motion and made some very preliminary inquiries about the process of impeachment in Canada. Certainly I could find no instance in modern times in this House when any person was impeached, and the most recent case I could find in the United Kingdom was in 1805.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I discovered it was a process, developed before responsible government, which has long since been abandoned and has not been used in any modern Parliament. As a matter of fact, the only modern case of impeachment I could find took place in the Chateau Laurier when Mr. Dalton Camp impeached the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am not sure that the hon. member for Peace River is suggesting that as a precedent for use in the House of Commons. I do not seriously regard impeachment as a process that is applicable to our proceedings. If the opposition wishes to complain about the government or wishes to accuse the government, it has two procedures open to it. The first is a motion of censure, as was recently outlined by Your Honour, which can be moved as a substantive motion complaining against an action or lack of action on the part of the government. In due course, probably later this week on Thursday, we will be setting down an allotted day in order that the opposition can bring a motion to accuse the government of action or inaction, or to discipline it for the policy it is following. That is a well known procedure and seems to be the kind of procedure that ought to be followed if the hon. member wants to develop a grievance against the government. The other procedure is to accuse an individual member of the House of wrongdoing. Probably, although the hon. member did not say so, he had in mind that by indirection he would ask the House to agree with him that wrongdoing had been undertaken by a minister or by a group of ministers.
In the Oxford Dictionary definition of impeachment there are these words: "To accuse a person of treason or other high crime before a competent tribunal." If the purpose of the article of impeachment or the process of impeachment is to accuse a minister of wrongdoing, of misconduct or of being a criminal or a lawbreaker, there is another course open to the hon. member. Your Honour has often told the House how that process can be developed and its consequences. You will recall the classic ruling made by Mr. Speaker Michener. When he laid down, it seemed to me to be the procedure which must be followed forever and a day in this House of Commons if
Withholding of Grain Payments
any hon. member is to accuse another hon. member or group of hon. members of misconduct.
What greater misconduct is there than treason or high treason as envisaged in the process of impeachment? What greater misconduct can be alleged against a minister than that he is willingly and deliberately breaking a law of the land which he is sworn to uphold? If that is the charge, then the hon. member should put it down in the explicit form of a motion setting forth a bill of particulars. When he has done that, if Mr. Speaker regards it as a prima facie case of privilege it goes to the committee, and if the committee upholds the motion then action will be taken against those convicted or found guilty of wrongdoing. If not, the irresponsible person who has made the accusation is then expected to take the serious consequences.
I would say that if the hon. gentleman wants to accuse the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board or some other minister of wrongdoing or misconduct he must do it directly and must put it directly in a motion and the House will deal with it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister accept a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But here he has taken a very roundabout way. He has introduced a procedure which is not known in this House. As I say, there is no way we can deal with a request to impeach an hon. member or accept a motion on the grounds of privilege to send a matter to a committee asking the committee to prepare articles of impeachment. What are the articles of impeachment? For what crime or for what misconduct? Surely, Mr. Speaker, if an hon. member is to be impeached, whatever that means, he ought to know what the charge is and it should be clearly stated in the motion made by a member of the House. Having said that, I do not think the hon. member for Peace River is really serious. He is just having a little byplay before he is confronted with the difficult political question of dealing with the agricultural stabilization bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? The minister apparently is willing to answer a question. Does he not realize I have charged the members of the government with a misdemeanour in their failure to obey the law?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, we are not now debating the motion placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), nor are we debating the substance of the misdemeanour which is referred to in this motion. As I understand it, the hon. member for Peace River has risen on a point of order asking that Your Honour direct that there be an early debate on the motion that is on the order paper in his name. I rise to support his contention that there should be such an early debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, I do not think it should have to stay on the order paper until

September 21, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
it is reached, which will not occur in this session of Parliament. Rather, I think it should be set down some day for a debate under motions or at some point which is mutually acceptable. One of the reasons I feel we should have this debate is that it is the kind of motion which leads to a vote. The time has come when the House of Commons should be able to take a decision on the matter of whether or not the government has committed a misdemeanour in failing to carry out the provisions of the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before I get into that I should like to say just a word which I am prompted to say because the President of the Privy Council also looked at the Oxford dictionary. The word "impeach" is not a light word. It means "to call in question, disparage, accuse of, find fault with, accuse of treason or other high crime before a competent tribunal." The word "impeachment" is defined as "calling in question, accusation and prosecution for treason."
I submit that when a motion is placed on the order paper by a responsible member of the House, using the word "impeachment" in relation to the activities of certain members of the cabinet, it should not just lie there. In fact it seems to me the ministers of the cabinet themselves should be insisting on finding an opportunity to have this matter discussed and clarified in one way or another. The motion is that serious and its implications are that extreme. I think that common sense and the ordinary rules which ought to apply to debate should permit an early discussion of this motion.
However, my main reason for contending that we should have a thorough debate of this matter arises from the basic nature of our parliamentary set-up. I refer to the responsibility of the government to Parliament. All the authorities speak of that not just in terms of responsibility to Parliament but, more specifically, responsibility to the House of Commons.
There are a number of citations in Beauchesne. I will not take the time to read them but just refer to them in passing. Citations 2, 67 and 76 point out that the superior power in the state is the House of Commons, that the government's responsibility is to the House of Commons, and that it is the House of Commons that should make the final decisions. One of those citations points out the strange situation that we are in now, that so long as the government can command the support of a majority of the House of Commons it can do anything and get away with it. We had a little bit of discussion on that the other night. But at least, Mr. Speaker, there ought to be an opportunity for the House to have this kind of discussion and to make the decision.
It is not good enough for the government to say that it was elected by the people and that the people will decide at the next election whether it should stay there. That approach strikes at the whole concept of responsible government, strikes at the whole concept of the importance of Parliament, of the importance of the House of Commons.
This issue has been around now for a long time. After all, it is 13 or 14 months since the government quit making

the payments required under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act; in other words, it is clearly admitted that for 13 or 14 months the government has been breaking the law. In view of the fact that this is the situation, and in view of the fact that members of the House of Commons are complaining about it, I submit there should be an opportunity to have this kind of debate.
Your Honour might say that we had a debate last Thursday night for six and a half hours on a motion to adjourn under Standing Order 26. That is true. It was a pretty good debate. We did not get much of an answer from the minister, but in any case it was a pretty good debate. But how did it end? It ended with the House adjourning and no decision being taken.
We have had many questions put during the question period. We have had attempts at motions under Standing Order 43. I myself tried a question of privilege on September 13 and offered a motion that would seek to refer the whole matter to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Your Honour did not find that my case that day qualified under the definition of parliamentary privilege. But in the meantime more days have gone by and the issue becomes more serious and more intense. With respect to the whole concept of the superiority of the House of Commons over the government, I believe this House of Commons should have the chance to say where it stands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) provides that kind of vehicle. I think that if I had been drafting it I might have drafted it differently. But let me say for it that although it carries serious implications, although it says so clearly that even the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) should understand that the law has been broken, nevertheless it does not try to settle the issue finally. The motion merely asks the House of Commons to recognize that the issue is serious enough that a special committee ought to be set up to study it. Therefore I think that the basic argument to be used, in trying to persuade Your Honour to grant such a motion, is that it is a motion of a privileged character.
The whole right of the House of Commons to be superior to the government, the whole right of the House of Commons to be the body to which the government must be responsible is challenged by the actions the government is now taking. And I submit that we should have the chance to make a decision on that point.
The government may tell us that it has a majority in the House, and of course its majority will line up with it and it will be sustained. Well, that is for the members of the government party to answer for when they go to the people. But in the meantime let us keep alive the principle of responsible government, which means the responsibility of the government to Parliament, and particularly to the House of Commons.
The President of the Privy Council says that the hon. member for Peace River is just trying to get in a little dig or two before we debate Bill C-244 this afternoon, if indeed we do get to that bill. I submit, Sir, that even if Bill C-244 were passed this afternoon, even if we cleared all 16
September 21, 1971

of those report stage amendments, and third reading, and got it over to the Senate, and had Royal Assent tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not going to happen, but the applause from the other side of the House shows how members on the government side think more of what they want to get than they do of the means to achieve it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They completely forget the role of parliament in legislating.


Mr. Trudeau:: But it was your suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was about to say that even if that were to happen and that bill were passed tonight, which will not happen, and even if the cheques started going out in the next day or two, this would not cure the fact that the government has been breaking the law for the past 13 or 14 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government thinks that the farmers might be happy to get their money. I am told they would not be happy to get it with the strings that are in Bill C-244. However we will deal with that when we get to debate that bill. But the point is that even if they get the money and in that sense the issue might seem to die down, this will not have got rid of the issue that for 14 months, more or less, we have had a government of this country refusing to obey a statute of this Parliament, namely, chapter 2 of the Statutes of 1956.
We have had a government defying the law and not even feeling that it has to stand up in this House and give us a reason on the basis of which it has the right to do that. Oh yes, they give us an excuse. They tell us that Bill C-244 is on the order paper, that it has advanced through certain stages, and that there is in that bill a clause which, if enacted, would repeal the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act as of July 31, 1970. But that bill has not passed and to this moment the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956 is still in effect. I would like to emphasize that point, Mr. Speaker, even if in this portion of my remarks I take exception to one statement made by the hon. member for Peace River.
The hon. member for Peace River read from a volume that goes with the Revised Statutes of Canada, that is entitled "Appendices", and things like that. He referred to a table in that volume, that is put there to enable readers to find out what has happened to all the various statutes. It is a very interesting and useful table; one can discover what has happened to statutes right back to the year one. But I point out to him that that table from which he was quoting does not have any official status. It is in the nature of an index that tells you where to find things. The official entry so far as this matter is concerned is Schedule A which appears at the end of the First Supplement to the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.
This Schedule A is the schedule that is referred to in the statute of six or seven years ago that set up the commission to revise the statutes. In that statute there was a
Withholding of Grain Payments
section which gives the commissioners the power to append to this new roll a Schedule A listing acts that have been repealed in whole or in part and, unless a former act is listed in Schedule A as having been repealed in whole or in part, it still exists. If one goes through Schedule A and turns in particular to page 19 of that schedule, or page 1135 of the volume, one will find listed the Statutes of 1956 that were repealed by the revision. Chapter 2 is not there; it is not in that list. So Chapter 2 of the Statutes of 1956 is still in existence. As a matter of fact, the government does not deny that. In answer to written questions and in one or two other places the government has said that the reason it is not making the payments is that it has a new bill on the order paper. The government does not contend that the statute is not there, that it does not exist.
There was one answer to a question on the order paper which I thought was a bit misleading. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board said that an estimate was included in the estimates for 1971-72 to pay this money but authorization has not been effected because of the bill on the order paper. The reason I say that answer was misleading is that the reference in the blue book of estimates to that money had beside it the note "statutory". If one looks at the bill that was based on those estimates, the appropriation bill that was passed, that item is not there at all. Parliament did not in this fiscal year appropriate any money to make payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act because it was not required to do so. To suggest that the money was voted to be paid this year and the government has not paid the money is misleading because it is the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of 1956, ongoing and continuing, that requires the government to take this action.
I have gone into this not just to educate my good friend from Peace River about the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, but to emphasize the fact that chapter 2 of the Statutes of 1956 is the law of this land today just as much as any law on the statute books of Canada or any law on the statute books of any of the provinces of Canada. This country lives by the rule of law. We expect people high and low to obey the laws that are passed by the bodies that are given the authority to pass them. For this group across the way who call themselves a government to arrogate to themselves the right to ignore the law is, I submit, an affront to Parliament and a denial of the whole concept of responsible government, and we should have the right, Your Honour, to deal with that matter in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In closing I repeat what I said earlier. The fact that we are going to debate Bill C-244 this afternoon has no bearing on the case. Even if we pass it-and I can inform my hon. friends opposite this is highly unlikely today or tomorrow-even if that happens it does not cure the fact that, in the words of the hon. member for Peace River, there has been a misdemeanour. Of course they can say that they are in power and cannot be stopped. That is responsible government, as some governments practice it. For example, this is what turns up in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, chapter 1, citation 67(4). Let me read this:
8022

September 21, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
With the support of a majority of members it would be possible for a cabinet to suspend the sitting of Parliament, have the minority members arrested, withdraw the safeguards of liberty such as habeas corpus-


Mr. Jamieson:: Aha!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends behind me are objecting, Mr. Speaker. They think I am putting ideas in the heads opposite but they are already there.


Gerald William Baldwin: They will say it is apprehended
insurrection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and freedom of speech, and to establish virtually a dictatorship. All this, too, could be done within the law. It is surprising how few members of the general public appreciate how uncontrolled the cabinet is where it has the support of a loyal majority in Parliament and that "the supremacy of Parliament" in this sense is absolute and subject to no real safeguards of any kind.
I am not yet persuaded that this government is going to go that far, that it is going to put minority members in jail-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is just too kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that it is going to suspend habeas corpus, that it is going to establish an outright dictatorship. But, Mr. Speaker, that is the direction in which any government goes which says, "We have the support of the majority, we can do anything". That is what the government is saying by what it is doing, and I believe this Parliament should have a chance to debate this issue.
That is why I believe that Your Honour owes it to Parliament to find a way whereby at an early date we can debate the motion that is on the order paper in the name of my hon. friend from Peace River.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the substantiated and well-prepared statement of the member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who has finally convinced a greater number of members to support him. We have also heard the answer of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) who has found it lengthy and boring. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, we often find tedious the criticism of an opponent.
The basic question is as follows: Has there really been a misdemeanour against Parliament committed by a minister or a group of them? The basic question boils down to that and I will not repeat it. We want to know whether some individuals or some ministers have complied with the legislation passed by Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, indeed the parliamentary process is quite simple. The government, enjoying its parliamentary majority, introduces a bill which, through the Chair, is brought for first reading and this House must decide. It is then brought for second reading and again this House must decide. And as long as Parliament has not passed that bill, through majority or with unanimous consent, it has not become a statute.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if that principle holds true in the positive process of passing laws, so it does as far as the

negative process is concerned, which means that from the moment when a law is passed, Parliament, the government and all other persons must comply with it.
Mr. Speaker, if Parliament works for many months, in the light of long considerations, discussions, numerous committee hearings, so as to pass a law, thus requiring an expenditure of public monies, and if one, two, three or a group of ministers decide, for political or other reasons, not to comply with the said law, this means that all the work done by Parliament has been to no avail. The authority of Parliament has been flouted and the government has just gone its own way.
That would also mean that there is a sort of parallel power-a phrase for which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has a special fondness-that is that, on the one hand, Parliament talks on uselessly and, on the other hand, the government makes unilateral decisions. That would surely show great arrogance.
As private members and a minority group, we must protest strongly against this way of besmirching Parliament. In our view, there has truly been contempt of Parliament, because some ministers have not abided by an act voted by Parliament.
Secondly, the President of the Privy Council claims- and that constitutes his whole argument-that the impeachment procedure was not well defined, that it was not explained by the member for Peace River and that, consequently, the motion of the ;member is not valid because it is not serious. Why? Merely because the impeachment procedure, according to the President of the Privy Council, is not well defined.
But, Mr. Speaker, is that the question? If Parliament is a supreme institution, it is not a question of deciding what means should be taken but, as the member for Winnipeg-North-Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, in view of the supremacy of Parliament, a question of a debate being held that the House might decide whether there has been misdemeanour or not and, according to the decision rendered, that action might be taken.
Mr. Speaker, Citation 113 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms provides as follows:
A question of privilege ought-
And this is what greatly bothers the Chair every day-
-rarely to come up in Parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy. There are privileges of the House as well as of members individually.
Mr. Speaker, I fully recognize that the House is wasting a lot of time because of pointless questions of privilege. However in this particular case today, this is not a question of privilege concerning an individual member but the House of Commons as a whole because the matter involves the privileges of hon. members.
Before closing, I would like to recall Citation 107 at page 97 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and I quote:
Whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament, ought to be discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere.
September 21, 1971

Therefore, it is obvious that our greatest wish is to have an immediate debate in the House on this question so that we may consider the substance of the matter and force the ministers involved to account to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to prove that this Parliament is supreme in our democracy and that this government must yield.
During the last elections, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told his electors: Give us a majority so that problems may be solved-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I never said that.


André-Gilles Fortin: Now, they have their majority but they do not make use of it to serve the public but rather to crush Parliament. That is why we want to protest today by supporting the motion of the hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their comments aimed at assisting the Chair to make a ruling concerning the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
I should refer at the outset to the point just made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). I feel that there might have been some mistake at the basis of his representations to the House and his suggestions to the Chair. He suggests that the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Peace River be considered as a motion on privilege and that, in short, the matter be considered and dealt with by the House as such.
May I remind him that the same suggestion was already made a few days ago and that I was able, on that occasion, to remind the House of the circumstances in which it is possible to initiate a debate on a question of privilege. I made a ruling, and I don't believe I could possibly suggest to the House that the motion before us should be considered as a question of privilege.

The hon. member for Peace River has given the Chair notice of his intention to rise on a point of order today and he indicated that he would propose a motion that was akin to but different in some respects from the motion which now appears on the order paper standing in his name. I listened with great interest to the submissions which were made for the assistance of the Chair by the hon. member for Peace River, by the President of the Privy Council, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and, as I said in French a moment ago, by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
I am wondering whether these arguments were helpful in all respects and in every detail for the Chair, because what I have to consider is strictly the procedural aspect. Some of the arguments made to the Chair related perhaps more to the moral issues as to whether there should be a debate on this very important matter and on the duty of the Chair to allow the House the opportunity or to give the House the opportunity to discuss this important matter. With respect, I suggest to hon. members that it is not for the Chair to take this kind of decision. I recognize that the Chair has a responsibility to communicate with represen-
Withholding of Grain Payments
tatives of the parties when it is felt that perhaps it would be helpful for all concerned so that members of this House could have a specific debate. I have taken this initiative in certain instances but, again, with respect, it seems to me that this is not what has to be ruled upon at this time. I have noted the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and it will not be overlooked.
This having been said, I return to the strictly procedural aspect of the matter. Hon. members know in what way a motion can be brought before the House for consideration. There is really no purpose to be served by my going again into this question. It is well known to hon. members. It is suggested at this time by the hon. member for Peace River that there is another way, which is not too familiar to me and to some other hon. members, of bringing a matter forward for immediate consideration by the House that is over and beyond the Standing Orders that guide our proceedings and perhaps over and beyond the customs and usages of our own Parliament.
The hon. member is endeavouring to institute what might be described as an historical proceeding to impeach a minister or ministers of the Crown. This is, I gather, common to both motions now before us. The first motion is well known to the Chair because it appears on the order paper. It has been there for a few days and this has given me the advantage of being able to look at precedents and consider the matter, as I have already said in the House. The second motion is new to the Chair, but I have listened to the hon. member explaining it and referring to it and I gather that essentially it is the same as the one on the order paper.
It seems that the hon. gentleman has in the main called as his witnesses a number of early British authors and precedents. Implicit in his submission is the suggestion that the practice outlined by his authorities has been carried into and forms part of our own Canadian parliamentary procedure. The hon. gentleman relies in the main for his support on the provisions of our Standing Order 1 which, in a form a bit different from its present wording, was enacted in 1867. It might not be necessary for me to quote it since the hon. member has already referred to the substance of Standing Order 1, but I will read it in any event in case it might be helpful:
In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this House.
This, perhaps, is where I have some difficulty, because it must be determined whether these usages and customs which were in force in the British Parliament in 1867 and which we have formally imported into our proceedings by virtue of Standing Order 1 are applicable in this particular instance to our own constitutional system and to our own procedures. It may be that a residue of the unusual and unused impeachment proceedings may still lie in the British Parliament, but even there, as hon. members know, such a proceeding was last invoked a long time ago. I believe there is authority for the fact that the last time impeachment was actually used and effected in the British Parliament was in 1805.
8024

September 21, 1971
Withholding of Grain Payments
Apart from considering the difference in the constitutional characteristics of our Senate and the British House of Lords, and that appears to me to be a matter of some consequence but one which it is not competent for the Chair to explore in detail, but I believe it would be relevant and useful to consider the actual procedure observed in recorded impeachment proceedings in the United Kingdom. The most recent case that might be referred to, as I have said, is the one recorded in the year 1805. The proceedings of impeachment in that year were against Lord Melville. The matter was initiated by the British House of Commons by the drafting of articles of impeachment. The articles were then sent to the House of Lords for the lords to consider the charge, hear evidence, adjudicate thereon and act in their judicial capacity. In this regard, I wish to quote both May's 17th edition and Anson, The Law and Custom of the Constitution, 5th edition. The citation from May's 17th edition is at page 39 and reads as follows:
Acts of Attainder and Impeachments
In passing Acts of attainder and of pains and penalties, the judicature of the entire Parliament is exercised and there is another high parliamentary judicature in which both Houses also have a share. In impeachments, the Commons, as a great representative inquest of the nation, first find the crime, and then, as prosecutors, support their charge before the Lords; while the Lords, exercising at once the functions of a high court of justice and of a jury, try and also adjudicate upon the charge preferred.
At page 37 May reminds us:
The most distinguishing characteristic of the Lords is their judicature, of which they exercise several kinds. They have a judicature in claims of peerage and offices of honour, under references from the Crown, but not otherwise.
Anson, The Law and Custom of the Constitution, 5th edition, 1922, contains the following:
The Commons appoint managers to conduct their case, and the trial proceeds in Westminster Hall. The forms of a criminal trial are followed, the Lords sitting as judges, the Lord High Steward presiding if a peer is on his trial, the Lord Chancellor or Speaker of the House of Lords in the case of a commoner.
Finally, Abraham and Hawtrey, page 107:
The trial of a person, usually a minister of the Crown, before the House of Lords, on an accusation of treason or other crimes and misdemeanours brought by the House of Commons.
The thought which runs through these citations is that while so-called articles of impeachment may be started in the House of Commons, in the British tradition, in the usage and custom to which reference has been made, the actual case is heard and the determination is made in the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. This was the constitutional and procedural position in the United Kingdom in the year 1867. The proceedings were based on the exercise of judicial functions possessed by the House of Lords, a function not discharged in the Canadian Senate. I doubt, therefore, that it can be said the customs and usages of the United Kingdom are applicable to Canada under Standing Order 1. I suggest these are two entirely different situations. While an article of impeachment can be sent from the British House of Commons to the House of Lords to be considered by the upper House in its judicial capacity, this cannot be done in Canada because the Senate in the strict sense of the House of Lords does not have a judicial capacity.

Let me also refer to May's first edition, published in 1844, at page 39:
"The institution had fallen into disuse," says Mr. Hallam, "partly from the loss of that control which the commons had obtained under Richard 2, and the Lancastrian kings, and partly from the preference the Tudor princes had given to bills of attainder or of pains and penalties, when they wished to turn the arm of Parliament against an obnoxious subject."
It should be noted that that comment was published some 23 years prior to the enactment of our Standing Order 1. The case I am now making is that 23 years before the adoption of our Standing Order 1 there was authority to indicate this procedure which we are now seeking to bring into our own procedures had already fallen into disuse in the British House.
In none of the editions of our own authors have I been able to find any support for the proposition that impeachment procedure has been carried over into our Canadian practice. I suggest that, based on recent British authorities, it would be difficult to support such a proposition even in the British Parliament. In view of the fact that the last known precedent in the British House occurred in 1805 and in the absence of any known precedent in 105 years in our parliamentary history, it seems to me that such a motion is not in accordance with our modern parliamentary practice.
As stated earlier in my comments when I referred to May's first edition, other usages, practices and circum-. stances have arisen which render the ancient impeachment proceedings obsolete and unnecessary.
Having said all this, I will go into the arguments brought forward for the consideration of the Chair by all hon. members who took part in this debate. As I said, in my view some of these arguments were more relative to the substance of the matter and had more reference to moral considerations. Hon. members have suggested that it is the responsibility of the Chair to provide an opportunity for debate on this matter. I suggest that, even if it were so, this could hardly be done under the guise of the impeachment motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to announce the appointment of a
September 21, 1971

chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, to succeed Dr. Arthur Smith whose resignation was announced recently. Effective January 1, 1972, the position will be assumed by Dr. Andre Raynauld of Montreal.
Dr. Raynauld is a distinguished economist, formerly head of the Department of Economics in the University of Montreal, who has served in many capacities in Canada and abroad.
[DOT] <3:30 p.m.)
He was a member of the Executive Committee of the Economic Council from 1966 to 1969 and has served on many other boards and commissions.
While Dr. Raynauld will not formally assume his new position until the New Year, it is expected that he will begin working with the Council on a part-time basis immediately following the retirement of Dr. Smith on October 15.
I am tabling Mr. Raynauld's biographical outline and the text of a letter dated today, which I have written to him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that we welcome the appointment of Dr. Andre Raynauld as chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. His great proficiency as an economist, his brilliant career, his wide experience and his exceptional qualities made him the logical candidate for the position he is being assigned to. I would like to extend my personal congratulations to him and wish him the very best of luck.
tEnglish]
I should like to make a particular point of emphasizing the distinguished service that Dr. Arthur Smith has rendered this country as chairman of the Economic Council of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As successor to Dr. Arthur Smith, Dr. Raynauld will not find his task an easy one. Furthermore, our country is certainly going through a period of great economic difficulty. Great efforts will be demanded in terms of analysis and great boldness in terms of approach. But the qualifications of the new chairman are reassuring to us. We know he understands well the economic problems of the country as a whole, as well as those concerning his native province of Quebec in particular. I hope the independence of the Economic Council will be preserved and that the new chairman will not be subjected to sniping from within the government.

We are convinced that under Dr. Raynauld's enlightened chairmanship, the Economic Council of Canada will continue to be an essential and effective organization.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: My remarks will be very few. I, too, want to congratulate the Prime Minister for having chosen a man si intelligent, si competent, si bril-lant que le Dr. Raynauld to fill the post of chairman of the Economic Council of Canada.
Economic Council of Canada Appointment
All I want to say is that it seems to me the government of Canada has ignored the advice which the Economic Council has given for many years with respect to a full employment policy for this country and with respect to a war against poverty in particular, so it does not appear to me that we ought to be particularly concerned about who the Prime Minister appoints to be chairman of a body which the government then proceeds to ignore. It is hoped that Dr. Raynauld will continue to make recommendations, carry out studies and give advice as the Economic Council has done in the past. From his credentials as an economist, I have no doubt that he may give very good advice but there is no suggestion in the Prime Minister's statement or anywhere else that the advice of the Council will be followed by the government. Dr. Raynauld will, therefore, suffer the frustrations which I know Dr. Arthur Smith has suffered.
I conclude by reminding Members of the House that no less an authority than the deputy finance minister suggested to a Senate Committee that the Economic Council was not sufficiently competent and that it had outlived its usefulness. I do not know for whom Mr. Riesman was speaking if not for his minister. I merely express my congratulations to the Prime Minister on the appointment and my condolences to Dr. Raynauld for the position in which he will find himself.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister on the appointment he has just announced to the House. I am convinced the new chairman of the Economic Council of Canada will render tremendous services to our country and that the Canadian Parliament will benefit, through his administration, from the information required to manage the country and guide it along the path to success which we should normally follow by making it possible for the people to benefit from the great wealth with which Providence has endowed our country.
I should also like to thank the former chairman, Dr. Smith, for his courage in preparing most interesting reports for the government. I will mention among others the fifth report of the Economic Council which was a real eye-opener. We all agreed that it was the report of a courageous man which objectively described the economic conditions in Canada and included at the same time some very realistic suggestions.
I therefore hope that Mr. Raynauld may efficiently fill his term of office; he is an experienced economist and well qualified for the job. I am convinced that he will fully discharge the duties which have been entrusted to him and that under his leadership, we will have the benefit of reports accurately disclosing the result of investigations which the Council will be called upon to make, in order that public funds be used for the good of all Canadians.

September 21, 1971
Minister's Statement on Security Group [English]



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in both official languages the Annual Report of the Director of Research under the Combines Investigation Act.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. lean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, because there have been requests by Members of Parliament for information on the Security Planning and Research Group and because there have been some misunderstandings on this subject, I have decided to make a statement at this time.
The subject of the security of the state is a delicate one where the executive must always balance the rights of the state and the liberty of the individual and it is encouraging to me that there is public concern.
The Royal Commission on Security made it clear in October 1968 that, and I quote:
-Canada remains the target of subversive or potentially subversive activities-
That was paragraph 15 of the report. The report further stated, and I quote:
-the duty of the state to protect. . .its institutions from subversion and its policies from clandestine influence is indisputable-
I have just quoted paragraph 28 of the report.
I have established the new Security Planning and Research Group in the Department of the Solicitor General to advise me on internal security matters. The functions of the group are:
1.	to study the nature, origin and causes of subversive and revolutionary action, its objectives and techniques as well as the measures necessary to protect Canadians from internal threats;
2.	to compile and analyze information collected on subversive and revolutionary groups and their activities, to estimate the nature and scope of internal threats to Canadians and to plan for measures to counter these threats;
3.	to advise me on these matters.
It is absolutely wrong to suggest that this group is "an anti-rebel police force" or a "civilian security force".
The Group has no operational duties; they are advisory in nature. In short, the duties of the Group are to conduct research, analysis and planning. This is a far cry from the beginnings of the establishment of a police state as has been implied by some critics. The concept of a police state is as repugnant to the government as it is to all Canadians.

It was made clear by the Prime Minister that the government does not intend to establish a separate civilian security service when he said in the House of Commons on June 26, 1969, and I quote:
.. .we have come to the conclusion that current and foreseeable problems in Canada can better be dealt with within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police through appropriate modifications to existing structure, than by attempting to create a wholly new and separate service".
There has been no change to this fundamental policy.
In discharging its duties, the Security Planning and Research Group will work closely with the R.C M.Police Security Service and with other sources which may be able to provide useful information, such as the Armed Forces, other government departments and agencies, other police forces and other governments in Canada.
It is, I think, beyond question that when Parliament established the Department of the Solicitor General in 1966, it was establishing a department, separate from that of the Attorney General, to deal with police matters, criminal investigations, detentions, paroles, pardons and internal security. The Prime Minister also stated in the House of Commons on June 26, 1969, and I quote:
"Some comments in the report. . .
-of the Royal Commission on Security-
.. . which refer to the R.C.M.Police are now properly directed at aspects of government policy. We intend to keep under review our basic policies and procedures in relation to security as the commissioners have recommended. The establishment of the Department of the Solicitor General in 1966 was a major step in this direction".
A parallel might be drawn between security and criminal investigations. When the police gather material in criminal investigations and court action is to follow, it is the Crown prosecutor who assesses the police evidence and, as the Attorney General's representative, decides whether to prosecute. Likewise, the assessment of the seriousness of a security threat to the state should be made by the civil power in concert with police authorities.
To try to achieve an objective assessment and evaluation of the threat to the security of Canadians, the Security Planning and Research Group will consist of a mixture of the disciplines of sociology, criminology, psychology, law, the military and the police. I am hopeful that a mixture of backgrounds such as this will together be able to advise me, and through me, the Cabinet about the aims and intentions of groups that are genuinely revolutionary and prepared to employ violence in achieving their ends, as distinct from those who would promote social change through accepted democratic procedures. The revolutionary phenomenon now exists in many parts of the world- in Europe, in South America, in Asia, in the United States and here in Canada.
Governments are handling these groups in different ways. The Canadian government believes that dissent is healthy and necessary to our society. Canadian society can absorb dissident groups which are not a threat to the physical safety of Canadians and their democratic way of life.
It is the government's responsibility, however, and my responsibility as minister reporting for internal security, to ensure that Canadians are protected from groups who would use violence to achieve their aims. The government
September 21, 1971

must be enabled to act rather than react to these groups. A step in this direction is the creation of a group in the government structure which will study and report on dissident groups and their intentions as they relate to the safety of Canadians.
I would also like to make the point that the Commissioner and the Director-General of the R.C.M.Police Security Service, who normally report directly to me, also have the right of direct access to the Prime Minister in exceptional circumstances. Another point to be noted is that departments of the government of Canada are themselves responsible for personnel and physical security matters which arise within respective departments.
In short, in view of my responsibilities as Solicitor General for keeping a watching brief on developing threats to Canada's security by virtue of my office and duties relative to the R.C.M. Police, and in view of the increasing amount of information with which I must be familiar-not only on police matters but also on matters pertaining to the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Board-there is a need for an adequate advisory staff to assist me. The Security Planning and Research Group will perform this function where matters of internal security are concerned.
In forming this group, I am following a principle which is not inconsistent with what was said in the House of Commons on June 26, 1969 by the hon. Leader of the Opposition when the revised report of the Royal Commission on Security was tabled. Mr. Stanfield said, and I quote:

I am sure that members of parliament accept the necessity that much of the security operation is conducted outside our purview. What would be cause for grave concern would be any thought that much of the operation is beyond the ken of the ministry or the Prime Minister; that there are not ministers, elective and responsible members of government to whom the entire security operation is an open book, who have continuing access to everything that is going on in that area, and who give proper, responsible, political, civilian direction to the operation on a continuing basis. None of us would want to see a security operation in this country running under its own steam and answerable only to itself-a government, so to speak, within the government. The very decision as to what affects security and what does not, what must be secret and what public, is finally a matter of political decision and judgment. The effective supremacy of the civilian authority must never be compromised in this matter.
Those words are to be found in Hansard for June 26, 1969, at page 10639.

I am confident that the Security Planning and Research Group will perform a most useful function for the government and for all Canadians.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, we are at long last happy that the minister has broken his and the government's silence in reference to its new security planning and research group. In fact, I think he felt that at long last he could say a few words of his own, and at long last I can say a few words of my own on this subject. The minister said at the outset of the report that he had made this statement at the request of Members of Parliament. May I point out that the expression "request" is indeed a very mild one for we have continually ques-
Minister's Statement on Security Group
tioned and interrogated for days the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) and other cabinet ministers in an endeavour to pry out of the government information about what the right hon. Prime Minister of this country describes as a headless group.
What is this group? What is its purpose? Why was the report not made when Parliament first reconvened? The minister speaks about balancing the rights of the state with the liberty of the individual, yet the media, especially the press, were endeavouring to search for information and to pry the facts out of the minister in order to determine what the government had up its sleeve in reference to security.
Why was debate denied when the Prime Minister had promised it? Why is there secrecy about the whole thing?


Mr. Nielsen:: There still is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There still is, yes. We had hoped that the minister would tell us today about the security policy of this country, about the procedures which will be followed to ensure that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the security group act under the guidance of the minister and the cabinet, so that the minister and the cabinet can effectively discharge their responsibilities as the civilian heads of our security force. But there was not a word as to this, only a bald statement full of references about functions, followed by historical and philosophical remarks.
The government has continued to exhibit this curious reluctance to "come clean" until finally the pressure of public opinion, no doubt, forced the Solicitor General to make the statement he made this afternoon. As a result of this curious reluctance we must weigh, analyse and scrutinize the statement with great care, indeed I say with suspicion.
Speaking of suspicion caused by the minister's reluctance to speak, I recommend and urge that this matter, indeed this report and the minister's statement on the whole question of security, be referred to a special committee made up of members of this House and of the other place. Alternatively, if necessary, and if the minister should so decide, it could be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. In view of the fact that security is a very serious matter and that certain facts must be kept confidential, if necessary portions of the hearing could be held in camera, just as security matters during the war were reviewed and discussed by Members of Parliament of this chamber.
The purpose of having a committee to analyse the report and this statement is to find out from the minister the reason that a new liaison group was set up when all the time a liaison group was in existence, as well as the reason that the personnel of that liaison group and of the privy council and external affairs department have been mysteriously banished from their high, sensitive positions to far away places. We find that there have been more changes, new moves and fresh firings and banishments taking place even over the weekend.


Erik Nielsen: There may even have been impeachments.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, there may have been impeachments.

September 21, 1971
Minister's Statement on Security Group
We want to know from the new personnel who have replaced these former liaison groups what formula they will use and what criteria they will use in passing on information from the RCMP to the cabinet and, above all, to make certain that the liberty of the subject is always protected and is not treated as totally expendable because of the state. As my leader said, who was quoted with approval and affection by the minister today:
What would be cause for grave concern would be any thought that much of the operation is beyond the ken of the ministry or the Prime Minister; that there are not ministers, elective and responsible members of government to whom the entire security operation is an open book, who have continuing access to everything that is going on in that area, and who give proper responsible, political, civilian direction to the operation on a continuing basis. None of us would want to see a security operation in this country running under its own steam and answerable only to itself-a government, so to speak, within the government.
When you analyse this statement, which was quoted with approval, it provides all the more reason this matter should be carefully considered by the committee. Is the minister's word sufficient to satisfy Parliament in this regard, especially when he has been so reluctant to tell us about this new headless group? Will this new headless group function with a formula and criteria having such high aims and objectives as the minister suggests? We sincerely hope it will, and I think we are entitled to be assured that it will. We do not want, of course, files on individuals and files particularly in reference to security matters to be used other than for the purposes of security.
In answering this statement, let me conclude by referring to page 8, paragraph 22 of the report of the royal commission on security. It reads in part:
Although the more moderate elements of the Quebec separatist movement have up till now been conducting a largely political campaign, it appears to us that there is in certain quarters a tendency to resort to activities that could well be regarded as seditious. What is more, there is no doubt about communist and Trotskyist interest and involvement in the movement.
That refers to elements of the separatist movement. The report goes on to say that if the activity is merely political, it is all right. The point I make now is that the government was warned much earlier than last fall, actually in 1969, but did nothing about it. This warning was in print, but the government stood idly by and did nothing. I think we must hear more than this statement, lengthy as it was, and full of verbiage, in order that we may be assured that this matter is free from suspicion today.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his statement quite rightly said that a delicate balance must be sought between the rights of the state and the liberties of the individual. I suggest, therefore, that Parliament must not only be a jealous guardian of the state, but also a zealous protector of the rights of individual citizens. All too often, the first obligation is used as a pretext to disregard the second.
For this reason the members of this House who demanded an explanation of this new security machinery in the Solicitor General's department were entirely justified. The hesitant, dilatory and evasive attitude of the minister in the past led to suspicions which were very properly expressed about the whole project. Now that the

minister has at last given an explanation to Parliament I can say, and I think I have been particularly concerned about the subject of civil liberties, I find nothing objectionable in the security planning and research group. Indeed, I welcome the proposal that information about security be channelled through a small group of civilian experts, advisory to the responsible minister.
In my experience such matters as security require, for their proper evaluation, an extensive political knowledge and a sound judgment. These qualities do not, as we have learned in the past, always exist in those who are trained as policemen. I entirely agree that civilian control in such delicate matters is essential. What is required is the ability to distinguish between radical proposals, new and dangerous thoughts which are entirely healthy and, indeed, essential to a dynamic society on the one hand, and activities directly related to violence against the state or against the individual on the other.
I hope the minister will report regularly to the parliamentary Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on the activities, scope and size of this branch or group so that the committee on behalf of Parliament can ensure that what is starting out as a small, doubtless useful and necessary organization, does not in the course of time blossom out into something large and sinister.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for having sent us in due time the text of his statement in English and French.
Mr. Speaker, my party has long been expecting the statement the Solicitor General has just made.
Referring to groups that are prepared to employ violence in achieving their ends, the Solicitor General said, and I quote:
The government must be enabled to act rather than to react to these groups-
The Solicitor General has thus aptly defined the policy any responsible government should follow and this, not only in connection with groups determined to overthrow it by force, but also towards the whole population.
The existence of such revolutionary groups, Mr. Speaker, proves that there is a concrete reaction to the present government and its methods of administration. If the government decided, once and for all, to govern this country with some practicality, not only reacting to the evils which befall us or result from its inefficient administration, but also working towards a better future for all Canadians, the statement which we have just heard would never have been made.
Mr. Speaker, during the war measures debate, members of this party repeatedly expressed deep regret over the failure of the present government, as well as of its predecessors, to act before violence occurred. On November 30, 1970, I rose in this House on the matter of emergency powers and made the following statement, as recorded on page 1610 of Hansard:
We must not say that they take us by surprise. The government was well aware of the situation, had been for a long time, but nobody was courageous enough to say what was wrong and, above all, to apply the appropriate remedies.
September 21, 1971

Mr. Speaker, today we deplore the creation of such a body, which is to be called the Security Planning and Research Group.
The terms of reference of that service, if they remain as indicated by the Solicitor General, seem adequate to us, but we insist that that group have no active function whatever within our Canadian police forces. The advisory role of that group must be well defined, and we believe that it will have to remain of a strictly advisory nature.
Since the establishment of that group has become practically indispensable owing to the period of carelessness which has prevailed for too long in our governments in connection with their commitments toward the population, we therefore welcome although we do not like it this step toward police re-organization in Canada. Prevention is better than cure.
However, if that assertion fits perfectly the announcement of the Solicitor General, it applies all the more to the rationale behind the government's decision to establish the Security Planning and Research Group. The Canadian people are getting fed up with unemployment, unfulfilled election promises, trips abroad, etc.
The setting up of that government branch shows pretty well where we are after several years of gloomy administration under this government and previous ones. What a pity! It seems to me that we will not get anywhere as long as we do not realize that any basic reform must be founded on charity and on the individual human being.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent, under Standing Order 43, to move a motion on a matter of urgent and public concern.
In light of General Motors decision to lay off 2,000 workers from its plants in Oshawa, Ste. Therese, St. Catharines, Windsor and Scarborough, it appears that we are witnessing the beginning of a large-scale export of Canadian jobs to other countries which will affect many centres in this country.
I therefore move:
That this House requires the government to take immediate steps to ensure that Canadian jobs are not sacrificed to provide jobs for workers in other countries.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. The motion, moved under Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Jury Service for Women


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I also beg leave to move a motion under Standing Order 43 in respect of an urgent and pressing necessity, namely the commencement of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The motion I seek to move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) is as follows:
This House is of the opinion that the government took the correct stand in expressing objections to the proposed nuclear device test scheduled to be conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission of the United States of America and therefore urges the government to raise this proposed nuclear device test in the United Nations forthwith in the hopes of developing a world wide concern about the moral issue of the United States of America adding further to the nuclear arms race and contributing to a potential environmental and geographic disaster.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth) moved: for leave to introduce Bill S-20 titled "An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Jury Service for Women)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, this bill proceeds from the report on the status of women, which advocates equality for Canadian women.

The sole purpose of this bill is to ensure that, in respect of jury service in criminal cases throughout Canada, women will be in all respects equal to men.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
8030
[Stage Direction]
September 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the announced lay-off of
2,000	employees by General Motors of Canada in Oshawa, Scarborough, Ste. Therese, St. Catharines and Windsor and the implications thereof for the Canadian economy in an industry which was expected to benefit from the recent United States economic measures.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has filed the notice required by Standing Order 26. The hon. member proposes that the order of business be set aside for the purpose of discussing a lay-off by General Motors of Canada and, to quote the hon. member's words, the implications thereof for the Canadian economy.
The Standing Order sets out the factors which have to be considered by the Chair in determining whether a specific matter should be debated in priority to the previously announced business. I recognize, as do all hon. members, that the matter raised by the hon. member is one which is important, urgent, and of national interest. The procedural prerequisites in this respect are amply met. The Chair must consider other factors, however, and one of these is opportunity for debate. The House has had before it for a few days the tax bill, and more particularly the amendment which refers in broad terms to economic conditions in the country. Problems such as the one raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby have already been the subject of discussion in the course of this debate under the umbrella of the amendment now under consideration. That order of business is still before the House and it should be reasonable to assume that it will be called again. That debate in my view does provide an opportunity for the consideration of the situation on which the motion is based. I regret to conclude that the motion should not be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in respect of the lay-off to which reference has been made. Can the minister tell the House whether he or the government intends to conduct an inquiry into this matter or whether the minister is

really satisfied in his own mind that either General Motors has in fact a legitimate problem of over-production on the one hand or whether, on the other hand, the company is reacting to the program of President Nixon and as a result is transferring jobs to the United States.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must confirm that these lay-offs will be taking place. For how long, I do not know. The reason given by the company in the communique, I understand, as I have not seen it, is the importance of imports from overseas. This is one aspect of it. I am sure there is also another aspect. It is that General Motors does not produce in Canada the popular compacts and sub-compacts produced by other Canadian manufacturers and imported from overseas. The cars produced now in Canada by General Motors are mostly full-sized Pontiacs and Chevrolets, and these have not been as popular in Canada or the United States as was expected, so the company is going through a period of adjustment now. General Motors has announced these 2,000 lay-offs in Canada but I am informed they have also announced the lay-off of 27,000 people in the United States. Tomorrow I will be seeing some of the top officers of the company and will try to find out as much as possible about Canadian interests in these matters.



LAY-OFFS BY GENERAL MOTORS-PRIOR NOTICE BY COMPANY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it from what the minister has said that he had no prior warning of this lay-off, that there was no prior consultation between the company and officers of his own department and that there were no discussions yesterday on this subject between himself and U.S. Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Stans?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we have established very good relations with the manufacturers of automobiles in Canada and, generally speaking, they keep me and my department well informed on these matters. They did give us advance notice of the 535 or 570 lay-offs at St. Therese, but I must say-and I regret having to say it-they did not give us any prior notice of these latest announced lay-offs in addition to the ones at St. Therese. I find that rather annoying and I hope this is an accident which will not occur again.



LAY-OFFS BY GENERAL MOTORS-GOVERNMENT PLANS TO PREVENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: As
a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he has any plan in mind to avoid this lay-off by GM and, if so, whether he can indicate briefly to the House what this might be.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of subject I intend to take up tomorrow with the officers of the company, but I am rather hesitant to deal with the
September 21, 1971

subject for obvious reasons. It is quite difficult for me to make any suggestion that the company should start building sub-compacts and compacts in Canada because it may very well be that the situation next year will have changed completely. This is the sort of advice that ministers refrain from volunteering.
This is one of the difficulties we have had with the automobile agreement, and I have said so in public. We do not have anything to say about the decisions of the companies on the types of automobiles that they build in Canada. I am sure however that hon. members of this House would view with anxiety the government telling the companies they should build in Canada, at St. Therese or at Oshawa, this particular type of automobile, because in such instances we may win once but lose ten times.



LAY-OFFS BY GENERAL MOTORS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MAKE EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUCH PLANS MANDATORY

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has told us that he was not informed of the lay-offs that have recently been announced outside the province of Quebec, and has at last expressed some annoyance with the automotive industry, could he inform the House whether the government intends to take steps making it mandatory for any such future lay-offs to be announced well in advance, in fact, many months in advance, to the government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the legislation in Quebec and the legislation in Ontario are different on the timing of such notice. Companies in Quebec have to give four months notice when a number of employees, I think it is 300, are to be laid off. In Ontario one month's notice is required and this is what has taken place in the particular case with which we are now dealing. What I was saying, really, was that I would have expected the company to have brought these intentions, I mean with respect to these particular lay-offs that were announced yesterday, to our attention because it had done so with respect to the ones at St. Therese.
ST. THERftSE, QUEBEC-POSSIBLE FURTHER GENERAL MOTORS LAY-OFFS-ASSURANCE OF MAINTENANCE OF PRODUCTION IN CANADA


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is not that I am pleased with that answer, but I do want to ask a related question to which I expect a negative answer. Is the government aware that a production change in the General Motors' plant at St. Therese next spring will result in the cancellation of the production of a large number of Pontiac automobiles, involving approximately 2,000 jobs at that plant and, if the government is aware of this, what does it intend to do to ensure that when the production of these automobiles is transferred from that plant in Quebec it will at least be transferred to another plant in Canada and not to a plant in the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, obviously this question demoninquiries of the Minist'ry
strates the complexity of the subject. I will read it again and will tomorrow try to extract as much information as I can from the officers of the company.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House when the government intends to inform the country of its policy on this whole, broad matter of foreign investment in Canada and how it will operate here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We hope to be doing that pretty soon, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, has the Gray report turned into a grey area of indecision, ineptitude and frustration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -as widely reported, meaning that we may never know the government's views on this very important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. What does the government intend to do to help the subcontractors and those who are producing car parts? Also, when he is speaking with the manufacturers tomorrow will he suggest to them that if they would reduce the price of cars made in Canada to the same level as that in the United States they would sell more cars in Canada and employ more people?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the second part of the question on a number of occasions, but with regard to the first part, the off-market parts are not exempted under the United States surcharge. However, my opinion is that they would be included under Bill C-262, which has just been reported by a committee to the House.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, in view of the large number
24319-20 J

September 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
of industrial specialists attached to his department, and in view of the obvious fact that for a dozen or more years there has been a move on the part of the buying public to purchase the smaller, less costly cars, whether his department has discussed-I am not suggesting has ordered-at any time with the auto makers in Canada the advisability of their locating facilities for producing smaller cars in Canada, something which would have avoided some of these lay-offs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, when you do not want to give an opinion it is difficult to make the discussion of a problem interesting. I find that a reluctance to express specific views on what automobiles should be built and in what particular plant does not help to enrich a conversation.


John Edward Broadbent: That is not the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think it should be underlined that Canada cannot have it both ways. We have been rather fortunate in the sense that some of the very popular automobiles have been built in Canada. I am referring, for example, to the Maverick, the Pinto and the Dart. We cannot have things all our own way. There is an element of gamble in this matter and sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.


David Orlikow: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, the minister has mentioned the fact that Ford and Chrysler have located facilities in Canada for building smaller cars. I am simply asking the minister whether in fact none of the experts in the automobile field located in his department, where they are paid very good salaries, has discussed with General Motors in the last couple of years the advisability of locating that kind of facility in Canada? If they have not done so, why have they not done so?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, Mr. Speaker, under the present Canadian philosophy, government officers do not tell companies what to do.



LAY-OFFS BY GENERAL MOTORS-REQUEST TO LIMIT IMPORTATION OF EUROPEAN AND JAPANESE CARS

Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Richmond like to ask a supplementary question?


Léonel Beaudoin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Since it would appear that lay-offs in the automotive industry are attributable to massive imports of small European and Japanese cars, could he tell us whether it would not be advisable to consider once again the possibility of restraining these substantial imports?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, Canadians must make a choice when purchasing an automobile. There is now a law on overseas imports which provides for a 15 per cent tariff, and assessment regulations under the Customs Act. I think that Canadians must decide for themselves where are both Canada's and their own interests in these matters. Any steps taken by the Canadian government to
(Mr. Orlikow.]
restrain imports would normally bring retaliation by other governments.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of this latest blow to employment in Canada, and in particular in view of the additional unemployment that will take place in the plants of subcontractors, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether this brings any nearer a decision by the government to take some action to create additional employment in Canada or, if not, what is required to wake up this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that the question asked in those terms is hardly in order. The hon. member for Spadina on a supplementary.


Mr. Ryan:: Not a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe there are a few members who wish to ask supplementaries, so I will recognize them first and then proceed to the hon. member for Spadina.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. May I ask the minister whether his department is involved in the serious matter of the lay-off of 2,000 Canadians and whether he has anything positive which he can report to the House about the involvement of his department?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In the ordinary course, and more and more in recent months, the department is being informed by companies about lay-offs in advance of announcements. Whenever that is so or whenever we learn of them at a later date, we immediately attempt to utilize our full manpower consultative services, leading usually to agreement to study the situation and attempting to provide the full scope of the department's services including, of course, the very important mobility service.
September 21, 1971



INDUSTRY


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the example set earlier by the government in reducing the 15 per cent excise tax on electrical appliances and before that on drug prices, is the minister recommending a reduction or abolition of the present 12 per cent sales tax on domestically produced automobiles in order to lower prices and stimulate local sales?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am sure that the Minister of Finance will be informed of this question, Mr. Speaker.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has indicated that there was some advance notice given by General Motors of these lay-offs. I should like to ask specifically, was advance notice given to the government on the lay-off at Oshawa and can the minister indicate whether such notice was given before the imposition of the surcharge by the United States because of the tax implications involved?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I have already answered that question, Mr. Speaker. There was advance notice to my department of the possible lay-offs at St. Therese, but there was none with respect to the added 1300 to whom we referred this morning.


Harold Warren Danforth: A supplementary. Was this notice given prior to the advent of the Nixon surcharge or after?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The notice about Ste. Therese was certainly prior to the surcharge. I would think, Mr. Speaker, wanting to be fair to the company, that the difficulties to which I referred in connection with the full size automobiles is something that has been known by the market and by the companies for a number of months. This is not something new with us.


Mr. Bell:: Years.



LAY-OFFS BY GENERAL MOTORS-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTS IN CANADA BY FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: A supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that these lay-offs have been attributed in some part to the effect of imported automobiles on the market, has the minister taken steps to encourage Japanese, British, Italian and German manufacturers of automobiles to
Inquiries of the Ministry
establish assembly plants in Canada in a like manner to those of certain French and Swedish manufacturers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are already some assembly facilities in Canada owned by a Japanese group, the CMI and there is a full fledged operation of Swedish origin in Canada, the Volvo. These are the realities of the moment. I have personally brought to the attention of one foreign company that there are possibilities in Canada, but you cannot force companies to come and establish plants unless they have an advantage in doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It may be the sense of the House that perhaps the Chair might allow a last supplementary and then return to this subject later. The hon. member for Hamilton West might resume his seat for the moment. If he has a point of order I will hear him, of course. It is my thought that, unless hon. members think we should spend another five or ten minutes on this subject, in fairness to other hon. members who have been trying to ask their questions we might give them the opportunity to do so and return to this important matter. For the moment, I shall recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a supplementary.



LAY-OFFS BY GENERAL MOTORS AT ST. THERESE- ACTION BY GOVERNMENT FOLLOWING NOTICE

John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister has indicated that he has known about the lay-offs at Ste. Therese for some time and, to my knowledge, that time amounts to about three months. Can the minister inform the House what the government has done in that three month period concerning the announced lay-offs in the province of Quebec?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have known about the possibilities of the lay-offs, Mr. Speaker. If I was not too precise, I apologize. The company was hoping there would be a pick-up in the market which would help them and make these possible lay-offs unnecessary.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I wonder if the minister can bring the House up to date on the case of Mr. Serge Kourdakov. I am particularly interested in finding out the status of this gentleman's request to stay in Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government is employing the order in council power which is provided under the Immigration Act to overcome the various technical impediments to Mr. Kourdakov's admission to Canada. He is apparently otherwise eligible in accordance with our regulations for

September 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
landed immigrant status, and I should expect this to be granted him very shortly.



COMMUNICATIONS


Sylvester Perry Ryan: My question to the Prime Minister is with respect to the possible sale and windups of the Toronto Telegram. Would the Prime Minister consider trying to arrange a meeting with Mr. Bassett and representatives of all parties concerned with a view to arriving at a temporary moratorium in the hope that arrangements could be made to rescue the jobs of the 1200 employees involved and also to continue this paper in the public interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In view of Mr. Bassett's own statement and position, Mr. Speaker, I think I must answer that question in the negative.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: A supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister not believe that it is never too late to mend and that this is a very serious situation in Toronto which involves political and social-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.



EFFECT OF COMPETITION ACT ON OPERATIONS OF NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When the Competition Act becomes law will rationalization of newspaper operations be less inhibited than is now the case under the Combines Act?


Thomas Miller Bell: Just the ones in the Maritimes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the bill is before Parliament. I would not want to speculate on what it turns into because we are asking for public comment on the bill and it may well be amended. Certainly, the whole purpose of the Competition Act as proposed in Bill C-256 is to put forward a far more flexible approach to industrial organization than is possible under the existing Combines Investigation Act.



CLOSING OF TORONTO &quot;TELEGRAM&quot;-POSSIBLE DISCUSSION WITH SENATOR DAVEY

Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question. Has the Prime Minister had any discussions with Senator Davey about this Toronto Telegram matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Senator who?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary for the. Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that 1200 jobs will be involved in the present announcement which the Prime Minister reacts to so lightly today, can the minister say anything specific-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to ask a question, which he has a right to do by way of supplementary, perhaps he might ask the question directly.


John Howard Lundrigan: My question is almost complete. Can the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicate whether his department is in any way involved in trying to help the 1200 employees who are faced with the possibility of loss of employment.


Otto Emil Lang: We certainly will be, and again it will be important to notice that the range of facilities will include attempting to find other employment for people who may be laid off, and in providing appropriate mobility grants if those are applicable when the men involved are suitable for jobs available elsewhere in Canada.



PROPOSED BAN ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING-EFFECT OF ANNOUNCEMENT BY INDUSTRY ON GOVERNMENT LEGISLATION

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence would you permit me to ask one of his colleagues to take note of it. Having in mind the significant announcement made today by the tobacco industry of Canada that at the end of this year it will discontinue all television and radio cigarette advertising, my question is this: will this announcement deter the government from proceeding in due course with its amending legislation to cover all forms of advertising, including printed forms relating to that dangerous product?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THOSE RECEIVING PAYMENTS

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that university enrolment is down by 75,000 from that expected by the Economic Council of Canada because of student unemployment this summer, and in light of the

September 21, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
fact that the government supposedly spent $67 million this summer for student employment, is the Prime Minister going to undertake an inquiry into how many of those jobs went to poor and married students as compared with the number obtained by the sons and daughters of the affluent?


An hon. Member:: Answer.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will a statement be made to show just who got the money?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I believe the hon. member knows, and the House knows, that a report is to be made after the assessment of the Opportunities for Youth program has been terminated. I assume that some information of this kind may be available.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the government ever have a policy this summer for giving priority assistance to poor and married students, or was the assistance to be just for Grits?



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES

Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could he tell us whether officials of his department are discussing with his American counterpart the setting up of a pipeline in Alberta to develop the Prudhoe Bay oil-fields?

Hon. }. I. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion for the last year or two in general vein, but there has not been any in the last few weeks.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I will recognize the hon. member for Yukon immediately thereafter.



AIR CANADA


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As a result of the failure of IATA to reach agreement on overseas air fares and the resulting "hanky-panky" which forced Air
Canada to reduce its trans-Atlantic fares to $186, is the government taking action against domestic "hanky-panky" which allows Air Canada to charge $280 for fares from Ottawa to Vancouver?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply. However, I think hon. members should take care in placing questions before the House to make sure that, from the procedural aspect, they are in a form which makes it easy for the Chair to allow the questions to be asked and answers given.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, may I say how much I appreciate that ruling. I would not wish to be known as the minister in charge of "hanky-panky".


Gerald William Baldwin: That portfolio is already occupied.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Answering the question, I am hoping to have discussions with Air Canada within a few days with regard to the whole question of fares and the like resulting from the IATA disagreement or from the failure to reach agreement. I have nothing new to report at this time other than what I have said in the past.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect to your comments, Sir, may I say that I picked up that phrase from the report of these discussions. I should like to ask the minister if he is aware of expert opinion to the effect that a fare of $180 would be economically feasible for the Ottawa-Vancouver run?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of experts in these matters. I should like to get the evidence directly.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE- CONSULTATION TO SETTLE LAND RIGHTS OF NATIVE PEOPLE

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to the potential pipeline from Prudhoe Bay across the Yukon and down the Mackenzie Valley to Alberta. Since the completion of ecological studies is now in sight, and since the consortiums which are prepared to commence construction of this $2 billion project are on the threshold of beginning, will the minister say whether the government has come to grips with the only remaining problem, namely, immediate consultation with native peoples in order to settle their land rights in the areas involved.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the question of consultation with the native peoples comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Erik Nielsen: Where is he?

September 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: I understand that these consultations have taken place. Certainly, I am confident that the government, having foreseen the problem some two years ahead of time, will be ready to answer effectively any application that is made for the construction of a pipeline in the public interest.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the minister who is enjoying the outdoors in my riding at this moment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: What is he doing, hunting?


Erik Nielsen: -may I direct this question to his parliamentary secretary. Is the government taking immediate steps to consult with the native peoples concerning the settlement of their land claims?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to draw the question to the attention of the minister.



AIRPORTS


Mr.   Gaetan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has he completed in final form his over-all policy regarding grants for the administration and construction of municipally-owned airports? If so, when can we expect an announcement to this effect so that construction and expansion can proceed where the service is urgently needed? I am especially referring to the situation in Sudbury, Ontario.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have an answer with regard to Sudbury very, very soon and with regard to the over-all policy shortly thereafter.



HAMILTON-POSSIBILITY OF PLACING FACILITIES UNDER JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary or related question with respect to Hamilton Airport. Since it has now become what can probably be called an international airport as a result of the service undertaken by Nordair to Pittsburgh, which will mean that the cost of this particular airport will probably be beyond the reach of the city of Hamilton, does the government intend to discuss this matter with the city of Hamilton and its officials with a view to placing Hamilton Airport under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which ought to be considered in the total context of the development of air services for southwestern Ontario. As I have answered in the House on several occasions, I am in a position to discuss this at

any time with the government of Ontario. I imagine that they have a few other things on their minds at the moment. I think the provincial government is the appropriate agency with which we should speak in the first instance on this and related matters.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Some months ago, to be specific, last March, in answer to a question concerning the review of salaries of staff postmasters who are not represented by a union, the Postmaster General said that his department was reviewing that at that particular time. Can he say what has taken place or what progress has been made?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice. I hope to have a report for the House tomorrow.



POSSIBLE EFFECT OF PRAIRIE PROVINCES


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the publicly announced intention of the three prairie governments to make common representations to the federal government in respect of policy proposals which are included in Bill C-244, the grain stabilization bill, is the government prepared to delay further debate in the House until such time as those consultations have taken place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to proceed with enactment of Bill C-244 as soon as possible. Discussions had been going on with the provincial governments about it for a long period when it was being discussed with producers. The provincial governments made some technical suggestions with regard to the plan, some of which were adopted. The plan, of course, holds open the possibility for those provincial governments desiring to do so, of being able to pay money or undertake extra financing for farmers. We can certainly co-operate in making that possible for them.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A further supplementary question. Does this indicate that as far as the minister is concerned, any change or adjustment that the provincial government may wish to recommend is limited to the amount of money they are prepared to put into it?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, it does not. We will always very seriously consider any representations they wish to make. Needless to say, if their recommendations involve policies which we consider acceptable we will proceed
September 21, 1971

with whatever appropriate legislative steps may be required.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: A supplementary question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In light of the government's position on the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act because of the proposed stabilization bill presently before the House, has the minister consulted with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and recommended to him withholding family allowance cheques until such time as FISC is approved by Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that we are running short of time. There are about seven minutes remaining before the end of the question period. I am anxious to recognize some hon. members who have been seeking recognition by the Chair since the beginning of the question period. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on a supplementary.



STABILIZATION BILL-POSSIBLE GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS

Mr. Lea Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: My supplementary is for the minister in charge of the wheat board. In light of representations that have been made to the minister, not only by former provincial governments on the prairies but present governments since the House recessed at the end of June, and in light of further representations by farm organizations, is it the intention of the minister during the current discussion of Bill C-244 to bring in any further changes, additions or deletions to the bill?


Otto Emil Lang: A variety of suggestions for improvements in the stabilization plan made by farm organizations were incorporated in the final version of the bill. Some amendments were made in committee and, of course, the bill will be further considered. Generally, the farm organizations still have the very strong feeling that the financial position of farmers is extremely difficult and requires additional help. As far as I can see, they are not making any substantial suggestions for improving the bill except ones that would simply involve a lot more money.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. The CNR today announced an increase in passenger fares amounting to between 10 and 15 per cent effective October 1. Did they consult the government about this and does the government feel this large increase is inflationary?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, they have not consulted the government with regard to this increase. The normal procedure is that
Inquiries of the Ministry
advice is conveyed to the Minister of Transport. I, personally, have not seen that advice today. I cannot say at the moment whether it has been sent or not.



TRANSPORT


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: My
question is for the Minister of Transport. Several times before the House recessed for the summer I asked about the continuing negotiations between the minister and his officials and the premiers and their officials in western Canada regarding the high freight rates now existing in western Canada. Can the minister report to the House what progress, if any, has been made in this regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have a little problem keeping up with the premiers, but to the extent I have been able to do so we have moved the discussions eastward, having dealt with Alberta and Saskatchewan. Within the past three months I have received submissions from the province of Manitoba. If my officials are not there now, they will be within a few weeks. The negotiating process is continuing with all three governments. Given the political developments in that area in recent months, a certain measure of review is necessary.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. In light of the bomb scare telephone call yesterday by a crank from a foreign country involving Halifax international airport, will the minister ensure that steps are taken to make this kind of mischief a crime that is recognized across international boundaries? I ask this because I am reliably informed that the identity of the one making the calls is known, but action against him is difficult.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: thank the hon. member for notice of this question. I am advised that if the background is correct, the crank in question is in Hawaii. Why he would want to call Halifax from Hawaii, I do not know. I can understand wanting to call Hawaii from Halifax at times. All I can say is that I will look into the matter.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I almost think there is a question of privilege involving the grand atmosphere of Halifax arising out of the minister's response.

September 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General for some clarification of his statement of today on the Security Planning and Research Group. On the one hand, the minister tells us that this group will have only advisory duties and I should like him to explain the meaning of the fact that they are to compile information on groups, act on groups, look after groups. Could the minister give us some explanation of those functions of the advisory group? Are its members going to carry out operations?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of this group carrying out certain operations, such as conducting inquiries anywhere in Canada or on anyone in Canada. Its duties will be limited to analysis, planning and research.


Mr. Speaker:: I again bring to the attention of hon. members that we have just about run out of time. I feel strongly for the 10 or 12 members in the third, fourth and fifth rows who have not yet had a chance to ask questions. We should limit the number of supplementaries.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question. Does the function of this group include the examination of breaches of the law in high places?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My question is for the
Acting Minister of Agriculture, if such a person is present today. The minister was supposed to be here today, as he was yesterday. When will the Minister of Agriculture announce specific programs and policies with regard to food and agricultural products that will be badly affected by the United States surtax?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member that, following the statements previously made to the House by the Minister of Agriculture, we can assure hon. members that the department is presently considering what action should be taken. Within a few days, the minister should probably be in a position to announce what definite measures will be taken to correct the situation described by the hon. member.



EFFECT OF UNITED STATES SURTAX-INFORMATION FOR AFFECTED PRODUCERS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question. Will the parliamentary secretary indicate what information is being conveyed to primary producers whose orders for prospective shipments to the United States this fall have already been affected?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, no definite information can be given at this moment on any action that the Department of Agriculture and the government could take in order to help primary producers who will be affected, but the hon. member-as well as all hon. members-may rest assured that such action will be satisfactory.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has expired. The hon. member for Kootenay West has been waiting for some time. I do not think he has asked a question and perhaps with the consent of the House he might be permitted to do so. If hon. members agree, the hon. member for Egmont might then ask a further supplementary.



EFFECT OF UNITED STATES SURTAX-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO POTATO PRODUCERS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A further supplementary to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that markets are presently being lost, can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether officials of the Department of Agriculture are in contact with primary producers, in particular with potato producers, to assist in meeting the difficulties caused by the surtax?


Marcel Lessard: I cannot assure the hon. member that officials of the department are in contact personally with potato producers, but I can assure him that those to whom he has referred will be covered by the program to be put forward by the government. Right now, approval of the criteria is being considered and an announcement by the government should come very rapidly.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the recent news report that the United States government will not reduce the phosphate content in detergents, how does this recent action fit into the agreement which we have been told was made between the Canadian and United States authorities in meeting pollution problems in the Great Lakes, specifically that dealing with phosphates?
September 21, 1971


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the targets which were agreed upon can still be met by the United states. They will need more treatment facilities. We are taking a two pronged approach, reducing phosphates in detergents and adding treatment facilities.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning the business of the House. In view of the announcement which was made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Whitehorse last Friday concerning Bill C-l 87, is it the intention of the government to proceed now with Bill C-187 either in committee or in this House? If it is not the intention to do so, as the minister said in Whitehorse, can a statement now be made accordingly so as to remove the uncertainty affecting mining capital going into the Yukon?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not prepared to recognize that that is a point of order. At the same time, I am prepared to allow the minister to reply to the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to clarify the situation and will do so as soon as I have a moment in which to discuss the matter with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I had intended to ask for the floor myself on a point of order, but merely to confirm what I think has been conveyed informally, namely, that in view of the large number of allotted days facing us in this part of the session I should like to call an allotted day for Thursday, and I so give notice for the benefit of the table officers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 22, consideration of Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Gleave (page 7252).
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on June 22 last the Liberal government had the audacity to bring forward for debate Bill C-244, expecting it to pass through the House with all its amendments before the Saskatchewan election took place the following day. The amendments we have introduced, Nos. 1 and 2, are concerned with the costs of production. If the bill had gone through
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
without amendment on June 22, no doubt the minister would have been pleased, but the farmers of western Canada would have known full well that they had been seduced by the government.
The amendments were not accepted at that time and the minister failed to learn a lesson from his experience in the House. He went ahead. He sent out promissory notes to the producers of western Canada telling them what they would be getting and when they could expect it. There can be no question that the amendments we have introduced in connection with costs of production deal with the most important aspect of this legislation with which Parliament should concern itself. It is not a question of trying to brainwash the people of western Canada with stories about what they are to get and when they can expect it.
Back in June, when this bill was last debated, reference was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) to the cost of farm machinery-a direct cost to producers. In the short time I had the floor, I pointed out to the Minister of Agriculture that he had done nothing for two years about the cost of farm machinery even though Dr. Barber had recommended that an investigation should be carried out under the terms of the Combines Investigation Act. The minister said; "Stick to the facts. That is not true."
I wish to point out to members on the government side, and particularly to the minister, that as long ago as October 14, 1970, questions on this subject were asked during the question period. A late night debate took place on this very question of whether the government was prepared to take action under the combines legislation with regard to the price of farm machinery. We talked to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) on numerous occasions, and the only acknowledgement we received was to the effect that the government was looking into the question and would see what could be done.
One of the questions on this subject was asked as long ago as October 14, 1970. On May 21, 1971, questions were still being asked about it. There were debates late at night about what was to be done so far as the Department of Consumer Affairs was concerned. The only information we received was that the matter was being looked after. All this shows that little is being done in an attempt to reduce cost to the producers of western Canada, yet this is an area of the greatest significance and it is what amendment No. 1 is all about. The minister should cease trying to tell the farmers of western Canada that a stabilization plan based on gross income instead of net income is in order.
The other night a great debate took place in the House on the subject of the stabilization plan as it relates to the situation under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Members of the House heard how the laws of the land can be broken by taking shortcuts. At that time the minister was criticizing some of my hon. friends. He said the bill had been held up particularly by members of the NDP-not those from Saskatchewan who were busy campaigning but by several from other parts of the country who had remained here to block the bill. Mr. Speaker, at that time, on June 22, two New Democrats from Saskatchewan spoke on this particular bill. Again, this shows the inconsistency of hon. gentlemen opposite. The half-truths we

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
are hearing about this bill appear to be the order of the day.
The credibility gap widens from day to day as the government talks about the equitable distribution of wealth and hon. members opposite talk in terms of gross income without any consideration for the things that really matter, net income and the cost of production. No wonder we object to the passage of the bill before us without amendment or without its being divided into two parts so that there will be ample time for full discussion later.
The government are now recognized as being the hangmen of the Prairies. They are regarded throughout the Prairies as exactly that. From the travelling I have done this summer in Saskatchewan and Alberta there is no doubt that the carrot the government is holding before the Prairie people will not be accepted. They want more than that, and they want it immediately or there will be some changes.
I wonder whether the government is aware that last year, in one small municipality, 61 notices for tax enforcement were published. Do members opposite believe that this reflects a satisfactory situation, that it represents the normal process of operations, or do they realize that the only way in which this situation can be sensibly met is to look at costs of production on a net income basis? If they were to do this I am sure their proposals would receive more consideration in the House of Commons.
We have tried to move the government into showing some concern. We sought to do this last Thursday until 2.30 Friday morning. We thought that the government, and in particular the minister who represents Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) in this House, would recognize the need for providing ample opportunity for discussion and the so-called dialogue about which we hear so much between Parliament and those engaged in the agricultural process. The whole situation is ironic. A consideration of the various arrangements which have been put before us makes one wonder whether the minister is really concerned about the economic plight in which the western economy finds itself.
The members of this party know that the protection offered farm income in this bill is inadequate unless we use net income as a base and not gross income. This is exactly what the amendments before the House are designed to do, and if they were adopted something could be done about the costs of production.
I suggest to the House that if the minister from Sas-katoon-Humboldt would stand in his place and agree to divide the bill, the $100 million could be paid out immediately. The facts of the situation are well known throughout the country. These acreage payments would be paid out and we could then have further discussion of the government's stabilization plan. I am sure no problems would arise and we would be well satisfied that something was being done to assist our agricultural producers. However, we know that probably this will not be the case. I thought that during the question period the minister was going to rise on a question of privilege and say that he was quite prepared to pay out that money, but such was not the case.
I am reminded of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said not too long ago during an interview with Peter Thomson and Fraser Kelly, then with the Toronto Telegram. Incidentally, I am sincerely disappointed to hear that the Toronto Telegram has probably sold its subscription list for $10 million but was not concerned about its employees. The Prime Minister said:
Perhaps, to be quite candid with you, when you talk of growing disenchantment I must begin by saying that some of my reading of the west is that it is always disenchanted.
In the years when wheat is good and selling most of it is disenchanted; if there is too much sun it is disenchanted; if there is too much rain it is disenchanted.
I wonder whether the minister from Saskatoon-Hum-boldt or the "prairie twins", from the west are not so much concerned with the plight of the western economy as with another matter on which a question was asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), namely, that they thought if the prairie provinces were prepared to make some changes there is no doubt the government would do something about the situation.


Otto Emil Lang: Might I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister is rising on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: May I suggest, with respect to Your Honour, that again the hon. member is showing an inclination to speak generally about the problem, repeating a speech that has been made so many times in this House by himself and other members. The House is dealing with two very specific amendments, and in order to attempt to expedite the business before the House it would be useful if he were to address himself to those amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair appreciates that there are two specific amendments before the House, but it does seem to me that the first amendment in particular is rather broad. However, I would associate myself with the minister in saying that perhaps the hon. member could be a little more precise in his remarks.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would follow up my remarks on cost of production with the response that we received from the other side of the House to questions about the agricultural economy. I could also use the analogy of last Thursday, when the minister never got around to the subject of whether or not he was breaking the law but instead talked about the stabilization plan.


Otto Emil Lang: That was a pretty general motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: When we talk of increased cost of operation I think we must look at the total picture in Canada. Government spokesmen tell us what is going to be done as far as the prairie economy is concerned, and then we are told that if the provinces themselves are prepared to do more perhaps the federal government will do the same. Although I do not object to this, in the province of Quebec there is an acceleration plan under which the government tries to create additional job opportunities. We on this side of the House are also trying to preserve job opportunities and assist the agricultural economy of the west. Eliminating these opportunities naturally increases rural problems.

September 21, 1971

This bill has received considerable debate in committee, but very little in the House. Although the minister complains about the debate it has received in the House, I thought the debate in the committee was a good one and had purpose behind it. I suggest the motions we have put forward are reasonable and practical and should be accepted by the government if it is at all concerned about increasing farm incomes above the poverty level. These motions give real consideration to the problem of increased cost of production and I see no reason why they should not be accepted.
We all know that the three agricultural ministers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have requested a meeting with the federal minister to discuss the general situation confronting agriculture. We know that a reasonable attempt is being made to try to find a solution. If we are to be reasonable in this House of Commons the least the minister can do is allow this discussion to take place. Surely there could be nothing wrong with adjourning the debate at this point in order to allow this kind of representation to be made, as a result of which we could divide the bill into two parts, pay out this money to the farmers and at the same time give consideration to using as a base net income rather than gross income. If this were done I think everything would be perfectly all right.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the debate on the report stage motions Nos. 1 and 2, Bill C-244, be now adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Mr* Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Fisheries-Effect of operations of foreign nationals-Action to achieve conservation; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Air Transportimpending price war among trans-Atlantic carriers-Government approval of participation of Air Canada and CPA in price fixing meeting; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-St. Lawrence Seaway-Decision on possible increase in tolls-Request for reference of Carr report to committee.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-244, respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Mr. Gleave (page 7252).
Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersely):: Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments presently before us deals with the net income feature of farming in western Canada. I ask the House, why shouldn't we have a net income feature covering the cost of living so far as the farmers are
[Mr. Speaker.)
concerned? There is nothing in this legislation concerning the net income position of farmers, and that is something which disturbs me greatly.
The price of everything a farmer purchases is increasing. The price of machinery has been going up. We appointed a royal commission to study the price of farm machinery and received an excellent report from it, the Barber report, about which the government apparently is going to do nothing. The price of farm machinery is an important item in farm costs, particularly on the Prairies. It is only reasonable that something should be done about these costs if we are going to consider the net income feature of farming in western Canada.
The costs of government have increased. The salaries of teachers, university professors and of Members of Parliament have been increased. Why shouldn't the farmer's income increase also? Instead, the exact opposite is happening; the net income of farmers has gone down. To me it does not seem reasonable that we should pass legislation averaging income without taking action in this particular area. Wheat is now being sold to millers more cheaply than it has been in past years, although production costs have continued to increase. It does not make economic sense to have a basic food ingredient selling at a lower price to the producer when the income of everybody else has increased.
Further, I suggest that flour for bread constitutes a small percentage of the consumer's dollar, although the cost of practically everything else has increased. Just last Saturday I bought two loaves of a particular type of bread at the National Bakery on Bank Street in Ottawa and found that the price had gone up by one cent a loaf. What is the reason for that? It is not because the price of the basic ingredient, wheat, has gone up. The minister should consider such matters when drafting a bill of this sort.
I think that the minister who represents the riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) made a basic assumption that the income received by prairie farmers is adequate but he has not made any serious attempt to prove that the gross income of farmers is adequate. If his assumption is based on the experience of the past five years I ask, what relationship will that have to the next five years, the way inflation has been going and with the rise in cost of all the items a farmer has to buy? It does not seem reasonable to me to expect farmers to manage in these circumstances when no other group in our economy can. If it had not been for their increased efficiency, most farmers would now be bankrupt. Some means must be found to close this gap in the cost of production that farmers have to face.
I would criticize the bill before the House and speak in favour of the amendment on two grounds. Since costs have risen and the government has done nothing about it, and since farm income has gone down and the government has done nothing or very little about that, there obviously has to be a third alternative to meet this problem. A logical method would be to evolve some means of tying the costs of production to an item sold in Canada. I have previously suggested to the minister that a good way to start would be with a two-price system for wheat. Anything consumed in Canada should be related to costs in Canada. The minister has been a member of the gov-
September 21, 1971

ernment for three years, but so far has done nothing about this problem. I suggest to the minister that any plan or income program that he is going to adopt in regard to prairie farmers should include this basic item.
If we sell food in Canada which is grown in Canada, it should have some relation to the cost of producing it in Canada. This is particularly so when we consider that many of the items purchased by farmers are based on Canadian costs. On my farm I have a 1600 International truck which was made in eastern Canada. The cost of that truck is a Canadian cost, not a Japanese or British cost. The price that the people working in the truck factory in Hamilton pay for bread, wheat or the basic ingredients of their food should bear some relation to the wages they get for the labour put into the truck-in effect, a net income figure related to other net incomes in Canada. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board has not argued that this is not a fair proposition. I suggest to him that it is a reasonable assumption that there should be a net income position for prairie farmers which would bear some relation to costs, especially Canadian costs.
The two-price system has been advocated by farm groups for a long time. The minister suggested that he has consulted farm groups about this plan and others that he has presented to Parliament. This is a system that all farm groups have suggested, and he has chosen to ignore it. It has some relation to costs and income in Canada. Of course, it would not solve all the problems of prairie grain producers but it does have some relevance to their situation. Just a few days ago the net income position of occupational groups in Canada was published. It included doctors, lawyers, automobile workers, surveyors, architects and others. It showed that some cities in Canada have a very high net income position. But was any city in Saskatchewan listed? Was the farmer listed, or the beef producer?
If the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt wants to draft a plan that will do some good for the prairie economy, I suggest he should consider a two-price system for wheat. The government of Manitoba believes that this would be an important feature of any stabilization program in connection with the income of farmers, and I do not recall that the minister denied this. Indeed, he did not make any serious effort to prove that farmers were receiving an adequate income.
All the farm groups that I have talked with or that appeared before the committee are opposed to the stabilization program. The farmer's increased cost of production must be taken into consideration and the minister should look closely at some of the suggestions made by the prairie governments. The minister has not proved that the farmer is making too much or too little money. He should at least prove his case if he is going to average farm income.
It must be remembered that the government's proposal will cost the farmer 2 per cent of his gross income in grain up to $300, and that he has no option in respect of the plan. If he is already in the red, he will have to go in deeper. The minister may point out that the farmer will get money back if crops are poor enough, but one of the reasons farmers are opposed to this plan is that their experience in the past with this type of base support has been rather negative. Take, for example, the 80 per cent
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
floor price for hogs. In my part of the -country last year hogs were 19 cents a pound, or less, for quite some time. Did anybody get a support or deficiency price? This price is below the cost of production. Farmers are well aware of the fact that in this type of program, before they get a support price or any help their situation must be so desperate that they are almost bankrupt.
Another awkward feature of this plan is that it is based on too large an area. Three prairie provinces are involved. In the last three years, crops in the Peace River area of British Columbia have been rather poor. These people could be made bankrupt by contributing to the plan while farmers on the Prairies received an adequate income. This is one of the reprehensible features of the plan, that a charge can be imposed on somebody who will receive no benefit from the plan or who may be bankrupt before he does.
In my experience with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, in some years I received assistance when I did not deserve it and in others, because of the blanket approach, I did not receive assistance when I was entitled to it. I am not advocating doing away with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, but it has served its purpose. If something is to be put in its place it should be a program that is much more effective.
Because of its many unattractive features, because the legislation does not consider costs, because it will increase the burden on farmers at a time when they are not in a position to bear any further increase, I must support the amendment, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my first remarks in this debate must be to point out that it is regrettable that the government has allowed itself to degenerate so much in the eyes of the people and particularly in the eyes of western farmers. In my hand I hold excerpts from a copy of Hansard of 1969. It is interesting to read what the late Member of Parliament for the constituency of Assiniboia had to say on the subject of agriculture. He said, as reported at page 969 of Hansard for November 18, 1969:
We need a national policy for Canadian agriculture. It is long overdue.
At the bottom of the page he is reported as saying:
I renew my plea to the government to support the price of wheat at $1.95! for export as well as domestic consumption.
He said many interesting things in that speech. On page 967 he is reported to have said:
It is the area of agriculture that has the greatest problems. The situation is not good-
One could read the entire speech and learn much from it. The point is that he said we need an agricultural policy. He also said that the price of wheat should be supported at $1.95 4 per bushel. All hon. members appreciate the efforts of that hon. member, who sat on the government side of the House, in his attempts to bring forward concrete proposals that would help his area of western Canada. I hate to say what I am about to say because the hon. member is not here to defend himself: one can only say that he failed to convince the government of the need to support wheat at any price. They have deliberately

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
refused to pay the 9 i cents a bushel owed to farmers for last year. When you couple that with the amount that has been owing since then, the government owes the farmer in the neighbourhood of 15 cents per bushel. That amount should have been paid to our farmers up to the present. The government is not supporting wheat at $1.951 a bushel; it is not supporting it at all.
It is regrettable that the government has not introduced the agricultural policy which the hon. member said was so badly needed. In the same speech he praised the appointment of a minister who would have sole jurisdiction over the Wheat Board. He said that he knew the minister would give the Board his undivided assistance and attention. Since then the position has degenerated. He no longer devotes his undivided attention to matters involving Canadian wheat; he must devote part of his attention to his duties as Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The late hon. member for Assiniboia would be disappointed if he saw the present situation. Perhaps it is better that he does not know about it.
I now wish to say a few words about the grain stabilization program. May I say, before commencing my main remarks on the motions, that if the government had paid what it owes the farmers under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act I would have been quite prepared to vote against the motion that was brought in this afternoon. We cannot ignore the government's disobedience of the law. We should not permit the government to go on its merry way and disregard the law. With that consideration in mind I was motivated to support the motion.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board represents the constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I was under the impression that the hon. member indicated a few moments ago that he was about to direct his remarks to the two motions which are before the House for debate. I think, with respect, that the hon. member should confine himself to that subject. We are now at the report stage of Bill C-244 and I suggest that hon. members should try to deal with motions that are before the House for debate.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I heartily agree with you. I did not think I was straying from the motions. The first motion deals with an amendment to clause 2. Its effect would be that a farmer's income would be compiled on the basis of the net income of the farmer rather than on gross sales. I wholeheartedly support that concept. Today we find the farmer, to use that old, shopworm expression, caught in the cost-price squeeze as never before. Why do I say "as never before"? Wheat prices in the last year or so have gone down, yet the costs the farmer must pay have gone up. They will go up, particularly after the government brings in its new tax measure which will impose a capital gains tax on machinery, and so on. The farmer's costs are going up, yet the price he receives for his wheat is going down; consequently, he is caught in the cost-price squeeze as never before.
That is why I wholeheartedly support this amendment. After all, we are trying to stabilize the farmer's income and bring about the greatest possible security of income for people engaged in farming. To my way of thinking, if the government really wants to stabilize the farmer's

income it should do so on the basis of net income rather than of gross sales.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) is from Saskatoon. Nevertheless, we must ask, whom is he serving? Is he serving the farmers of Saskatchewan or the government of Canada? One could say that he is serving both. In that regard it may be interesting to recall the comments made on June 2, 1968, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined in Winnipeg the agricultural policy of the Liberal Party. He is reported as having said:
One of the most pressing long-range problems for western farmers is the need for an adequate yearly income, to get away from the boom and bust cycle that has become part of prairie farm life. To this end, the Liberals are proposing a plan, which, in effect, sounds like the equivalent of unemployment insurance for farmers. In good years they would pay into a fund; in bad years they would draw money from the fund, thereby, to a degree, stabilizing their income.
Those words do not refer to net or gross income. I like to think they refer to net income. However, as we look at the legislation, which it is claimed expresses the concepts enunciated on June 2 in Winnipeg, we can readily see that it has been dreamed up by the civil service and the Prime Minister's establishment, and not by the farmers.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, before the supper hour I was talking about the dreams and aspirations of the late hon. member for Assiniboia and his concept of what an agricultural policy for Canada should envisage. As recorded at page 967 of Hansard for November 18, 1969, he said that the price of wheat should be supported and that there should be a national agricultural policy.
The government has attempted to establish an agricultural policy based on bureaucratic thinking and the establishment thinking within the PMO, or it might be referred to as the establishment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), which is completely contrary to the position taken by the late hon. member for Assiniboia. This proves to me, a member of the opposition, that one cannot be effective within the government ranks, particularly when the government is comprised of an authoritative, arrogant group of ministers prepared to do what they want and not necessarily what the people want.
The late hon. member expressed the desire that prices of wheat be supported. This government is deliberately bringing in a measure which takes almost 15 cents a bushel from the farmer, taking into consideration the 9.5 cents a bushel that should have been paid out and the portion which should have been paid out since the beginning of the present crop year.
Prior to the supper hour I was pointing out that this policy was envisaged long before the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board was even elected. It was long before he had his present responsibility. I say in his
September 21, 1971

defence that one cannot rightfully accuse him of being the father of the stabilization program; he is merely a servant trying to carry out the policy.
It is very important that we understand how this situation came about. The program was dreamed up. This minister is merely trying to carry it out. Let us take consider how he is attempting to carry it out. The minister's basic purpose in carrying out this program is his desire to serve the Prime Minister and the ministry. It is regrettable that he does not have greater desire to serve the farmers of Saskatchewan. I cannot change that fact; I have to accept the fact that he feels his primary purpose is to serve the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said, "Carry out the program which I announced on June 2, 1968. Forget about the farmers and forget about the people of Saskatchewan."
The people of Saskatchewan fully understand the situation. There was recently an agricultural conference held in Regina, attended by the three prairie Ministers of Agriculture. They all regretted the actions of the federal government. The farmers have repeatedly stated that they regret the actions of the federal government. In this debate an hon. member stated that he had received 4,200 letters from people who regret this particular action. It is obvious that the minister has disregarded the views of the farmer and has decided to serve the government first.
It is always regrettable when the ministry decides it is the master, not the people, and tells the people what they are going to receive, rather than the people telling the government what they desire. That fact is vividly illustrated in this legislation. It has also been pointed out on a number of previous occasions. We have frequently seen the government adopt this attitude.
In all fairness, the minister has attempted to sell this program rather well. I say to the other ministers in the cabinet-if the Prime Minister were here he could bear witness to what I am saying-that the minister has attempted to sell this program rather well. He did not go about it in the way in which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) tried to slide in Bill C-176. In a moment of crisis and urgency that minister tried to slide in a major piece of marketing legislation which would bring about a great deal of control and rigidity in our agricultural system.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board went about selling the concept of the government's plan in a very good way. On April 29 he announced in Parliament that the grain stabilization program was being proposed. It looked good. The Federation of Agriculture, the Farmers Union, the grain companies and all political parties studied it throughout the winter months. They have all rejected it. The Canada Grains Council have great fears about it. Mr. Runciman, chairman of the Canada Grains Council which was set up to advise the government, said to the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, as recorded in issue No. 58 of the Committee's proceedings, that at best the program would be a long-range one and would not help in the short range or in a temporary situation.
There is no secret about the situation in agriculture today. As I explained before the supper hour, there is an immediate problem. To use a shopworn phrase, the
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
farmer is caught in the cost-price squeeze. That is certainly true today because the price of wheat has gone down while costs of production have gone up.
The minister, in his attempt to sell this program, initiated a debate on October 29. He did not bring in this piece of legislation until April; I think it was April 23. I would say this was where he made his mistake. He should have brought in his program in February. At that point the farmers, the wheat pools, the Federation of Agriculture and perhaps even the Farmers Union might have been prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and to go along with it. But he waited too long.
It is a question of timing. It has been said over the years that the art of politics is the art of timing. I think the minister failed badly in his timing. Had he brought this program in in February he would not have found himself in the difficulty which confronts him now under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, when he finds that $87.6 million are owing and should be paid.
I for one have little faith in this stabilization program but I am prepared to pass it provided the minister pays his debts.


An hon. Member:: A little more than that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member to my left says, "A little more than that." I would like to see a little more than that, it is true, but I am considered a moderate. I want the government to understand that we are prepared to negotiate. We are prepared to help the government help the farmer. There may be big headlines about the minister being prepared to go to jail. I am sure that many farmers in western Canada wish he had been in jail for the last six months. If he had been in jail maybe they would have got 15 cents a bushel more for their wheat.
There is no question that the amendments before the House deal with specific aspects of the minister's program. They ask that his proposals be worked out on the basis of net income rather than gross sales. Everyone concerned should bear in mind that farmers have a margin of 13 per cent of their gross sales on which to live. Now the government is proposing to take 2 per cent of the gross, which is like taking 5 or 6 per cent of the net income since farmers live on 13 per cent of their gross sales. The Bureau of Statistics can check these figures. My analysis suggests that eastern farmers live on 14 per cent of their gross sales and western farmers on 13 per cent, but I lump both groups together and say that this measure calls on farmers to pay something like 5 per cent of their net income.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member knows he cannot continue unless he receives unanimous consent. Does the House give its consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and express my appreciation for the generous mood of the House. It is, I think, well known that I have not abused the rules of the House of Commons, and I assure Your Honour and mem-

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
bers of the House that I shall not abuse the privilege which has been granted to me. I appreciate it very much.
I was saying that the farmer lives on 13 per cent of his gross sales. In charging him 2 per cent of gross sales you are, in effect, taking 5 per cent of his net income. This is why I wholeheartedly support the principle of the first two amendments moved to this bill. I know how much the government wants to help the farmers. I know how much members opposite want to get this legislation through.


Mark Willson Rose: Support the NDP.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I support these amendments and would gladly have moved them myself, but I consulted fellow members of the agricultural committee and knew they were going to move them.


Mark Willson Rose: Where are they?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They have been tabled.


Mark Willson Rose: They must be under the table, then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair is of the opinion that this exchange between two hon. members does not further the debate. I hope that in the extra time allotted to him, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will continue his remarks.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate Your Honour's comments and applogize for being side-tracked by some odd remarks.
I want to make this clear. We tabled amendments. When I go into a committee I do not play partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The members of that committee work together. If a member belongs to a political party and says he intends to submit certain amendments, I say, "Fine. I will submit other amendments." I do not question his motives. I believe that as a member of the agricultural committee he must be motivated by concern for the good of the farmer.


An hon. Member:: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We in this party have filed amendments; members of the NDP have filed amendments. I want to say this clearly so that the minister will understand: We on this side are prepared to see the passage of this bill, with certain amendments. I would hope that the minister, in this hour of need of farmers in western Canada, in this hour, perhaps, of political need in view of the Assiniboia by-election, will accept some common sense amendments to the bill before us. The measure deals exclusively with western Canada. When the minister said, "Let us take it to the people", did he really mean that? If he did, let us get our heads together and make some reasonable changes to the legislation.
I am not saying that the amendments which I, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) or the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) have moved must be accepted. But I urge the minister to take counsel. Let us get our heads together; let us move and accept some good amendments, as parliamentarians, not as partisan politicians, for the sake of the farmers of western Canada. I

make this plea on behalf of the western farmers and ask the minister to consider it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in the debate on these motions moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) because I have a degree of certainty in my mind that grain farmers, right across political lines in my constituency, are insisting on this. Even if I were ignorant, I am not stupid about how the people who are most affected by this kind of legislation feel about it.
The motions regarding costs of production and what the minister thinks is so holy about 90 per cent of income rather than 100 per cent are a reflection, I think, of the title of this bill, which includes the word "stabilization". This word has a favourable connotation; it gives one the impression of something good, of some kind of improvement. But the word "stabilization" as used in Bill C-244 carries with it nothing more than an abstract concept devoid of any particular meaning. It is particularly meaningless since the title of the bill is "An act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds," and so on.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) referred to the words "grain incomes" and quoted the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said something about grain incomes. But what my hon. friend from Crowfoot should remember and what the Prime Minister should remember is that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) has never once alleged, intimated or claimed that this bill has anything to do with grain incomes. This bill has to do with grain sale proceeds, and there is a great deal of difference between the two. When the minister uses the word "stabilization" in the title of his bill, it strips it of all meaning in the sense of how you or I, Mr. Speaker, would understand the word.
If the bill were described as a bill to "stabilize grain incomes" there would be much validity to the use of the word "stabilization" in both the title and the content of the bill. This is why we believe that in the context of the title of the bill the word "stabilization" is devoid of meaning. There is a failure to apply the word "stabilization" to "grain incomes" instead of "grain sale proceeds". What a Chamber of Commerce, lovey-dovey, finance company type of title that, is!
There are reasons why members of the opposition have moved this kind of amendment to the bill, and I suspect some members on the government side would also like to move such an amendment. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board may be able to convince himself that the members of the opposition are bluffing or playing politics because of a Saskatchewan election, an Alberta election, an Assiniboia by-election, or any kind of election in western Canada, but I hope that by now he has the message that we are not bluffing.
I hope that the farmers of Assiniboa invite the minister to a debate on this subject. None of us has any illusions about our political lives, even if the minister has. I will take whatever chances I have in terms of how I assess the mood and feelings of the grain farmers in the three prairie provinces, let alone in my own constituency. Particularly will I take my chances in terms of how the grain farmers in the minister's constituency feel.
September 21, 1971

The minister may in his wisdom choose to ignore what some idiot like me or any other idiot on this side of the chamber may say about this kind of motion which seeks to deduct increased costs of production, but he also chooses to ignore what every farm organization in western Canada has said about changes that should be made to the legislation.


Mark Willson Rose: Why does he do that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, why? I find it passing strange, in view of the priority that is placed on this bill, that nowhere in the speech, consisting of one paragraph on each amendment, which he made when the bill was last before the House at report stage on June 22 did he refute or dispute any figures, facts or claims included in the briefs of -the farm organizations and the government of Manitoba. When it comes to costs of production, I find it even more passing strange that the minister has received no support from his colleagues on the government side who come from the Prairie provinces.
I should like to ask, where is the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Cobbe)? He has a fair number of permit holders in his riding, but has he yet said a word either on second reading or report stage, or, for that matter, at any other stage? Where is the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member is aware of the rule of relevancy. The Chair feels that his remarks at this time are going very much beyond that rule. As the Speaker himself said in a recent ruling, this rule is the cornerstone of debate in the House. I hope the hon. member will come back to the subject matter of the debate before the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I appreciate your reminder, Mr. Speaker, but with all respect I was very careful to begin my remarks by saying that not one Liberal member from western Canada has risen to his feet to speak about the incorporation into this legislation of a provision deducting increased costs of production. The hon. member for Portage has said nothing about costs of production and neither has the hon. member for Rocky Mountain who, believe it or not, has some permit holders in the Crows-nest Pass. Where is the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Smerchanski)?


David Orlikow: He is never here.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No. He has not said a word. Is the minister's bill so good that it does not need amendment? If the minister's bill does not need this particular amendment or the elimination of the minister's "kick" about 90 per cent of annual aggregate grain sale proceeds, then why have not some of his colleagues from the three prairie provinces risen in support of it?
There are a number of other members of the House from whom we expected to hear. There is a Liberal member from Edmonton-whatever his name is-who has not said a word on this bill, though how could he if he is never here? Then they have a member from Calgary who has plenty to say about oil companies, gas pipelines and tax bills, but I have not seen him rise in support of the minister's legislation. There are other Liberal members
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
from the prairie provinces who have been noticeably absent or silent.
June 22 was the last occasion when motions Nos. 1 and 2 were before the House at the report stage. On that occasion the minister made one speech which included two paragraphs, one on each amendment. He said that inclusion of the words "costs of production" contained in this amendment would render the provision unworkable, though he did not say why. As I say, he has yet to refute one single fact or statistic in the brief of the government of Manitoba which was presented to the standing committee of the House. He has yet to challenge any of their statements.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I spoke on the telephone three or four times this morning to people who were directly concerned with this submission, and the minister has yet to dispute their costs of production figures. He may dispute them in terms of accuracy, but he has not yet disputed them or refuted the suggestion that costs of production figures could have been used in this field. He cannot do this, because he has no figures of his own. Perhaps he could get some, but he has not yet done so.
The entire submission of the Manitoba government tears the minister's stabilization bill into shreds. It talks in farmers' language, but the minister has yet to refute any of it. He thinks we are bluffing, but he has not seen anything yet. If the minister thinks he is going to get agreement from the government House leader in respect of extending the time for this debate, he has another think coming, because he has no support in his own caucus. This bill is low on the government's priority list. One has only to look back to the debates on second reading, particularly on May 6, to see that he was in a big rush to get the bill through. Hansard of May 7 indicates/that he was in a real hurry, as does Hansard of May 4 and May 10. No Liberal member other than the hon. gentleman for Sas-katoon-Humboldt has been on his feet in support of this measure.


Otto Emil Lang: Your filibusters have been enough.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister is a loser. We are not going to allow the grain growers on the Prairies to be losers because of one lonely cabinet minister who cannot get the support of his own party to do the things he knows should be done.


Otto Emil Lang: Order. Speak to the business before the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are going to talk about this bill and I would like another 20 minutes to go into some of the facts and figures on behalf of the grain farmers in the three prairie provinces. I should like the minister to tell us why he cannot take one of two suggested approaches in respect of costs of production figures. I readily agree with him that the costs of production figures arrived at by farm management groups are not really broad enough, but even they represent the situation more accurately than anything he has brought forward. The minister has

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
even suggested there are slight weaknesses in the DBS costs of production figures. He has not even considered the method used by the government of Manitoba in arriving at these figures.
We realize that the Manitoba government is not as big as the government of Canada and not as big as this minister, but that government has taken the DBS handbook on agricultural statistics to arrive at farm net income figures. The total farm operating expenses and depreciation costs for the three prairie provinces have been tabulated by DBS. The government of Manitoba used this tabulation as a basis for arriving at costs of production figures. They do not pretend these figures are perfect; they even say that they are not perfect.


Otto Emil Lang: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: By all means.


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that, apart from all the technical problems of determining what are the particular costs of production of individual farmers, the basic proposition of stabilization would not be affected whether you used a change in gross or a change in net, except if you add a significant infusion of additional cash. Does he realize that if the Manitoba scheme were implemented it might cost the producers an extra 8 per cent or 10 per cent levy on their production?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That might be true, if we did it the way the minister would do it. Of course it would cost the farmer more if the minister's formula were applied. When is this minister going to get the message? This is one of the few occasions in the history of agricultural debates in Parliament, going back to at least 1951, where there has been a genuine opportunity for government and opposition members to really do something about the grains income situation in western Canada.
The minister keeps applying the concepts of his predecessors. This is what we are trying to persuade him not to do. We are not particularly interested in the minister personally. We think he is a very nice fellow. But he refuses to accept the findings and figures of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the United Grain Growers and the three prairie wheat pools. He turns a deaf ear in that direction.
He can turn as many deaf ears as he likes toward Conservative and NDP members from the prairie provinces because that is fair ball and by-play in this House of Commons-but why does he remain insensitive and stubborn in respect of what the farmers themselves are saying? What other choice do we have but to fight him and his government, even though our respective political necks are on the line? We have never had any illusions about that, but if he thinks we are bluffing I hope what has happened today has convinced him we are not.
Let me return again to the matter of costs of production figures. The minister may well interrupt me with questions but, quite frankly, I must confess I did not know what the hell he was talking about when he interrupted me, and I am not sure he does either. When is he going to reply in this House and tell us why costs of production figures are unworkable? That is what he said on June 22.

He said they were unworkable, but he did not say why or how.
He has not said a word to dispute the figures put forward by the government of Manitoba. He just got up and said they were unworkable. The grain farmers in the three Prairie provinces are like the man from Missouri. Better still, they are from the three Prairie provinces.
The minister has not given us a satisfactory reply and no other Liberal Member of Parliament from the Prairie provinces has been off his seat to support him. There may be some reason for the Liberal members from British Columbia, from Thunder Bay, and Kenora-Rainy River to support the hon. gentleman, but none of them has done so yet. Why have they not?
How is it that the hon. gentleman can talk about filibusters when the whole history of his announcements in October and March, during second reading and at the committee and report stages, indicate this is a travesty? This is about the fifteenth bill presented by the fifteenth cabinet minister. Obviously, the bill and the minister are both a long way down, low on the totem pole. Obviously, they do not count and the government does not care. Why does the Liberal government need a corporal's guard of Liberal Members of Parliament from the prairie provinces when it knows they are not going to get anywhere?


David Orlikow: They are not going to be re-elected.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The government does not need them and, I agree, they are not going to be re-elected. Where are the Liberal friends of the farmers other than the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt? Where is the support, either visual or oral, on the part of the government for this minister? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has made some noise once or twice, but I think the last time was about three months ago and we have not seen him since. He does not want to be caught in association with the minister on this bill.
The Minister of Agriculture is worried about things in Medicine Hat. If he thinks the uprising between the Crowfoot Indians and the Mounted Police back in the 1800s was something big, he has seen nothing yet. There is a very good reason for the Minister of Agriculture not backing up the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt on this bill. I believe this minister has made a genuine effort to persuade his colleagues in the cabinet and in the caucus to do something about this legislation, without success. I ask the hon. gentleman to try again.
When he appears at the cabinet meeting if there is one tomorrow, or at the first opportunity, he should renew his request for support of a two-price system. It is time to renew that request. He should also renew his request for something more than this stabilization bill. In that way he could prove the concern about which he speaks. I believe him when he says he will not take a back seat to any member of this House in respect of his concern for the grain growers of the prairie provinces. Let him state to his cabinet colleagues and his colleagues in the caucus that if they are not prepared to go along with his suggestions, they should get themselves another boy because he does not intend to be a political sacrificial lamb for the Members of Parliament from other parts of Canada who belong to the Liberal party but could not care less about
September 21, 1971

the farmers. If the hon. member wants to be that kind of a sucker, I feel sorry for him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by the rules has expired. Unless the House gives unanimous consent, he cannot continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: There does not seem to be unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member knows he can pursue his remarks only with unanimous consent, and there does not seem to be that consent.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the report stage of Bill C-244, which apart from being most interesting, contains provisions designed to assist our grain producers, especially those in the Prairies.
A lot has been said and written about Bill C-244 and after the debate on the motion for second reading in the House, it was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture where it was discussed clause after clause. It is now before the House at the report stage.
According to parliamentary procedure, the hon. member who did not have an opportunity to express their views or else to have the Committee on Agriculture accept the amendments they felt were reasonable, may if they so desire, submit their amendments at the report stage.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the case with the amendment now being dealt with, and on which I should like to make a few comments in all fairness to Western farmers.
What does the bill say exactly? Clause 2(l)(c) states, and I quote:
"grain sale proceeds" means the amount of the purchase price of grain produced on land described in a permit book and sold by a producer to a licensee, after the deduction from the purchase price of the grain of the lawful charges that are applicable to the grain on its sale to the licensee by the producer;
Now the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), an expert in that field, felt it his duty to point out to the House that the terms used in the wording of this bill are not clear enough, and that they are too vague to do justice to western grain producers.
Also, Mr. Speaker, these vague phrases do not always apply only to western farmers but also too often unfortunately to eastern producers.
Well-meaning people often think that expressions such as "the lawful charges that are applicable to the grain on its sale to the licensee by the producer" will be enough to give producers the guarantee that the production cost will be included in the price and that the producer will eventually be protected.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
In the light of the experience in my own riding and of the facts we have known throughout Canada, the hon. member who introduced the amendment was perfectly justified in doing so, I think, because he simply wanted the bill to express in an understandable manner what is meant by production cost. Part of the amendment reads as follows:
"and after the deduction of the increased costs of production, and including stabilization payments, if any";
Mr. Speaker, the expression "costs of production" comprises many things which, of necessity, are involved in a production cycle; it includes not only seed grain, fertilizers and labour costs, but also capital investment, interest, depreciation on equipment and that resulting from weather conditions on the land being used. All these things must be taken into consideration if justice is to be done to the producer who devotes himself to agriculture, tilling the soil to extract from it what is required to feed mankind.
Mr. Speaker, the people were made aware of this bill and, as it should be if committees really serve a purpose, it was absolutely normal for the interested parties, or the individual producers, to go to the trouble of sitting at a table and writing down on a scrap of paper the suggestions or the recommendations which they wanted to make to the members of a committee such as the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will not be shocked, because I have on my desk half a ton of papers specifically used by western producers to let it known to a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture what was expected of him in connection with such and such a bill. This is what you see on the desk of the member for Bellechasse. These are letters sent by western producers to a member of the committee. I wanted to bring them here, because it happens sometimes that such harmless statements are merely supposed to be an exaggeration. I insisted on answering each of these letters during the period of the debate or Bill C-244. Why? Because I myself, as a farmer and producer, was often frustrated by the government's attitude. In fact, certain letters that we addressed to it were simply thrown in the basket and we did not receive any reply. The government kept on doing as it pleased, not considering any recommendation from producers.
In these circumstances, though I am a Canadian from the East, I felt that I had to take my responsibilities, acknowledge receipt of representations addressed to me and tell those who wrote to me that I would in due time make Parliament aware of their requests. I consider that the time has now come to outline their viewpoints and invite this government to bring forth precisions on Bill C-244 so as to guarantee these people the justice to which they are entitled and to ensure that they maintain their confidence in the Parliament of Canada.
This is not a matter of politics but a matter of common sense. In fact, fair representations must be made to Parliament whose duty it is to legislate so as to ensure good government for the whole country, regardless of geographic considerations. Conscientious members must carry out their responsibilities and act in the interest of the community.

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
That is why I wish to support the amendment now under consideration which, in my opinion, is a fair one. As a matter of fact, it is not a matter of opposing the government, but of giving the people the assurance that the best possible legislation is adopted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of these letters reads in part as follows:
As a member of the Committee on Agriculture I ask you to take the following positions on Bill C-244.
It is a suggestion, a recommendation.
For a few days now we have been hearing discussions relating to the introduction of motions whose purpose is to raise a debate on the non payment of grants, support payments which were to be made under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I even attended a debate which went on as late as 2.30 in the morning on this subject. I consider that under the circumstances, if we want to be really objective, we will have to reach a conclusion and we will if the suggestions and recommendations of interested producers are given some consideration. Here is what is suggested in the same letter:
Separate the payment of the $100 million from the rest of the legislation and refuse to consider Bill C-244 until the government has made such payment.
Mr. Speaker, I know that when people expect payments for work performed, even the sale of products, it is always encouraging for those who believe in the legislation to see that it is enforced and provides at least the expected benefits. But the matter under discussion is whether Parliament will take production costs into account under Bill C-244.
A moment ago, I listened to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) make a remark that I considered serious. While one of my colleagues was delivering his speech, he said: In short, what is the production cost? As a matter of fact, it can vary from one province to the next, but not to the extent of causing serious prejudice to the western farmer. One must take the average into account, not only in clause 2 of Bill C-244, but also in any law dealing with the various classes of society.
I believe that when we are really aware of our responsibilities, it will be possible to understand one another more quickly on the contents of Bill C-244, and I invite the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to lend a careful ear to suggestions even though they may be those of the opposition. It does not mean they are all bad. Some of them may be sound. Regardless of party politics, we are here in this House to consider those proposals seriously and to incorporate them into the law for the good of the whole society.
That is why I made a few remarks to the House on clause 2 and the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. We also wanted to prove our community of interests with other Canadians, even those of the riding of Ontario represented by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who is not a wheat producer.
Mr. Speaker, at times I find it unfortunate that the opposition be accused of filibustering. It is perhaps true in some cases, but I would like to say that, since I have been in Parliament, although time may have sometimes been

wasted on the consideration of certain measures, in general-the average must always be taken into account-we have worked seriously-


Mr.   La Salle@: That is not bad.


Mr. Lambert (BellechasBe):: The hon. member for Joliette says that is not bad. Surely that is not bad, because he himself often took part in debates on bills introduced in the House. I am convinced that his contributions then were not designed to delay the passing of government bills, but to make sure that Canada is better served by the Canadian Parliament through better laws.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that the member for Bellechasse wishes to work here, and it is in that same spirit that he wants to support the amendment under consideration, reserving the right during later consideration of Bill C-244 to make the remarks which he will deem expedient.
Finally, I would like my friends, the western farmers, the wheat or grain producers, to know that their message reached the House, and that the member for Bellechasse was glad to act as their spokesman, as a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Chicken.


M. Ervin Pringle: I have heard considerable abuse in this House of Commons, especially from the far end to my left, but I doubt if I have ever heard more abuse than I heard this evening, abuse which I think is completely unjustified and which I am sure will start farmers thinking because, although those hon. members may not realize it, farmers do think.
I have been doing business with farmers in western Canada for 30 years and I have worked on costs of production. For 20 years we have been struggling and striving to find a standard way in which to establish the costs of production of farm products, which is the subject under discussion. It is a subject that has been in the forefront of the agricultural business for as long as I can remember. I could name dozens of programs carried out by universities on costs of production. I can tell you of occasions when farmers themselves arranged to have research programs carried out. The experts can establish that one and one make two, just like the slide-rule boys do, but it is impossible to incorporate all the variables and the human elements. This is something that is not peculiar to farm products.
Is it not strange that a new provincial government comes into power and within a few months it suddenly comes up with some kind of deal that has never before been proven, that has never been worked, and says, "This is how you find the costs of production of agricultural products." I can tell you the situation of two farmers, farming side by side and supposedly operating the same way, using the same feed, and each had 5,000 pullets. They kept records and at the end of a year one farmer came up with a figure of $1 net per pullet and the other came up with a figure of $3.25 net.

I could go on and on. You will confuse the farmers with this amendment. It is not as though the opposition feel they are doing something to help the farmers. If they were to sit down with five farmers and discuss this proposal they would know that it should not be carried out. They just want to resort to red herring techniques in this House and give the impression that they are fighting for the farmers.
I see the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is leaving the chamber. In all sincerity I should like to congratulate his brother on being appointed Minister of Agriculture in the provincial government. I am sure he will be an asset to that department with his wide knowledge and experience. I have listened to him speak with his colleagues about their new prairie coalition-a kind of oddball coalition, Mr. Speaker. I was interested when he said that the government was trying to ram legislation down their throats. I have the feeling that I have heard that before. It may well be that the real Minister of Agriculture for Alberta could be sitting not too far from me in this House of Commons. I would not suggest the advice given to the brother would not be good-only time will tell.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He is the older brother.


M. Ervin Pringle: I have been involved in and associated with the farming industry for most of my life and I have no illusions about the financial problems which plague farmers. I have made money with them and I have lost money with them. I have worked with them and I have been in a secondary industry, which always is a preferred industry. A relative of mine taught me that it was a little better to farm the farmers than to farm. I admit I had that advantage. In their opposition to this bill some people are working for the man who farms the farmers, not the farmers. I do not blame them for getting the support; it is good support.


An hon. Member:: How do you figure that out?


An hon. Member:: Explain that.


M. Ervin Pringle: There is a worldwide concept-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I rise on a question of privilege. While I appreciate the hon. member's remarks and his wisdom at most times, he said that hon. members who are opposed to this legislation are opposed to it for personal reasons or political reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to point out that if this legislation passes I have already been informed that I will receive a cheque for $928.98. If it is not passed I will receive nothing under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I have not produced any wheat in the past two years and I will receive nothing.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


An hon. Member:: What is the point?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The point is that hon. members are accused of doing things for personal reasons.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are your motives as pure as that, Pringle?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is of the opinion that the point raised by the hon. member was well taken, in the sense that no hon. member should cast any reflection on the integrity or sincerity of hon. members. I am sure that it was not meant in that sense by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle). The Chair was not following the debate attentively at that particular time, however. Perhaps the hon. member would continue his remarks.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I want it placed on the record right now that there is no way I would accuse an hon. member of doing anything in the House for personal gain. I was simply referring to the fact that they were being influenced by secondary industry, and I believe that is true. Maybe they are not, but the assumption occurs to me because of the advantage the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act Provides for elevator companies. Under this act the farmers would be paid directly.
There is a worldwide concept that food must be cheap, regardless of the cost of production.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Nystrom:: No, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member would answer a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that he can ask a question only if the hon. member who has the floor accepts it.


M. Ervin Pringle: I do not have much time left-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: If I could answer the question I would be glad to do so, but I am almost at the end of my time and I have much more to say.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Have you?


M. Ervin Pringle: I worked on this speech all morning.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You wouldn't know it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The whole thing sounds like an
afterthought.


M. Ervin Pringle: There is a worldwide concept that food must be cheap, regardless of the cost of production. Food must be high in quality, regardless of input costs; and food must be produced in continuous oversupply, regardless of the fact that excessive surpluses are always sold at disastrous prices. In other words, the concept of agricultural production denies producers the right to price their products. I hasten to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that any product produced in surplus and offered for sale in excess of normal markets must run the peril of securing sales by selling at lower-than-cost prices. This is true whether it

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
relates to neckties, pots and pans, automobiles or agricultural products.
That does not mean that this act will remain as it is for the rest of time, but it is a fair and proper start to stabilization and this we need in the agricultural industry more than ever before. The days of producing anything you want on the farm and saying the city folk will have to buy it and eat it, are gone. Specialist farming has taken over and such things as synthetic foods have taken over.lt is time we realized that if we are going to maintain our agricultural industry, and especially the grain industry, we must give consideration to stabilization.
Normal stability as it relates to production, distribution and consumption can apparently only be achieved when a reasonable balance is arrived at. Certain segments of the agricultural industry in Canada have made considerable progress in bringing stability through planned production and orderly marketing. This progress has been achieved by producers who have been prepared to accept the recognized principles of business requirements. It is true that considerable planning remains to be carried out before lasting stability can be achieved, but success breeds success and gradual stability growth will continue to be in evidence within these sectors of the industry.
I do not suggest that government can or should avoid all responsibility in connection with farm income. In fact, history shows that over the years many millions of dollars have been spent by all levels of government to assist farmers. I agree that the assistance was weighted heavily toward production practices. Experimental farms, extension department services and fieldmen, university departments, financial legislation, have all combined to help farmers improve efficiency and lower production costs.
The result has been a continuous lowering of food costs through decreased production, with precious little of the savings being retained by agricultural producers. The consumers jump with joy when the bottom falls out of egg or pork prices, while at the same time they are voting to go on strike to increase their own revenue. So we have real problems in trying to stabilize in various areas of the country, and we must get the farmers themselves involved.
These so-called mandarins who start organizations and go tearing around the country sending out form letters and propagandizing are serving no useful purpose for Canadian farmers. Let the farmers get together, because they will tell you what is good for the farming industry. They know. Of course, it is more fun politically to give the government a bad time and say the farmers are not getting enough and that they need more and more.
Mr. Speaker, you need a great deal of courage to bring legislation before this House, especially if you sincerely want to help the farmers of western Canada. I use the word "sincerely" because I think the government is being sincere. The legislation the government brings in is not perfect. We have accepted amendments in the agricultural committee from various sections of the opposition. I even remember accepting an amendment one day that was in French, which I could not read. We accept amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


M. Ervin Pringle: We must consider the farmer's needs and not pay attention merely to political expediency.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question and tell us just what amendment was accepted relating to the Lift program? I submit that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) accepted no amendment relating to the Lift program or to this program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) has the floor. Unless the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has the permission of the hon. member, he cannot ask a question.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, amendments were accepted. The hon. member, as usual, has caught me without having the amendment in front of me. I am sure that amendments suggested by his party were accepted. In any event, I will be glad to tell him about them at a later date.


An hon. Member:: They were not amendments to this bill.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, may I continue? Of course, I cannot support this amendment. If it were workable I would be most happy to support it. This is the first time that farmers have been able to participate in their own financial future. They do a great job of growing grain. They shoulder the risk of climatic conditions and take a real risk in finding markets. The Canadian people, as taxpayers, do their bit to help wherever that is possible. I do not think we have done enough. I think we must try to persuade the people to help the farmers more.
Within the framework of this Bill the taxpayers of Canada are to put up $2 of the taxpayers' money for every dollar that is provided by producers, and this will be under a program to stabilize agricultural production. If hon. members were to research the background of this bill and study debates relating to it-I bring this to the attention of the hon. member for Crowfoot-they would find that certain suggestions made by the hon. member's party were agreed to and acted upon. If this bill had been in effect since 1950 the taxpayers of Canada would have poured $432 million into the pockets of the grain farmers of western Canada over and above farmers' contributions. That term encompasses not only wheat farmers but grain farmers producing six different grains.
We must consider another matter relating to this bill. Wheat is no longer the main grain of western Canada. Hon. members have heard arguments advanced about this question. I think the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) once talked about "the land of rape and honey". Rapeseed is a very important crop and was very important, as hon. members know, this summer. Flax is coming in, and just look at the big increase in our barley crop and the extra markets.


An hon. Member:: And the price.


M. Ervin Pringle: I submit that this bill is designed to stabilize the income not only of wheat farmers but of all grain farmers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is a filibuster.
September 21, 1971


M. Ervin Pringle: I know that one could go out west and say that many farmers out there are doing well. They are not doing so well as many workers in other areas of the country. They are good people, and they are doing reasonably well. One has only to look at the financial statement put out by a wheat pools to realize that this is so. The operating revenues of this pool were some $23 million in 1970. Their net operating earnings-not their gross but their net-amounted to about $4 million, or 17 per cent. That wheat pool is owned by farmers and on $23 million they made 17 per cent. I could name 1,000 businessmen who would like to make a net profit of 7 per cent, let alone 17 per cent.


Mr. Peters:: The hon. member should move the motion. He has only three minutes left.


M. Ervin Pringle: Because of the great interest being shown in this House, especially by those in the opposition, in this bill I wish to move, under Standing Order 6(5)(a):
That we continue sitting beyond ten o'clock for the purpose of continuing consideration of the report stage of Bill C-244.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member has just moved a motion. Hon. members are aware of the provisions of Standing Order 6 (5)(a) respecting the prolongation of hours of sittings of the House. Before putting the motion again to hon. members the Chair feels it is necessary to read section (5)(b) of Standing Order 6 relating to the procedure to be followed when the motion is put. It reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.

Hon. members know that Standing Order 6(5)(a) provides that an hon. member may propose to continue a sitting beyond the hour of adjournment stipulated in the Rules provided he moves the motion in the hour preceding the time of dinner recess or the time of daily adjournment.
Before I read the motion put forward by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), I must call the attention of hon. members to Standing Order 6(5)(b) which reads as follows:
When Mr. Speaker puts the question on such motion, he shall ask those members who object to rise in their places. If ten or more members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In accordance with section (5)(b) of Standing Order 6, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member who has just completed his remarks would permit a question. I notice that he had three minutes left.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has now expired. He can accept a question only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, since the House granted me more time, perhaps it would grant the hon. member more time.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member is aware that we must abide by the rules of the House. There does not seem to be unanimous consent, and the Chair will recognize another hon. member.


David Lewis: The government does not abide by its laws; why should we abide by its rules?


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment in a general way because I believe that it points out one of the weaknesses of this legislation, namely, that grain stabilization is related to gross income and not in any way to net income. I am less inclined to support the second part of the amendment dealing with 100 per cent as opposed to 90 per cent. When an individual receives money for wages, through his business or by any other means, it is not the gross receipts that are important but the net receipts after deducting the costs of production, salaries, and so on.
I feel that this amendment is most important. It puts a different slant on the grain stabilization program. It gives an indication why the western farmers are not enamoured of the proposed program. Lumping together the $100 million pay-out and the grain stabilization program was a great mistake. I can only repeat what the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said in its brief to the Standing Committee on Agriculture on May 7, 1971. It pointed out that the bill is in two parts. I quote from the brief as follows:
The bill itself must be dealt with in two parts:
1.	The vitally necessary payments to be made to prairie producers as so-called "special transitional payments" in the amount of $100 million. These are urgently required.
2.	The long-term stabilization and storage policies contained in the bill. These require much improvement.
That is what has been hung on this bill. The $100 million has no relationship to the grains stabilization program. The pay-out is different and the gathering of the money is different. There is no reason to lump the two together. Payments made under the grains stabilization program will be based on the farmer's gross receipts for the last three years, but the $100 million payment will be based on an acreage payment only. Out of the $100 million, $70 million will come from the money allocated under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. There is no connection between these two parts of the bill; they should be separated. Payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act should now be honoured and the grain stabilization program looked after at the proper time.
8054

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
What about grain stabilization? It must be recognized that this bill is clearly designed to place definite limits on the federal obligation to support the prairie income even in the face of chronic inadequacy. Once the stabilization program is in effect, the federal government will be able to say it has made the payments regardless of the needs of the prairie farmers. It will be a decade or more after this legislation is in force before its usefulness can be assessed. It is a means whereby the government will not have to support prairie agriculture for the next four or five years. Why? I again quote from the brief of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture:
Consider that the likely federal financial obligation under this policy-which includes the termination of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act with no replacement of it by an alternative and better national storage reserve stocks policy with federal sharing of costs-is less than has been undertaken by the government through the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act alone in the course of the last 15 years.
This indicates that the government will be obligated to pay out much less per year than it has been paying on the average over the past 15 years even in the face of many good years and increases in the costs of farming. The obvious reason for this is the formula on which the payout will be based: it will be based on the previous five years' gross receipts for all of the designated wheat board area. For the past four years income has been in the neighbourhood of $800 million, $900 million to $950 million. The income in 1966 and 1967 was $1,400 million. This will be included in the calculation at the end of the crop year 1971-72. When that calculation is made for next fall these will be only one good year included in the previous five. The government will not be paying out a large amount of money for the next four or five years even in face of severely reduced grain yields and grain income; it will wash its hands of paying out money to prairie farmers for that period of time.
What is wrong with the pay-out? Consider the levy under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Under that act there was a 1 per cent levy by the government. Payments made under the act were considered inadequate because they often went to those who did not need them and those who did need them did not qualify under the regulations. The Prairie Farm Assistance Act was so tailored that even with a crop failure in six sections the farmer would qualify for a pay-out.
Consider the present situation. There will be a gross averaging of the previous five years over the whole of the designated area, that is, all of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and part of British Columbia. There may be farm income losses which will cause considerable hardship for the producers but there will be no pay-out because there may be a good crop or good sales in other parts of the area. That is a serious disadvantage. Because the minister did not break down the areas into crop districts or provinces, this indicates a lack of appreciation of the gross inadequacies that this pay-out will create. It will be based on the next receipts of the producers for any one year. It will not be related to the costs of production. It is not based on a formula which takes into account production costs and the fact that there is a 3 per cent to 5 per cent inflation factor even in good years, and 5 per cent to 7 per cent in bad years.

A 2 per cent levy will represent a sizeable portion of an individual's income. For example, if there is no pay-out for five years, a farmer who has had to pay the 2 per cent levy will not receive interest on this money. He may be in a position where he has to pay, in effect, 2 per cent, 3 per cent or even 4 per cent of his gross income. This means a further reduction in value to him of the grains stabilization program as proposed in the bill before us.
I should also like to draw attention to what I believe to be a basic weakness in the plan. It is based upon wheat. Only when wheat production or sales have failed will the average income fall to a level at which farmers can expect a pay-out. For the foreseeable future, other crops will constitute such a small proportion of the total volume handled by the Wheat Board that a crop or sales failure could occur affecting rapeseed or barley, for example, but the effect on the total dollar value would not be great enough to cause a pay-out to be made. As a result, producers of rapeseed, or barley, as the case may be, would suffer.
In the parkland areas of western Canada there is a much broader diversification of crops than in southern Saskatchewan, for example. As I say, the program is based on the assumption that wheat will be the crop to suffer sales failure or crop failure. This assumption penalizes the growers of other grains who, though they must accept the scheme, are not likely to receive a pay-out.
We all realize that the elevator system needs to be modernized and that this would cost a great deal of money. There has been little modernization in the last 30 or 40 years. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act provides a means by which elevator companies receive payments for the storage of grain. They receive more dollars than are actually involved in the storage of grain. I am sure that this keeps the price of grain handling down. There is no doubt that the repeal of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would lead to an increase in the cost of grain handling, and notice is being given that this indeed will be the effect. Beyond question, the ending of payments under the act would have an adverse effect on the elevator system. When one considers that the farm elevator system handles practically 60 per cent of the grain-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened carefully to the hon. member. He is making a very good speech, but it seems to me that his remarks are quite broad. I realize there has been a tendency in this debate to range a little and I do not single out the hon. member, but I would, with respect, ask him to remember that the House is now dealing at the report stage with motions Nos. 1 and 2 which are grouped for discussion. If the hon. member ranges too far he may be out of order. I would point this out to him.


William Gordon Ritchie: The ending of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would make the adoption of these amendments even more necessary because it would mean the termination of payments to the elevator system, payments which reduce the handling charges per bushel. Acceptance of these amendments or of similar amendments would be of great value because we are not dealing here with a monolithic industry. This is not an industry made
September 21, 1971

Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
up of 3, 4, 5 or even 10 large companies. It is made up of some 200,000 individuals who are holders of Wheat Board permits.
Under this program a large percentage of these people, perhaps between 10 and 20 per cent, may face disaster in any year without help of any kind. It would be much better if a formula were worked out under which net farm income were taken into consideration rather than gross farm income.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are discussing goes to the core of the debate on this bill. The measure before us is entitled the grain stabilization bill. It proposes a plan to which all prairie farmers must subscribe. I believe there would be general agreement as to the desirability of providing for stabilization at an adequate level, in favour of a plan which would bring stability to the prairie grain farmer. But in the bill now before us we are dealing not just with the principle involved, not with certain broad guidelines within which the government or its agencies can operate, but with a specific type of plan, one which has been proposed by the government. I am not critical in that respect. The fact that it is so specific at least enables us to pass adequate judgment on its probable effectiveness.
It would seem to me that by now the government, and especially the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), would have got the message-that the plan proposed in this bill is inadequate, that it will not do what its proponents claim for it. Thus, we need to give serious consideration to these amendments which propose the inclusion of a provision which would cover increasing costs of production, one of the critical factors facing farmers in their day to day operations. Every day the farmer has to keep in mind that his costs of production may rise. The income he was receiving yesterday may not be adequate today or tomorrow.
I am amazed that after all the consideration this bill has received, after all the issues which have been placed before members of the House and others in this country, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board should have replied as he did to a question addressed to him this afternoon. During the question period he was asked whether he would give consideration to representations from three prairie Ministers of Agriculture. It is public knowledge that the three ministers intend to make representations concerning the bill. A good deal of publicity was given to this fact yesterday. They made it clear they were unhappy with the bill and feel it is not good enough to meet the needs of prairie grain farmers.
What happened this afternoon when the minister was asked whether he would give consideration to their representations? The minister assured the House that he would listen to the representations made by these gentlemen and would take them into consideration. But when it came to a question of adjourning this debate at the report stage and on the amendments now before us, the government and its supporters lined up solidly against a proposal which would have meant deferring final judgment on the bill until such time as these provincial ministers have the opportunity to make their views known to the government.
If the minister is not going to listen to the three prairie governments or to the members of this House who have made their views known, who is he going to listen to? It seems to me he has displayed during this debate the attitude that he knows best for the farmers of western Canada, that he and he alone knows best what is good for western agriculture.
I think we have to keep in mind that the three prairie governments, particularly the government of Manitoba, have already made their views known. I am sure the minister will acknowledge that they made representations to the federal government which were directly related to the subject matter of these motions. The present clause as worded relates to grain sale proceeds that are gross grain sale proceeds. Motion No. 1 proposes to insert certain factors regarding costs of production. When these two factors are put together, what we are then talking about is the net income of farmers. We are talking about what the farmer is left with after paying his costs of production. Thus, I think we have to remember when discussing the representations that have been made by the three prairie provinces that the Manitoba government in particular presented a plan to the federal government proposing a type of stabilization based on the net income of prairie grain farmers.
My colleague from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has pointed out to the minister that we have never received a critique from the minister or from anybody else of the proposed Manitoba plan. If there are points of criticism or of weakness to be made about that plan, then I think all of us would want to hear what they are. But never have we heard from the minister what are his views or observations on the plan that has been presented.
How can we carry on a sensible discussion of this subject, one so vital and critical to the prairie farmers, when the minister does not respond to a degree greater than has been the case up to now? The fact is that he has given no indication of where he stands on the proposals that have been made. He talks about wanting to give consideration to various viewpoints and to any representations that are made, yet he turns a silent "thumbs down" to any proposal that conflicts in any way with the fancy little plan that he is attempting to foist on the farmers of western Canada.
Whenever the minister talks about this plan he has much to say about any proposal regarding changes to the plan which involve the expenditure of more money. This is true in part. There is no question that one of our basic criticisms of the bill is that we consider the federal treasury has made an inadequate allocation of federal resources to the prairie grains industry. The minister has to remember that criticism because he will be reminded of it many times during the coming months; and it will be the regret of the Liberal party if they show no change of heart, if I can use that phrase. I said it is only true in part that it is a question of more money. There is another basic point that has been raised, and this is the equitable treatment of farmers in western Canada, treatment that is based on need as it exists. That basic point the minister has totally ignored in considering this bill.
24319-21*

September 21, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
We have also witnessed in recent days the minister's attitude in this House to the flagrant flouting of the federal law of this country by the government in its failure to carry out the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act which are still in effect. This Act, of course, did make some contribution by the federal government to the prairie grains industry. I have made it clear when speaking on a number of occasions in this House that I acknowledge and agree that there is need for an overhaul of this legislation, that what we need is an over all storage policy for all grains, which is a somewhat different approach. But not for one second can we go along with the type of approach put before the House by the minister, namely, simply to wipe out this legislation and to say to the farmers of western Canada, "We have no responsibility for presenting a grains storage policy. We have no responsibility to see that the prairie grain farmers do not bear the brunt of international grain competition or that prairie grain farmers do not have to compete against the treasuries of other countries". Although the minister recognized this point in some of his comments, never has he recognized it in any of the proposals or policies that he has put before the House of Commons.
It seems to me that if we really wanted to find a solution to the present impasse we could do so very simply. But we are not going to be bullied into accepting the type of proposal that the government is trying to foist on this House and on the farmers of the country. Why does not the minister begin to show some sense and pay the farmers the money due to them under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act? Why does he not split this grain stabilization bill, make these transitional payments under one bill and propose a permanent plan in a second bill? It has been made clear to the members of the government that we on this side of the House would be prepared immediately to agree to the $100 million payment if this provision were taken out of the bill which is before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think it would be fair if the Chair were to indicate to the hon. member who has the floor, as it did to the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) who spoke immediately preceding the hon. member, that it seems the hon. member is ranging a little wide on motions Nos. 1 and 2 now before the House. If I am in error in this regard I know the hon. member will indicate to me in what respect. But when the hon. member debates more general matters perhaps he is ranging a little wider than he should at the report stage of our proceedings.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern that has been expressed by Your Honour in attempting to deal with these motions in an orderly way. I recognize the problem Your Honour faces, but as I indicated at the outset of my remarks it did seem to me that the amendments before the House go to the very core of this debate. Without the adoption of the amendment put by my colleague from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) it would be impossible to have a plan that made any sense to the western farmers or would be of any benefit to them. It seems to me that we are dealing here with a long-range picture of the prospects facing the prairie farmers.
Related to this, of course, is the question of federal contributions or assistance to the prairie grains industry

and the willingness of the federal government to stand by that industry in times of need. This in turn involves the question of the amount of money that is made available for any plan proposed in the House of Commons. This is why I was discussing the amount of money the federal government is prepared to put into its plan. Certainly this is germane to the question of taking account of increased costs of production, which is recognized in the motion moved by my colleague.
I now want to move on to further considerations involved in this bill. This afternoon the minister, in answer to a question regarding taking into account new proposals, costs of production and the net income of farmers-which is really what is involved in this amendment-indicated that if the provinces have a proposal and are willing to put up some money, the federal government will be prepared to consider it. I can only term that sort of answer as displaying a very sleazy attitude. It is a disgraceful abdication of the responsibilities of the minister, and is totally unacceptable.
This great man from the west came here three years ago. He said he was going to Ottawa to explain to the rest of Canada the needs of western Canada and of the prairie grain farmers. He is now trying to "con" the provinces into putting up some money. He knows very well this is not practicable and that the responsibility for dealing with this situation rests with the federal government. Any attempt to intimidate agencies such as provincial governments can only be classed as very despicable.
The first amendment under consideration deals with the definition section of the bill. It is important to note that clause 2(l)(c) of Bill C-244 suggests that grain sales proceeds, as the term is used in the bill, means the purchase price of grain produced on land described in a permit book and sold by a producer to a licensee after deduction of the purchase price of the grain and the lawful charges that are applicable to the grain on its sale to the licensee by the producer. The amendment moved by my colleague would add the words "and after the deduction of the increased costs of production, and including stabilization payments, if any". As was indicated, I feel this is a very critical section of the bill and that this is one of the most important amendments we have to consider at this stage. The government must give the matter serious consideration, otherwise it will completely abdicate its responsibilities.
First of all, it should be made quite clear that when one looks at the technical considerations of whether the costs of production can be determined in any sort of meaningful or adequate way, he should bear in mind that the three prairie governments have now very extensive farm management programs under way. The universities of the prairie provinces have also been engaged in such programs. They have in fact assembled data and a mass of information and figures over the past ten years which provide a substantial base upon which a meaningful determination could be made of what is involved in the costs of production in terms of developing a comparative measurement of these costs. This data is available.
I am not suggesting we have read or heard the final word in this area; we will witness further developments
September 21, 1971

and refinements of the research work already being carried out. But I suggest there is now adequate information available to enable the government to make a meaningful and adequate determination of the level of costs of production. These could be given adequate consideration within the framework of this bill.
We then come to the money question as it relates to this amendment. This, again, is a critical matter. When this bill was before the committee, representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture appeared as witnesses. I do not know whether the minister considers that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture was filibustering the bill when it chose to appear before the committee and inform members of its view, but the fact is that it was made clear at that time that research and analysis indicated that the prairie grains industry is now operating at a net loss. It was also made clear that whatever farm income is now coming to the prairie provinces is coming from the production of livestock-thank goodness cattle prices have held up reasonably well-and from income in kind, which is the product you grow and use at home.
The prairie grains industry is facing probably a more serious economic situation than any other sector of the Canadian economy. But what is the government doing? We find it coming up with this half-baked plan which will not provide any sort of solution. It has to keep in mind just where agriculture is situated in our economy, yet we still have the trappings of-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John Stratford Burton: Perhaps I may continue, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members know that the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) may continue if there is unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, it is now one minute to ten. May I call it ten o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows he may call it ten o'clock if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no consent.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call it ten o'clock.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Richard Russell Southam: May I call it ten o'clock now, Mr. Speaker?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the President of the Privy Council advise the House what the business will be for tomorrow, and what is the forecast for later in the week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue tomorrow with the item we have been dealing with today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the President of the Privy Council would take into account the fact that Bill C-262 has been reported back and we in the opposition would be prepared to waive the 48-hour rule and shorten it to 24 hours in order to continue with the report stage, knowing the anxiety of the government to get ahead with this legislation. As far as I know, there is only one amendment to it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gesture of my hon. friend and hope it will have general application in respect of other bills. I thank him for it and will consider when it may be possible to bring that bill forward.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps on Friday?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the Newfoundland fishing industry, which affects one quarter of the population of that province, faces danger of collapse within five years unless action is taken now to prevent the decline in the inshore and offshore fisheries. This government has been aware of this critical situation for a number of years but has elected to ignore it.
The attitude of the government, evidenced by its complete indifference to the problem of east coast fisheries, has been nothing short of criminal. Its past reaction to the wholesale destruction of our marine resources by foreign fishing fleets, and its unwillingness to lay down the law to the countries which are responsible, can only be termed as gutless.
While the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and his colleagues in the government pursue their weak-kneed, spineless policy of appeasement, the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of our people, particularly

September 21, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment MOtion
in Newfoundland, is being stolen from under our noses without even a whisper or a word of protest from this government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been too busy trying to maintain his image of being Mr. Clean or Mr. Nice Guy in the cocktail circuits of Europe to take any action to protect the future of our fishing industry and perhaps cause a few ripples in the diplomatic circles of Europe.
Canada has become the laughing stock of the fishing nations of the world. Our fisheries have been abused and plundered; they have become sitting ducks. Our inshore fishermen have been forced to stand idle while draggers operating within a mile or two from shore destroy their fishing gear and while the Department of Fisheries pretends to be patrolling our coast. Hundreds of fishermen in my riding who have suffered severe losses of nets, and so on, at the hands of these draggers are living proof that the Department of Fisheries is incapable of giving them the protection they need and to which they are entitled.
How much longer must our fishermen be expected to stand by and see thousands of dollars worth of gear being destroyed by ships which are illegally operating off our shores? If I were fishermen I am afraid I would be tempted to take the law into my own hands. Surely a man has the right to protect his own property. Our Newfoundland fishermen have "had the course." Their patience has reached breaking point. They are not going to be pushed any further or put up with the gutless approach that this government has taken toward their problems.
They demand action, and they demand it immediately. They demand that the government serve notice on the fishing nations of the world that unless the countries concerned agree to meet and to adopt conservation measures we will assert our rights with regard to Canada's east coast fishing resources by fixing a date within the next year when fishing by foreign fleets in our waters will be forbidden except by our leave and our licence. Canada must not accept anything less than full management control over the whole continental shelf.
Until such time as sufficient research is carried out to determine the condition of the fish stocks and the steps necessary to enable maintenance of a substantial yield, we must demand a crash quota system. Mr. Speaker, do you wonder why we are concerned? One billion pounds of cod was caught off the Labrador coast in 1968. In 1970, despite an increased fishing effort the total catch in the same area was less than half, 440 million pounds.
In 1967 our inshore fishermen landed 270,000 quintals- a quintal is 112 pounds. In 1971 it was down to 108,000 quintals. The minister will undoubtedly tell the House tonight that the government is taking action. He will probably describe in great detail a meeting which he will convene in a few weeks' time with the various fish trades associations to discuss this very problem. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to tell the House why he waited until 1971 to deal with this very serious problem which has been growing steadily worse over the past ten years or longer.
Why has he waited until the fishing industry is on the verge of extinction before he starts showing an interest? Could it be that his colleague, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) has suddenly recognized the politi-

cal advantage of such a meeting at this time in Newfoundland? Whatever the arrangements may be for the meeting and whatever the outcome, the fishermen of my province and indeed of all eastern Canada will not tolerate the government's continued pussyfooting.
The fishermen of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces demand that their rights be protected. They demand that the 12-mile limit be proclaimed and enforced. They demand that their nets and gear be protected from the criminal behaviour of draggers which like thieves in the night move in and plunder their fish stocks and destroy their gear.
If the Department of Fisheries is unwilling or unable to accept its responsibility with regard to protecting our fishermen, giving the fishermen of Newfoundland and eastern Canada the protection they deserve, I suggest that it should call in the navy. Surely the fishermen should not be expected to stand by and see their livelihood being destroyed and thousands of dollars worth of their fishing gear being destroyed with hardly a whimper from the Department of Fisheries. If the department's vessels cannot properly patrol our coast, I strongly recommend that the navy be forced into action.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, first on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson)-the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo-and myself, I would like to invite the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) to a meeting with the fishing industry here in Ottawa on October 8 when we are going to discuss a number of these problems.
He will learn that the fishing industry in Newfoundland is not in immediate danger of collapse, as he has stated. In fact, the income of fishermen in Newfoundland has never been higher. This year it will be higher than in any previous year, and by a very considerable margin. The main reason has been a remarkable increase in the price of fish since the spring of 1969, an increase which has averaged better than 50 per cent. Our all-time record year in volume was 1970. We are off a few percentage points this year in volume, but this remarkable increase in price has more than offset the drop in volume. So if we are talking about past performance, the achievements of last summer have been remarkable indeed. I would be the first to admit that we started from a very low base and we have a long way to go in generating income in the fishing industry on the east coast before it is satisfactory to everyone.
The hon. member for St. John's West says that Canada is the laughing stock of other fishing nations of the world. I do not know what circles he moves in, but overseas fishermen envy Canada's bold initiatives, not only in declaring a 12-mile limit but in pushing other countries out of such large bodies of water as the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy and many other large inlets up and down the east coast.
As I say, representatives of the industry will be coming to Ottawa on October 8 to make submissions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Transport and myself. They will be making a number of recommendations, some of which are already being acted upon. I have no doubt that sitting down again with the industry, as we have been wont to do, we will come up with ideas. One may be to push other countries
September 21, 1971

not only out of our exclusive fishing zones but off our continental shelf as well. This will take a lot of doing because, Mr. Speaker, ours is the biggest continental shelf in the world.



AIR TRANSPORT-IMPENDING PRICE WAR AMONG TRANS-ATLANTIC CARRIERS-GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF PARTICIPATION OF AIR CANADA AND CPA IN PRICE-FIXING MEETING

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, air transport should be a convenient mode of transportation available at a reasonable price to everybody without discrimination in respect of age, status or any other factor. Parliament approved the initiative of the federal government of 25 years ago to provide more adequate air travel facilities for Canadians and tourists. The result was Air Canada.
Unfortunately, air travel today in our country and abroad by Air Canada and other air carriers who have the privilege of using our airports is neither cheap nor convenient. Improvements in the congested Toronto airport are long overdue. Moreover, air fares are neither cheap nor just. Air fares are high and discriminatory, both domestically and abroad. It is discriminatory to allow a person aged 25 to fly at a reduced fare and charge almost double for those who happen to be 26 or older. Why are old age pensioners, who have to live on reduced incomes, offered a reduced fare only on a stand-by basis? Anyone who has been to Toronto International Airport to meet a passenger undergoes a nerve-wracking experience, but for an old person to wait for a flight on a stand-by basis can be sheer hell.
Also, Mr. Speaker, why should anyone have to fly with a group, at a specified time, and be tied to a tour and unwanted accommodation to obtain a reduced air fare? Air fares should be cheaper and available without discrimination and gimmicks. It is also high time to re-examine the workings of IATA and our association with what one editorial called a price-fixing cartel.
On behalf of my constituents of Parkdale, and indeed all Canadians, I appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) to get together with their colleagues to develop an air policy that adequately meets the needs of all Canadians and will provide air transportation that is cheap, convenient and non-discriminatory.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to provide a detailed response to all the points he raised, in the limited time in which you will permit me to respond to this quite legitimate representation. Many views expressed by the hon. member are not only ones with which I am in full agreement but upon which I have spoken publicly in the past few weeks and months.
I want to emphasize that in so far as the domestic fare situation is concerned, even though there are occasions when hon. members would be pleased, I think, to accord me the right to establish such fares, that authority is not given to the Minister of Transport nor to the government.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The airlines enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy in this regard, an autonomy which has been confirmed repeatedly by Parliament and with which I am not disposed to argue. In so far as the international situation is concerned, of course it is even more difficult in that the IATA arrangement, as we have seen in recent weeks, is a most complex one.
I agree with the hon. member that something should be done, and I believe now will be done, to eliminate a good deal of what has become an almost impenetrable jungle on rates and the confused situation with regard to air travel. The government of Canada, and I as Minister of Transport, are on record as favouring a much more simplified and much more fair arrangement of fares-if that is not a play on words. Incidentally, I have also indicated, although I repeat that I have no authority to impose this view on the Canadian airlines, that I believe that within their own country Canadians are entitled to at least comparable treatment, comparable rates and comparable conditions as if they were travelling overseas.
These are matters which are now being examined by me in considerable detail. I may say that I have a rather exhausting job in looking over various aspects of air policy, but I am hoping to come up with something that will at least meet many of the representations made by the hon. member and others.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY-DECISION ON POSSIBLE INCREASE IN TOLLS-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF CARR REPORT TO COMMITTEE

John Leroy Skoberg: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) for remaining in the House and handling their own portfolios tonight. I think this speaks well for many of the matters we raise.
On September 17 I asked the following question about the St. Lawrence Seaway and certain tolls and moneys:
-can the minister say whether any decision has been made that increased tolls will be enacted before next spring?
The minister replied, in part:
No decision has been made. Representations are still coming in. It is my intention to get as many representations as possible before considering the matter.
Not too long ago the same type of situation existed and the minister replied in somewhat the same vein; he said he was unable to make a statement on increased tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway. At that time there were 49 submissions opposing an increase in the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls structure. Those opposed to increases maintained that capital expenses should not be charged against the Seaway.
At the same time, the Ontario Economic Council opposed any increase in toll or lock charges and said that increased charges would have an adverse effect both on Ontario and Canada in view of the current economic climate. Without question, increased tolls on the Canadian sector of the St. Lawrence Seaway could place the future of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence waterways in jeopardy. At the same time, we must consider aspects such as those we have been debating today relating to western

September 21, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
farmers, because costs to western farmers would increase. That could be very detrimental to this country in the long run. Also, Canada really needs a comprehensive transportation system. Such a system alone will serve the interests of the whole nation.
The hon. member who rose before me on the "late show" was concerned about the structure of air rates. In this case we must be concerned about St. Lawrence Seaway rates. Indeed, we must be concerned as well about rail passenger, rail freight and air transportation rates. I believe, as I have said, that a comprehensive transportation policy for Canada is essential.
The Carr report, if implemented, would as I understand it provide for an increase of 27.6 per cent over five years. We need an assurance from the minister tonight that any increase will not become effective until there has been an opportunity for ample representation. An editorial in the Standard, published by St. Catharines Standard Limited, of August 27, 1971, stated that a decision has been made and that officials of the department are understood to be unimpressed with representations which have been made, which no doubt include the 49 representations to which I have referred.
I think it is most important for the minister to assure the House tonight that bureaucrats will not make the sort of decisions we have witnessed in the past, and that any decision to be made will be made by the minister and his department in consultation with those interested in and concerned about increases in St. Lawrence Seaway tolls. Those who are opposed to increases in St. Lawrence Seaway tolls wonder whether they will be heard and whether their representations will be taken into consideration before a final decision is made. I would appreciate the minister giving an assurance tonight to the western agricultural community and to users of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Welland Canal and the like, to the effect that there will not be an increase in tolls until those opposed have had an opportunity to make representations.
Our population is spread across the country and we know that it costs money to operate an efficient transportation system. We must not try to play off one form of transportation against another. We should not subsidize one form of transportation out of the public purse, as we have in the past, and then try to make the St. Lawrence Seaway pay for itself with regard to capital expenses. It is wrong to suggest that it should pay for itself in this respect. I would appreciate the minister advising the users of the St. Lawrence Seaway of his intentions.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as was the case with the last submission, the hon. member will appreciate that the time limitation will
permit me to deal only superficially with his representations. So let me begin where he ended, with the assurance that he asked for. There is no intention whatever of making any changes in existing rate structures on the St. Lawrence Seaway until the thorough and exhaustive study that I have undertaken to make of the Carr report has been made. Of course, that exhaustive study involves the receipt of a large number of submissions from users and other interested parties. There will be this study, and any reports to the contrary are totally erroneous and can be disregarded.
Our activities at the present time are concerned primarily with our relations with the United States and the joint operation of the Seaway. In the emphasis that has been placed within Canada on the operations of the Seaway, in my judgment there has been a tendency to put too great an emphasis on one aspect, the possibility of an increase in tolls on the Canadian side or, if you like, unilaterally by Canada, and a failure-which I am surprised the hon. member has compounded tonight-to recognize that in the judgment of the Carr report the United States is by far getting the better of the deal. It is here that at the present time we are making our initial efforts.
I also commend to the hon. member something else with regard to the operating costs of the Seaway. I hope he will be equally vocal in this regard. The charges made by the Seaway only constitute a portion of the total cost of moving goods through the Seaway which is actually arrived at in terms of the user. I am not exactly sure of the precise portion or percentage.
I hope those who are making statements, including some who use the Seaway, will also recognize that it is incumbent upon them to keep their rates down and to reflect the same interest in the future of the Seaway as they expect the government to do. In other words, I do not want the government of Canada to be the patsy for this operation, the only one which is prepared to maintain this cost position in terms of charges despite rising costs, whereas shipping companies and sundry other users of the Seaway who have a much more profound effect of the costs of the western farmer are free to increase their rates.
In other words, we would like to hear, not merely why the St. Lawrence Seaway should not increase its rates but some kind of indication that the carriers and others are also prepared to co-operate in the interests of maintaining, as stated by the hon. member, one of the most important waterways and transportation links in this country.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday. September 22. 1971