1971-10-04

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I rise on a point of order with regard to the business of the House, Mr, Speaker. On Friday last the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said, when dealing with the Business of the House:
.. . Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government House leader announced that Monday's business would be Bill C-244. I think everyone in this House knows that discussions are taking place between the federal agricultural minister and the agricultural ministers of the western provinces. I wish to report to the House- and I have so advised the House leaders opposite-that these discussions may continue. In that case, rather than call the agricultural bill on Monday we will continue with the measure now before the House. The House leader will endeavour to notify opposition House leaders as early as possible on Monday.
Subsequently a press release was issued on behalf of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the three agricultural ministers for the prairie provinces which indicated that there might be a cease-fire or armistice as the case may be. While we were not a party to that, there is no doubt that it is the desire of all members that the best interests of the farmers should be served. However, Mr. Speaker, it was our opinion at the time that this was all conditional upon certain changes being made in Bill C-244. I now find that my impressions in this regard are not correct and that the government will be proceeding with Bill C-244 today, following the shortest armistice in history. I just want to make it plain, Mr. Speaker, that this party did not at any time request a postponement of Bill C-244. Despite all the bleating in high places about what the bad opposition is doing to the poor timid little government, they have carriage of the government business, when to bring it on, how long to keep it before the House and when to end it.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River. I do so in the belief, from telephone conversations that have taken place this morning, that it is now the government's intention to call Bill C-244 today rather than Bill C-259 as was indicated Friday afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. If that is the intention I wish to register a very strong protest. Not only was the statement made on his own initiative by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council on Friday afternoon but we were advised from the government side about the intentions for these few days.
As the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board knows, because we have since confirmed the telephone conversation to which I shall refer, he telephoned me on Friday afternoon and indicated that as a result of the discussions between him and the prairie Ministers of Agriculture there was a desire to have a moratorium for a few days or perhaps a week. The terms of that moratorium were, in the main, two. First, Bill C-244 would not be proceeded with today; second, we would not continue to hound the government over its non-payment of the amounts due under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. I indicated, as House leader for this party, that I would recommend to my colleagues that we agree to this truce, this cooling-off period, or whatever you want to call it.
It was my clear understanding that Bill C-244 would not be called today. It was also my understanding that this undertaking had been given to the prairie Ministers of Agriculture. The reason for putting off the debate on Bill C-244 was that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board-perhaps more than that, the whole government- wished to give consideration to the requests made to the government by the prairie Ministers of Agriculture, which included a request for certain changes in this bill. There was no misunderstanding between my hon. friend and myself. It was clear that "consideration" did not mean that the government would necessarily agree to the things we were requesting. But it was also clear that there would be consideration in good faith. It was made clear to me that after consideration had been given the prairie ministers would be advised of the position. We would also be advised and we would resume at that point. That kind of agreement having been discussed on Friday, I submit that the government, in wishing to go ahead with Bill C-244 today, is not operating in good faith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I make the point that I did not telephone the minister in charge of the Wheat Board on Friday. He telephoned me. We did not ask for this cease-fire, this cooling-off period; the government asked for it. We said we were prepared to agree to it.
But the one point that was made very clear by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was that the government would not proceed today with Bill C-244. If I may spell this out, I thought it was an agreement for a full week and the minister said no, not necessarily for a full week, it might be for three or four days. For the government to come back and ask us to debate this bill today is not only breaking faith with us here on the floor of Parliament but breaking faith with the Ministers of Agriculture who were promised that their pleas would be given consideration. I recognize that some of the things the minis-
8382

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Bill
ters asked for were outside the confines of Bill C-244, but some of them were within the confines of that bill.
The answer that sent those ministers home, namely, the assurance that there would be consideration, is completely without value if the government comes back after the weekend, in which, surely, there was not enough time to give consideration to this question, and introduces this debate today. We were asked to cool off and to call off our attack. But over the weekend we heard from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board on one television network and we heard from the Prime Minister on the other, both of them attacking us for our stand. Today they are bringing back the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I object most strongly to this change in the order of business. It was the minister's suggestion on Friday, not ours, that we proceed with Bill C-259 instead of Bill C-244. I object most strongly to this change in the order of business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order-I presume that is what it is-I should like simply to indicate to the House that in the discussions which I had in the absence of the House leader on one point last Friday, it was quite clear that the question of the order of business would require some further confirmation between the House leaders this morning and therefore there was always in that sense the possibility that we might proceed with one item of business or with the other.
The request for postponing debate on the stabilization bill and also on any question of illegality came from the prairie Ministers of Agriculture. It was addressed in effect to all of us in the House and required all of us to consider different aspects of that question. It was that request which was put, I understand, by them to hon. members opposite and was discussed by me with my colleagues. It therefore required confirmation of discussion about what exactly would be understood with regard to the order of business.
I understand that in the course of discussions this morning agreement was not capable of being arrived at because of some view that any postponement in some way implied accepting changes to the bill, whereas in fact the proposal from the prairie ministers and our willingness to consider any delay depended upon their feeling that if we had some additional time it might be useful in our formulating a commentary to them on their proposals. It certainly was not ever meant to be a detailed or complex policy statement on those proposals but merely some kind of interim reply to them, because they raised complex matters going far beyond the bill. Briefly, with regard to the discussions we had, these depended on their being an understanding of exactly what we were agreeing upon and depended upon full consent and agreement on all sides which this morning did not appear to materialize.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This urgent matter is the necessity for this House to enunciate Canada's position in actively working for an international agreement to end all nuclear tests by all nuclear powers, including China, France, the U.S.S.R. and the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) McIntosh: -and whether such tests be in the air, the seas or underground. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that a motion to adjourn the House is normally made under Standing Order 26; however, my motion contains procedural qualifications that cannot be appended to a Standing Order 26 motion. If I have the unanimous consent of the House, I will move, seconded by the member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That this House instructs the House leaders of all parties to confer together to draft a motion concerning the banning of all nuclear tests; and to provide this week a period for a debate and vote by this House on the motion under terms and conditions agreed upon by the House leaders but to ensure opportunity for free expression of opinion by members: and this House orders that a message containing the text of such motion be carried to the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion proposed for consideration by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. This motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


An hon. Member:: Sudbury said no.


Mr. Bell:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When there were objections on this side to a motion under Standing Order 43 it was reported in the newspapers. I think it should be recorded that the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) said no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Warmonger!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-268, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
October 4, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter Cyril Deakon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the electoral district of High Park to that of High Park-Humber Valley, thereby expressing the wishes of the majority of the people of that riding, namely, to describe more accurately the boundaries of the said riding as they encompass the area.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
NATIONAL FILM BOARD-PORTFOLIO OF PHOTOGRAPHS "SfiRIE 4"
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was a portfolio of photographs entitled "Serie 4" by Normand Gregoire commissioned by the National Film Board of Canada and, if so (a) what was the total cost (b) how many copies were made (c) what was its selling price?
2.	Was there any free distribution of the "Serie 4" portfolio and, if so, what persons and schools were supplied with these photographs?
3.	(a) How many other similar portfolios of photographs were produced for the National Film Board (b) what was the total cost (c) what is the rationale for and purpose of such photographic productions?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. Yes. (a) $10,425; (b) 3,300 copies were made; (c) $5.00 a copy.
2.	No.
3.	(a) None; (b) not applicable; (c) to promote and distribute visual interpretations of Canada through the work of talented Canadian film and stills artists.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF HEARING-AID BATTERIES

Mr. McQuaid: Has the Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract to Mallory Battery Co. of Canada Ltd. for the supply of hearing-aid batteries and, if so (a) were any of these purchased for the use of Cabinet Ministers and, if so, which Ministers (b) for what purpose were the batteries purchased (c) to whom were they distributed?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Yes. A contract valued at $39,025, dated July 29, 1971, was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Mallory Battery Company of Canada Ltd., for the supply of hearing-aid batteries, (a) No. (b) & (c) The contract covers the supply of various types of hearing-aid batteries, as required
Questions
during the period from August 1, 1971 to July 31, 1972, to certified hospitals of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, across Canada.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF WASTE PAPER BASKETS

Mr. McQuaid: Has the Department of Supply and Services recently awarded a contract to Office Specialty Limited for the supply of waste paper baskets and, if so, how many baskets are involved and what is the price per basket?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. A contract was awarded on August 10, 1971 to the lowest tenderer, Office Specialty Ltd., for 7,392 baskets at $1.36 each, for DSS No. 1 Supply Centre, Ottawa, to meet demands from all government departments.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF MOBILE UNIT

Mr. McQuaid: Has the Department of Supply and Services purchased from Porta-Built Industries Ltd. a mobile home and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) who will occupy it (c) where will it be located?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) Yes. A contract valued at $16,347, was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Porta-Built Industries, for the supply and transport of one mobile residence unit to the Department of National Health and Welfare Hospital at Inuvik, N.W.T.: (b) the unit is to be part of a nursing station complex and will also be used temporarily as office accommodation; (c) as in (a).



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-PURCHASE OF FELT HATS

Mr. McQuaid: Has the Department of Supply and Services recently awarded a contract to Biltmore Hats Limited for the purchase of felt hats and, if so (a) how many hats are involved and what is the price per hat (b) to which departments are the hats being supplied and how many hats to each department?


James Armstrong Richardson: (a) and (b) Yes. A contract was awarded on July 28, 1971 to Biltmore Hats Ltd., for the supply of 2,500 hats at $16.31 each for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-SUPPLY OF FRESH AND FROZEN MEAT

["The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has given the Chair notice of his intention to propose this motion under the terms of Standing Order 26. I have given the matter very serious consideration.\nAs all hon. members know, a similar motion was proposed for the consideration of the House last week, that is, on September 29. I should like to suggest that the circum-\n\nstances which applied to that motion apply today in the same way. Perhaps, if hon. members will allow me, I might refer them to the ruling which is reported on page 8269 of Hansard for September 29. It reads as follows:\nThe Chair does appreciate the seriousness of the matter raised by the hon. member. It is undoubtedly one which is of national interest and of concern to all hon. members. In determining whether the business of the House ought to be set aside for the purpose of considering such an important and urgent situation, the Chair has to be guided by certain criteria specified in Standing Order 26. One of these requirements is that the matter proposed for discussion should relate to an emergency which calls for immediate and urgent consideration by the House. In other words, it is not only urgency of the matter which has to be considered but the urgency of debate.\nWhile I surmise that the House would want an opportunity to discuss this problem, I doubt that the urgency of the situation would require that the debate be held today or tomorrow rather than later. If the Chair considers the additional factor of opportunity of debate within a reasonable period of time, I would suggest to the hon. member that from the procedural standpoint an immediate emergency debate would hardly be justified.\nI suggest to the hon. member that this ruling applies to the present situation, and I do not see how I can allow the hon. member's motion and put it to the House at this time."]
James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. Two contracts were awarded to the lowest tenderer, Canada Packers, Ltd., Charlottetown, for: (a) the supply of fresh and frozen beef, veal and corned beef to Department of National Defence ration depots at Halifax and Greenwood, and to CFB Cornwallis, N.S. Contract valued at $28,648, was awarded on July 23, 1971, and
24319-42)

October 4, 1971
Order for Return
(b) the supply of boneless, frozen beef to the DND ration substone at Halifax, N.S. Contract valued at $42,405, was awarded on June 22, 1971.



Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Does the Commissioner of Official Languages use investigators to test the bilingual competency of federal employees?
2.	Was Marc Therien engaged in such an investigation when he appeared at the Prescott and Thousand Island bridges customs port in early September?
3.	How many other similar investigations have occurred and where did they take place?
4.	Have protests been received by the government with respect to these to date and, if so, what action has been taken?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him privately.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Coates: How many members of the Public Service of Canada have qualified for the special 7 per cent bonus available for bilingualism, what was the total cost to the Federal Treasury in each fiscal year since the program has been in effect, and what is the estimated total cost for the fiscal year 1971-1972?
Return tabled.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR CONDITIONS INCREASE IN LAY-OFFS PROPOSED BY GENERAL MOTORS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), 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, in the context of threats and government equivocation concerning the safeguards contained in the Cana-da-U.S. automotive agreement, the revelation that the layoffs in General Motors plant in Ontario will be nearly 50 per cent higher than those first announced by General Motors and confirmed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in this House on September 21.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has given the Chair notice of his intention to propose this motion under the terms of Standing Order 26. I have given the matter very serious consideration.
As all hon. members know, a similar motion was proposed for the consideration of the House last week, that is, on September 29. I should like to suggest that the circum-

stances which applied to that motion apply today in the same way. Perhaps, if hon. members will allow me, I might refer them to the ruling which is reported on page 8269 of Hansard for September 29. It reads as follows:
The Chair does appreciate the seriousness of the matter raised by the hon. member. It is undoubtedly one which is of national interest and of concern to all hon. members. In determining whether the business of the House ought to be set aside for the purpose of considering such an important and urgent situation, the Chair has to be guided by certain criteria specified in Standing Order 26. One of these requirements is that the matter proposed for discussion should relate to an emergency which calls for immediate and urgent consideration by the House. In other words, it is not only urgency of the matter which has to be considered but the urgency of debate.
While I surmise that the House would want an opportunity to discuss this problem, I doubt that the urgency of the situation would require that the debate be held today or tomorrow rather than later. If the Chair considers the additional factor of opportunity of debate within a reasonable period of time, I would suggest to the hon. member that from the procedural standpoint an immediate emergency debate would hardly be justified.
I suggest to the hon. member that this ruling applies to the present situation, and I do not see how I can allow the hon. member's motion and put it to the House at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: My
question is to the Prime Minister but, since it concerns the subject of energy, perhaps I might be permitted to express the regret felt by myself and my colleagues over the illness of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the hope that he will makes a very full and complete recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would confirm that the government has informed the United States that discussions between our two countries relating to energy cannot be resumed at the present time because of preoccupation with the economic situation, as reported by a spokesman for the Canadian embassy in Washington? If the statement is correct, would the Prime Minister make available to members of the House a copy of the message that was sent to the United States authorities? I make this request particularly in view of the fact that some of the press is linking this action to retaliation in connection with the surcharge.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the situation is not quite as the Leader of the Opposition understands it. I believe there were talks last May or in the spring which were adjourned until some time this fall. The situation now is that we have not set any date for such discussions. We have indicated to the
October 4, 1971

United States that at this particular point we are preoccupied with other matters, particularly economic matters, and that we are not in a position at the moment to sit down with United States officials and continue these talks. But there has been no indefinite postponement of them; there is merely an inability to find the time now to proceed with them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister make available to the House the text of the message in view of the importance of this whole subject to Canadians, and would he tell the House whether the preoccupation of the officials at this time relates to new initiatives that Canada is taking regarding removal of the surtax and state whether Canada has yet received from the United States any indication of any preconditions that the United States will insist upon prior to removal of the surtax?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, I am informed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that there is no text of any message; the communication was oral and was along the lines I have just reported to the House. As to what the Leader of the Opposition calls "preconditions", my answer is still the same, that there has been no statement by the United States authorities that if we did such and so they would take off the surtax.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Prime Minister or the Canadian government received any indication not that the United States would necessarily remove the surtax if certain things were done, but that certain matters have to be settled between the two countries before any removal of the surtax would be considered? In particular, is the government of Canada considering any specific changes with regard to the auto pact? I ask this question particularly in view of the reported differences of opinion within the government on the subject.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no, and this is not surprising since the question of the Leader of the Opposition is based on an entirely false report.



CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON IMPORT SURTAX-UNITED STATES SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING REMOVAL

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, to pursue the same subject in a somewhat different way, may I ask the Minister of Finance whether discussions between officials of the Canadian government and officials of the United States administration on the question of the surcharge are continuing, and whether any specific matters have been raised in those discussions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke to Mr. Rogers on Friday and mentioned this particular matter. The next occasion, I believe, on which the matter will be brought up for discussion between our officials and the United States will be at the meeting of the deputies of the Group of Ten which is to take place later this month.
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is saying to the House that at no time in discussions between ministers or officials were there suggestions made to Canadian spokesmen or representatives about the kind of thing that might be required for the United States surcharge to be removed from Canada, not necessarily as a precondition in firm terms but in the form of a suggestion, recommendation, proposal or in any other way? Is he saying that nothing of that kind was suggested to Canada with regard to the removal of the surcharge?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, long before the surtax was imposed, when I first visited Secretary Connally last spring after he was appointed Secretary of the Treasury we discussed frankly the difficulties which occur between the two countries. I frankly admit they indicated that they would like to see a settlement of the automotive pact. This sort of thing has taken place on each occasion we have met. We have discussed the various problems between the two countries but not in the context of, say, if you do this we will remove the surcharge, and so on. We have maintained the position that we have fulfilled all the requirements put forward by the President and therefore the surcharge should never have been applied to us.


David Lewis: Is the Minister of Finance aware of reports that the United States administration is considering or is developing a program which would ask Canada to contribute $1 billion worth in the turnaround to get the United States balance of payments into relative equilibrium? Has he heard of such a report and will he inform the House whether that kind of thing is being discussed?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. As a matter of fact, on current account we are running at a deficit with the United States.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the information the minister has given the House regarding continuing meetings between officials of Canada and the United States, is he confirming that the United States has now taken the attitude that Canada has been led to believe that the surcharge will be subject to bilateral discussions before modification or removal in its entirety?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would he tell the House whether the failure to pursue negotiations with the United States on energy matters is a subtle form of retaliation for recent United States economic policies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: You mean it is not subtle?

October 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-CANADIAN PRODUCTION OF CARS PURCHASED

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in respect of discussions with the United States government on the subject of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, is the government of Canada insisting that within a period of say five years the automotive industry within Canada be actually producing the number of cars on an annual basis which Canadians actually purchase?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are being carried out by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I really am not familiar with all of the details.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Last week, in answer to a question I put to him regarding the eligibility to benefits of Canadians working in the United States, the minister answered that he would report to the House before the end of the week. May I ask him if he is in a position today to give this information to the House?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me last week whether we had completed reciprocal agreements with all the states of the United States on unemployment insurance. I am pleased to state that we have, but the complete answer would be rather detailed and lengthy. I could either send the hon. member a copy or consider his question as a written one and have the answer printed in Hansard.



STABILIZATION BILL-CLAUSE GUARANTEEING PAYMENTS IN PRESENT AND NEXT CROP YEARS

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the indication given by the Prime Minister on the media yesterday that farmers would be receiving under the proposed stabilization bill, in addition to the $100 million transitional payment, some $35 million in the present crop year and $35 million in the next crop year, will he indicate what clause of Bill C-244 will guarantee that the last $70 million will be put into the hands of the farmers in the next two years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt as to the form of that question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Battle River who asked the original question on this subject.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Are these gentlemen not concerned that the farmers will interpret their statements for what they really are, using the terminology of the farm community, as being pure b.s.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



STABILIZATION BILL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MEETING WITH PRAIRIE MINISTERS OF AGRICULTURE-POSSIBLE MODIFICATIONS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Will he report to the House the substance of his discussions with the three prairie Ministers of Agriculture, and would he also indicate any undertakings which were given as between himself and the ministers at their meeting?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the release by the ministers after the meeting contains about all that it would be possible to say at this stage. I do not propose at the moment to make any further report, although certainly I may do so if after further discussion I decide anything should be said to the House.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask the minister whether he or officials of his department, as he may wish, are prepared to meet with appropriate representatives of the three prairie Ministers of Agriculture to determine whether some modifications to Bill C-244 may be worked out which are mutually acceptable for presentation to this House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the course of discussions from October to March we met many times with not only representatives of the producer organizations but of the provincial governments. We did include within the final form of the bill those changes which seemed to be indicated as a result of those discussions. This is the bill now before the House, and I think now is the time for the House to consider it and deal with its elements on that basis. Of course, I am always ready to talk generally about the whole problem of prairie grain farmers and other such issues with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture.


Mr. Horner:: Close the door to change.



REACHING OF DECISION ON STABILIZATION BILL

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has made statements to the effect that either he or the government would allow one more day's debate on Bill C-244 to determine whether the opposition will allow it to come to a vote and thereby allow it to pass, and in
October 4, 1971

view of the fact that bill is to be called for debate today, following the discussions with the prairie agricultural minister does the minister consider today to be that last chance that he is providing to the opposition in his terms?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been references by a number of members of the government to the need to come to a decision within a reasonable or fairly short time without specific regard to a day or a period. "Last chance" may obviously include a number of days, a period of time or a reasonable period of time, and that is really what is involved. The bill has been considered by the House for many months in different forms and in different ways, and I think the time has come to make a decision soon.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As suggested by the Prime Minister of Ontario, is the federal government considering action along with the ten provinces to require more processing of our natural resources and minerals in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this problem is one which has been under the jurisdiction of the provinces for many years and some provinces have, indeed, acted in this regard. In so far as the federal government is able to have some influence, we have tried to exercise it, for instance, through reform in the tax laws.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all interested in constructive federalism, and as the federal government is looked upon as a sort of catalyst or co-ordinator-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask the question.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: May I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering action to compel companies based in Canada to carry out research and development in this country as urged by the Prime Minister of Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have not considered compelling, as the hon. member would want us to do, but we have given great incentives for this to be proceeded with through the taxation structure.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the government going to take action with the provinces to develop a national resources conservation policy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the area of jurisdiction of the provinces over natural resources is very well established and very wide. I think the hon. member should be directing his question to the Premier of Ontario and not to us.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



ALLEGED DEPORTATION OF JOBS TO UNITED STATES BECAUSE OF CANADIAN POLICY

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of United States charges as reported in the Toronto Telegram of Friday, October 1 that Canadian industrialization policy results in the deportation of Canadian jobs to the United States, is the minister aware of the report and, if so, are his officials preparing an answer to the reported United States charges?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the report and will be happy to receive some comments from my officials.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in light of this and other developments, would the minister agree to make a statement on motions soon in respect of government policy in granting loans and subsidies to subsidiaries of United States and Japanese corporations?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall first read the newspaper and report involved, and I shall see then whether a statement should be made.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of evidence provided on May 12 by Tom Kent, former deputy minister of that department, that the decision to extend the special area designations beyond June 30, 1972, would be made this fall, can the minister now inform the House concerning the date when the decision will be made and what the last date for submissions from interested parties will be?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, no specific dates are mentioned in the law, but we intend to start negotiating with the provinces during November in the hope of reaching a decision in the last part of February.


Murray Arndell McBride: In view of the importance of this question to local representatives and industrial promotion generally, at what date will the government's decision concerning the extension or termination of the special designations be made known?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a
position to answer now because we are entering on negotiations with the provinces. After these negotiations we will be in a position to fix a date.

October 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry ENERGY



DELAY IN RESUMING DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the message which has gone from the government of Canada to Washington with regard to the energy negotiations. Was this message sent to the United States in the context of a definite date having been set for the resumption of these discussions? Did this message involve a postponement from a particular date set for the meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. There has been no message in the sense in which the Leader of the Opposition implies. There have been conversations. I can only repeat what I said a few minutes ago, that the talks were adjourned last spring to be resumed again in the fall and we have not yet set a date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When the message referred to by the Canadian embassy spokesman was delivered to Washington, was it in response to a request by the United States officials or authorities for a specific date to resume these discussions relating to energy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I rather think so. I would have to verify it. But I think the position is that the United States asked us when we were going to resume the discussions which had been postponed last spring and we said we had not had time to put our minds to it and therefore could not set any specific date right now.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the speech made in Houston, Texas, by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in which he assured his audience that the Canadian cabinet were now studying the report on foreign ownership prepared by the Minister of National Revenue and that when a final decision was made they could be sure there would be no crackdown on foreign ownership. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether this represents the view of the government, whether any final decision has been made and if it is true that the new policy will not reflect any significant measures to lessen the growing control of the Canadian economy by foreign investors?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the NDP member talks of a crackdown and then interprets it to mean a significant change. If that is what he means by "crackdown", then I am sure even his party wants to crack down on United States foreign ownership. But that is not what the minister said. To say there is not going to be a crackdown, with which I am sure we all agree, is not to say there will not be some measures taken

to ensure greater Canadian control of our domestic and economic environment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In order that members of the House and the country generally may be able to assess the government's policy on foreign ownership when it is brought down, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to make public now or at a later date the entire report submitted to the cabinet by the Minister of National Revenue on foreign ownership?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about a cabinet document, the answer is obviously no. We will not make that public. We never make cabinet documents public.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of rising unemployment in Canada brought about by fear and frustration among Canadian industrialists over tax reform, the new competition bill and the Canada Development Corporation, which is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech. He should ask a question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These events are causing massive lay-offs and my question to the Prime Minister is whether it is his intention to do some belt tightening to match the lay-offs in industry by laying off some of the excess staff in the Privy Council office and in the Prime Minister's office which has increased by one-third to 288 members in the past year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On September 22 I posed a question to the minister with reference to closure of fish processing plants at Canso and Mulgrave placing 800 workers on the unemployment rolls and asked what steps were being taken by his department to alleviate this serious problem. The minister at that time stated that had he had one hour's notice he would have been in a position to make a full report, to use his own words, and added that he would do so the next day, September 23. As it is now 12 days since he had notice of the question, is the minister now in a position to give us some information on this subject? [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the government of Nova Scotia
October 4, 1971

has informed us that they are very carefully considering this case. We are closely following the discussions between the management of this industry and the government of Nova Scotia and if we can help at any time, we will be informed and I shall be happy to take part in the re-establishment of this business.


Robert Muir: In other words, is the minister assuring the House that his department is getting ready to assist in opening up these fish plants?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if a request is addressed to us, it is with great sympathy that we shall try and help the government of Nova Scotia to reach its objectives.



INCOME TAX


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). Has the minister asked the government to act on the recommendation of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to introduce an amendment to section 12(a) of the present Income Tax Act, or to Bill C-259, that would disallow as an expense the cost of advertising on radio or television stations not licensed by the commission? I ask the minister this question in the absence of the Secretary of State.


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, questions concerning the Income Tax Act should more properly be directed to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that question is in order. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. McCleave:: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. The Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Greenwood.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the fact that in 1971 some 50,000 persons of Jewish origin applied for exit permits in the U.S.S.R. and only about 7,000 permits were granted, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity presented by the forthcoming visit of
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Kosygin to indicate to him the serious concern of Canada about this refusal of the right to emigrate from the U.S.S.R.?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will look into these figures and if they do indicate the situation which the hon. member seems to describe I will renew with the Premier of the Soviet Union representations I made to him when I saw him last May.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It was reported yesterday that the Minister of Communications promised that the government will "renew the representations" the Prime Minister made for the rights of minorities in the U.S.S.R. when Premier Kosygin visits Canada. Will the Prime Minister say whether this is the intention of the government and, in light of what he said in the U.S.S.R., will the Prime Minister say what the minister meant by "representations"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look up the statement to which the hon. member refers and see myself what it says I said, or would say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary but we have reached the point in the question period when I have to remind hon. members that we will soon be running out of time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister hired from the Toronto Telegram the services of Peter Worthington and Lubar Zink to look after the itinerary of Mr. Kosygin when in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this is a supplementary to the original question. Will the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Kosygin the rights of other ethnic groups to visit Canada, as well as the rights of the Jewish people in the Soviet Union, along the lines of the question of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Here too, Mr. Speaker, I will ask the hon. member what exactly he would like me to say to the Premier and certainly give it very deep consideration.


COMBINES
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the expressed intent of Bill C-256, the new Competition Act, I wonder whether he has notified the purchaser of the subscription list of the Toronto Telegram that under the new act his officials may take retroactive action if they believe competition is significantly decreased by the sale of that subscription list?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that would be prejudging a decision by parliament and would be in contempt of Parliament.

October 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You would never do that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Did he not prejudge the wishes of Parliament when he told Home Oil that they could not sell out and that, if they did, retroactive legislation would be enacted by Parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is
argument.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF MONOPOLY CREATED IN TORONTO NEWSPAPER FIELD
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I with to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister investigate the monopoly situation that apparently has been created in the Toronto newspaper field, particularly in view of the fact that his department investigated and is now prosecuting in a situation similar in the New Brunswick newspaper field?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept either hypothesis relative to Toronto or New Brunswick. I indicated at the time the announcement was made relative to Toronto that the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Act would conduct an inquiry in order to determine whether he had reason to believe the Combines Investigation Act was being violated.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, then may I take it from the minister's answer that a monopoly is all right in Toronto but not in New Brunswick?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the price of corn in southern Ontario has now declined to $1.09 a bushel and may in fact decline even more to 99 cents a bushel, and in view of the fact that this is mainly due to the dumping of American corn on the Canadian market at this time, would the minister consider preventing this dumping so that Ontario corn producers will get a fair price for their product?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, representations along these lines were made to me and to officials of my department several days ago and they are under active consideration at the moment.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Last Friday, the minister was a guest of honour at the inauguration of the Golden Eagle refinery in St. Romuald. Following the ceremony, newspapers reported that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion had made a grant of five million dollars to the firm.


An hon. Member:: Ten.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: May I ask the minister whether a portion of those five million dollars was allocated for the construction of the St. Romuald pier?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that question should normally be placed on the order paper. If it is urgent, as I believe might be the case, the matter could be dealt with at the time of adjournment.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member want to put a supplementary question?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse on a supplementary.


POLICY RESPECTING GRANTS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: In view of the importance of the matter, I wish to ask the minister why in his capacity as representative of the federal government he has not been invited to elaborate on its policy governing subsidies to companies, even in Quebec?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the incident at St. Romuald has nothing to do with a speech I may have made. However, the officials of the company have not mentioned the assistance from the Canadian government, which is of the order of $10 million, and I found it improper for them not to thank the Canadian public for the assistance granted to them.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for the Minister of Public Works to return to the chamber but since he has not may I direct my question to the Prime

October 4, 1971

Minister. Have the discussions been concluded which have been going on between Canada and the governments of the United States and British Columbia with respect to the paving of the Alaska Highway and the construction of a road through the Panhandle to Skagway? If they have been concluded, what are the results of those discussions? If they have not been concluded, are the discussions continuing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer this question. I am not aware of the state at which these talks or discussions may be now but I will inquire and either answer or ask the minister to prepare an answer.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have an indication that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has an answer to the question I put to the Prime Minister a moment ago. I wonder if he could provide that answer to the House?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the United States Congress authorized discussions with Canada concerning the improvement and paving of the Alaska highway, and officials of the two governments met in Ottawa in June for an exchange of views, largely on technical questions. It was decided at that time that Canada would conduct a survey of the origin and destination of traffic on the highway during the summer months and when the results of that study were available there would be a further meeting.


Erik Nielsen: That leaves only the question of discussion with the British Columbia government and the U.S. government with respect to a road through the Panhandle to Tidewater. Perhaps that could be answered at some other time by the appropriate minister.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, this is supplementary to a question asked earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Edmonton West and I direct it to the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether in the discussions with the Americans the question of defence purchasing in Canada has come up? If so, was there any particular request from the Americans that we perhaps re-orient part of our defence purchasing to offset their difficulties somewhat?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, these discussions have gone on for a long time, in fact, as I indicated previously, since last spring, and this is one of the questions that were raised. The Americans indicated to me, and I was told this in general discussions with Secretary of the Treasury Connally, that they felt we had done very well and that this exchange of defence procurement had worked out for us rather better than they would like to see us do in the long run.
Inquiries of the Ministry


J. Michael Forrestall: Could the minister indicate whether or not we have in any way made any concessions that would place professional judgment in some difficulty, particularly with respect to a replacement for the Argus? Are we going to buy the Orion despite the professional judgment we have received?


Edgar John Benson: No concessions whatsoever have been made or are being considered.



CONCENTRATION ON PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement emanating from our embassy in Washington that Canadian ministers and officials are at present unable to focus on such problems as the discussion of energy with the United States, is there any reason to hope that the Canadian ministers and officials are busy focusing on some program to provice massive employment in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the upshot of what I have been saying earlier, Mr. Speaker. We have other things in mind.



WINTER WORKS PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO ANNOUNCEMENT THIS WEEK

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he or one of his colleagues will be making an announcement this week of any employment program for the winter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If we are to
make such an announcement, Mr. Speaker, I will try to ensure that the hon. member knows of it a little bit in advance so that he can prepare himself to congratulate the government.


John Howard Lundrigan: That is typical Trudeau bunk. Can the Prime Minister answer the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have raised an important question. I understand that Treasury officials have worked all weekend trying to concoct some sort of program. I am asking whether an announcement of that type will be made this week by the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues, and I should like an answer to that very important question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will understand that the Chair has already recognized the hon.

October 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
member for Moose Jaw. If he has a supplementary, I shall recognize him in a moment.



WITHHOLDING BY GOVERNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT-SUGGESTED POSTPONMENT OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND BILL C-244

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister tell the House if he made a request to the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan for postponement of the writ of mandamus served in Saskatchewan last week against the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance? At the same time, can the minister state if there was any request made to him at the meeting of the three prairie agricultural ministers with their federal counterpart for a one-week moratorium on Bill C-244?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked two questions and, to my way of thinking, one is not supplementary to the other. Perhaps the minister might reply to the second question. I have some doubts as to the first one.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the request that was made by the prairie Ministers of Agriculture was addressed by them to hon. members opposite as well as through me to my colleagues. It depended on certain understandings in relation to the whole situation covering both the stabilization bill and payment under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the upcoming meeting of Francophone countries and it follows upon a question which I asked the Acting Prime Minister on Friday. Can the minister advise the House what provinces, other than Quebec, are now being consulted about the manner of structure of the delegation and on voting procedures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Discussions are proceeding with other provinces that have expressed interest in the meeting of the agence, particularly those that will be attending the meeting and will be participating in the Canadian delegation.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I ask the minister if it has been decided that the flag of Canada and the flag of Quebec will be flying at this conference of sovereign states?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had some very useful discussions with the province of Quebec, and I am very

happy to say that this kind of matter did not receive prime consideration.


REPRESENTATION ABROAD OF CANADA AS FRENCH-SPEAKING NATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister consider it proper that a Canadian cabinet minister should go abroad and represent Canada as a French-speaking nation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think Canada is one of the most important French-speaking countries in the world.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider it proper for a cabinet minister to do so to the exclusion of the other language spoken in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Canada is also one of the most important English-speaking countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order please.


Donald MacInnis: I wonder if the minister would take the opportunity to explain the kind of language that we are hearing now in the House. However, on what basis can the Prime Minister allow himself to associate with a cabinet minister who promotes Canada as a French-speaking nation only, as has been done by this minister?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister is disturbed by my charge, I not only have the transcript but I have the tape which I will make available to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate also rises on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: I should like to raise a point of order regarding the business of the House for the coming week and serve notice of points which should be raised today, in anticipation of something that may happen later. Could I ask the government House leader if discussions can take place among all House leaders to try to make some procedural arrangements for a lengthy response from various parts of the country, not only by the various parties in this House of Commons, to any announcement by the government of a works program for this winter, so as to ensure that all areas of the country receive adequate representation in response to a statement which the Prime Minister would like to make on a works program for this winter.


Mr. MacEachen:: When an announcement about a winter works program is made by the government, I am sure there will be an opportunity for members of the House to comment upon it. I gather that my hon. friend is referring to an opportunity for members of this chamber to comment on the program.
October 4, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
September 24, 1971-Resuming the report stage of Bill C-244, an act 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-The Minister Responsible for the Wheat Board.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order with respect to the proposal to proceed with the order which has just been read from the chair. As Your Honour will recall, I made a brief reference to this matter on Friday morning as reported in Hansard for that day at page 8345. My point of order arises from a citation in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which I shall read. It is found at page 127 and the part I wish to quote is citation 149 (c) which reads as follows:
149. Besides the prohibitions contained in Standing Order 35; it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending;
I ought to point out, Sir, that the first person who raised this question was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard). He raised it last Thursday evening when it was his turn to respond to a question which had been put to him by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice pointed out that there is now a matter before the Federal Court of Canada, notice having been filed in that court last week, at Regina, on behalf of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and four farmers of that province, as applicants. The respondent in the case is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I think it is appropriate to read again, as did the parliamentary secretary the other night, the first part of the notice of motion. It is as follows:
Take notice that an application will be made to this honourable court on Wednesday, October 6th, 1971, at the hour of 10 o'clock in the forenoon, central standard time, or so soon thereafter as counsel can be heard on behalf of the applicants, at the Court House, at the city of Regina, in the province of Saskatchewan, for a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Minister of Finance to pay to the Canadian Wheat Board forthwith all sums of monies required to be paid to the Canadian Wheat Board by the respondent minister by virtue of the provisions of The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act of Canada, chapter 2 of the Statutes of Canada, 1956.
After reading that part of the motion, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice referred to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants as a distinguished member of the bar and said that he would know "that it is inappropriate for the Minister of Justice and others to comment on this subject at this time."
Sir, there has now been called for debate in this House Bill C-244 which includes a clause that seeks to repeal, effective July 31, 1970, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The entire question of the government's position in relation to that act, a question arising from the fact that it
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
has not paid the last 14 or 15 monthly payments that it should have paid, is now before the Federal Court of Canada. Any discussion of this bill is bound to involve a discussion of that situation. Any comments that are made are bound to involve comparisons of the results of operating under one formula or under another. Also, if discussions on this bill were to come to the point where we would be called upon to vote, I submit that we would be expressing an opinion. We would be taking a decision on a matter that is, in the terms of Beauchesne's citation, "before the courts for a judicial decision". It seems to me that our discussion of whether or not the government is in default at a time when the matter is before the courts is, in the language of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, inappropriate. Indeed, now that the whole question has been referred to the courts, we shall have to look very seriously at whether or not we can discuss it.
I am ready to admit that there are strong arguments on the other side of the question. It can be argued that Parliament is the supreme court of the land and that we have the right to change the law. No one here ever denies that; indeed we, in this place, insist on that right. At present it is not the right of Parliament to change the law that is in question but the position of the government under the law, as that law now stands. Since that matter is before the courts, we must consider whether we have the right to discuss it. As I said the other day when I raised this matter briefly, a ruling is called for one way or the other. Either the matter is sub judice, in which case this bill should not be proceeded with until the court's decision has been made, or it is not sub judice, in which case the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and others should not refuse to answer questions about it.
To this legal objection there has now been added, I believe, the weight of the moral position in which the government finds itself. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board only a few days ago requested of us on this side of the House an agreement to delay discussion of this matter, because he was discussing the whole bill with the prairie Ministers of Agriculture. We feel, in fairness to them and in fairness to ourselves, that the matter should not be proceeded with at this time. That may be slightly aside from the legal point I have raised. However, we are in a new regime. The Prime Minister says that it is not just legalistic matters that count; it is justice. I suggest that proceeding with this bill at this time does not do justice to Parliament and does not do justice, to say nothing of fair play, to the prairie Ministers of Agriculture. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I said on Friday I would do, I raise this point now, feeling that there should be some discussion of it and a ruling from the Chair as to where we stand.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain Your Honour and the House for long. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has summed up the position with admirable clarity. I sometimes think he would have practised successfully in the profession to which Your Honour and I belong. I sometimes am under the impression that the hon. member is a member of the bar.


Robert Jardine McCleave: And a distinguished member at that.

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member's argument I accept thoroughly. I concur in it and urge it on Your Honour. The government is indulging in impudent, fraudulent intimidation of the worst kind.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is attempting to litigate by legislation, something which is frowned on in many circles. Actually, an amendment standing in the name of the minister indicates that the act, which was to come into force on August 1, 1970, will now come into force on a date to be set by proclamation.
I suggest that the government accept my hon. friend's point of order that we not proceed with clause 33, which provides that the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act is repealed, effective July 31, 1970. The minister ought to agree with the contention advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a contention which I support. I hope he will agree that this particular clause will not be amended or will not come into effect until such time as the litigation, properly begun by citizens who have the right to bring an action before the courts, has been carried to the courts and has received final judgment. I suggest that that is the only fair way to deal with the matter, unless the government intends to seek an amendment which will pardon it retroactively for its 14 months of lawbreaking. It may be that the minister will seek such an amendment. As a member of the bar he may realize that it is essential, if the government is to be pardoned for the lawbreaking it has engaged in and in which it continues to engage. Apart from that, I support my hon. friend's argument and ask Your Honour to give careful consideration to what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: Are hon. members rising on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope we do not spend the next three hours on the point of order because, to my way of thinking at least, it will not be too difficult to make a ruling on it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was thoughtful enough to give notice of his intention to raise his legal point, and I have spent a great deal of time giving it serious thought. At the same time, if hon. members think that their contributions will assist the Chair, of course I will be glad to hear them. I will not limit their right to make their contributions.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can be forgiven for taking two or three minutes in this debate. I think it was my contribution the other evening that started this whole process. I suggest if any member has a vested interest in this, I am that member. I wish to make four points to Your Honour. I will do so as quickly as I can.
First, it should not be possible for someone in Canada to issue a writ to halt a discussion in Parliament of the law being questioned. For example, although some members may not be aware of it, a gentleman on the west coast has tried several times to file writs in court dealing with the

status of the Canadian flag. I hate to think that all discussions of issues of Canadian nationalism would have to come to a halt because someone issues a writ, even though I may think that person's writ has some substance to it.
Second, the court should decide on the substance of the issue rather than merely on the issuance of a writ, so that we at least are not put in the position of trying to influence the judge or appeal court. Short of that, we should surely be allowed to have our say.
Third, we should not inhibit Parliament at any time from changing the law, attemping to change the law or Members of Parliament from asking about the law as it exists when it is not being carried out.
Finally, we should be very careful about any steps being taken by the government or Parliament which would denigrate from the fact that we, after all, are the ultimate court in the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am concerned about the possible effect on farm people if we proceed with this bill at this time. There are certainly two or three facts that are well known. One is that a writ of mandamus has been issued by four farmers in the province of Saskatchewan with, I understand, the consent or knowledge of the attorney general of Saskatchewan. This is known. It has been publicly admitted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that this government stands in default of certain payments which should have been made. It is under these circumstances that this Parliament is being asked to consider this bill.
What is the situation? If, for example, the bill is considered, passed by this Parliament and becomes law, the transitional payments are distributed under clauses 32 and 33 and this writ of mandamus is in force, what will happen? The government will find that it must pay out under this bill. If the transitional payments were made, would they have been made legally or illegally? If the writ prohibits the payments under clauses 32 and 33 of this bill, will any payments that have been made been made illegally? Would it then be incumbent on some legal agency to go to the farmers to whom the money has been paid and collect that money? This is what bothers me. I have a letter on my desk from a farmer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is up to the hon. member, but it seems that what he is now saying does not relate precisely to the point now before us as to whether this is a sub judical matter and, being a sub judical matter according to the established procedures of either the Canadian or British houses, questions might be asked about the matter, motions might be made and bills considered. I suggest that this is strictly a procedural question. I doubt whether we should get into the background of the situation or consider what will happen if the writ is granted, and so on. I suggest to the hon. member that is not the point before us. I do not in any way want to restrict the debate on the procedural point, because this is very important, but as much as possible we should limit our contribution at this time to this very limited point of procedure.
October 4, 1971


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will do so. I only wanted to point out the danger to the ordinary farmer. I know of one case where a farmer is being asked to return money which he was paid under the Lift program. I am aware of the niceties of the law. I am not a lawyer, but I am aware of the vulnerability of the farmer if we persist in dealing with this bill while the legal situation is in question.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. During the question period, I asked two questions. Your Honour suggested the first question was not in order and allowed the second one. I will use that as an analogy in dealing with the situation we are faced with under this point of order. The question is whether there has been any request by the minister responsible for the wheat board for the postponement of the writ of mandamus. Possibly Your Honour did not allow my first question because this matter is now before the courts. If we proceed with this bill, how can we possibly fit the question that is now before the courts in the form of a writ of mandamus into our discussion.
The reason Your Honour did not allow me to ask the question which referred to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), who are included in the writ of mandamus, must have been based on some past practice or ruling of this House. I wonder how we can possibly expect to discuss this bill, if we wish to discuss it, when this question is still before the courts in this particular form. The only reason I am drawing this to Your Honour's attention is to use the question I asked today as an analogy to the question now before the House. The only reason the question was asked was to find out whether we were in fact faced with a double-cross by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that-I apologize to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). I am sure he has very interesting comments to make which, I am sure, will be helpful to the House and to the Chair.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: After that introduction, Mr. Speaker, I am hesitant to even make a point. However, I do not want it to be understood that we accept the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) or that we agree with the validity of his point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It came from your side.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand the point was based on Citation 149 (c) of Beauchesne which says that a member whilst speaking must not refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending. The key phrase seems to be the words "on which a judicial decision is pending." One thing I know is that no judicial is pending with regard to this bill, Bill C-244. There is certainly no judicial decision or writ or legal action in progress with respect to the report stage of the bill. I know, too, by a process of elimination, that there is no legal action in process or judicial decision pending in connection with any of the amendments which are set down for discussion by the House today. Whatever might be that matter which will
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
unfold itself on Wednesday, it will not be the bill or the report stage or any of the amendments which are now to be discussed.
I would suggest that if the rule of relevancy were strictly observed by all of us it would perhaps be possible to discuss the report stage and dispose of the amendments without the necessity of referring to the matter which will be commenced in the courts on Wednesday, as I understand it. It seems to me we should not be asked to withdraw from a discussion simply because something is to happen in the courts, when that discussion could properly be handled without reference to those proceedings- unless, for other reasons, it might be difficult not to refer to what is happening elsewhere having regard to the broad political situation. I am not a member of the bar, as some hon. gentlemen are, but I would assume the quotation merely implies that a member in speaking cannot refer to a matter on which a judicial decision is pending. I would probably ask the leader of the New Democratic Party to assist me by confirming my conclusion that a judicial decision can only be pending after evidence has been taken and arguments have been made by opposing counsel-the point at which the judge says he is about to decide the case. The purpose of the citation is, presumably, if there is any sense to our proceedings in this House at all, to impose a structure against Members of Parliament making comments from that point on in connection with the pending decision, comments which might amount to an interference with the independence of the judiciary. Otherwise, there would be no sense to the rule.
Consider how idiotic we would appear on Wednesday if, having said we cannot proceed to discuss this subject because the matter was pending in the courts, the judge, after hearing the initial arguments, were to say that the process had been wrongly put together and that he would not proceed with it until it had been put together in proper form. I suggest that whatever situation this citation is expected to cover, it really does not cover the situation which is now before the House as it is called upon to deal with the report stage of a bill, or, more strictly speaking, with amendments thereto. Certainly, none of these form the subject matter of the legal action.
I could continue, Mr. Speaker, and make further arguments, but I have said enough to convince, at least myself if not hon. members of the opposition, of the unsoundness of this particular point of order. I note that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) coming from a good legal city, has reached the same conclusion as I have reached, namely, that this is not really a serious point of order and that we should be in a real mess if debate in this House could be stopped because somebody had taken legal action in some court. We would have to close our doors.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all members who have taken part in this interesting discussion. As I mentioned a moment ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had given me notice of his intention to raise this matter today. I have given it serious thought and looked at precedents which enabled me to make a ruling. I think I should apologize to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for appearing at one point to cut off

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
discussion before he really had a chance to make what I consider to be a valuable contribution on an important aspect of the subject. May I say that I agree entirely with his submission to the House. I only wish I could make a ruling as clearly as he expressed his views when taking part in the debate.
I cannot agree with the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that a legal proceeding initiated in a court of law in Canada, be it by way of writ of mandamus or any other writ, should prevent the House of Commons or Parliament from continuing or even initiating the discussion of legislation. The hon. member has quoted as his authority citation 149(c) in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, in addition to the prohibition contained in Standing Order 51:
It has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada that a member while speaking must not... not refer to any matter upon which a judicial decision is pending.
I think this citation should be interpreted as narrowly as possible. I doubt very much if the Chair should be called upon to intervene whenever a member refers to a matter which is before the courts. Hon. members, in particular the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and the President of the Privy Council, have suggested that the citation should be interpreted narrowly and that the phrase "judicial decision pending" means that the case has been heard in full and that the court has before it the matter on which a decision will be rendered in the near future, in which case debates in the House might not be interpreted as influencing or attempting to influence the decision of the court.
I do not believe we should go that far. I believe hon. members should look at other citations, for example, at page 400 of May's 16th Edition-the same citation is repeated in the 17th Edition:
A matter, whilst under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise. This rule does not apply to bills.
I think it would have been useful had this limitation been included in Beauchesne. It seems to me logical, as hon. members taking part in the discussion have indicated, that we should take this view, otherwise the whole legislative process might be stopped simply by the initiation of a writ, or legal proceedings in one or other of the courts of Canada. I can imagine, for example, amendments to the Criminal Code relating to matters of great interest to Canadians being prevented by the issuance of a writ of mandamus in one of the courts of Canada. This would place Parliament in an intolerable situation. I do not think this is an interpretation which hon. members would wish to place on the sub judice rule.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) has referred to the fact that the Chair had some doubts as to one of the questions which was asked today. The hon. member will have noted that this matter was handled somewhat gingerly by the Chair. I said I had doubts as to the first question, but that I would allow the second one. What I had in mind was that the question was bearing directly, and perhaps a little too closely, on the case before the court. However, I was not disposed at that point to make a ruling on the matter; I just had some doubt, which is why I felt that if one of the two questions were to be allowed as we approached the end of the

question period, it was easier for the Chair to allow the second than the first. This was the extent of the ruling that I made at that time.
I suggest to hon. members that the citation which applies is that which can be found in May, that a matter, while under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise, but that the rule does not apply to a bill. I suggest that what is now before the House is a bill. A bill is legislation and the sub judice rule should not apply so as to prevent discussion of the bill or an amendment to the bill, or any proceedings under that bill at the present time.
The House resumed, from Friday, September 24, 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. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will know that when this matter was last before the chamber we were dealing with a point of order with respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). The Chair had not made a decision, and if there are other hon. members who would like to assist the Chair on that particular point of order I would be very pleased to hear them now.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the proposed amendment. It seems to me that one of the fundamental points here relates to the novelty of the proposed amendment in terms of what it would do to the situation facing the House. The motion before the House which the present amendment would purport to amend has been described as vague in meaning, and so on, which I think is the substantial difference between the amendment and the motion before the House. Among other things, the amendment being proposed would eliminate from the original motion the words "and including stabilization payments", which would have the effect of leaving only the proposed deduction of increased production costs. I say that because it would make a substantial difference to the original motion if a matter which could have major significance were eliminated.
It is also quite clear that the amendment in the form proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would be beyond the terms of the recommendation. It may be argued that the motion before the House is already beyond the terms of the recommendation, but I submit that its very vagueness and probable unworkability means that no firm judgment can be made upon it. In its present form, the amendment would clearly go beyond the terms of the recommendation in that it increases the amount of the commitment by the treasury beyond that outlined in the recommendation. It would do this in terms of its impact upon at least one of the clauses in the bill, namely clause 3.
I think this bears further on the point about making a substantive amendment to the definition clause of a bill. Again I suggest, with respect to Your Honour, that this may have been forgiveable in the case of the motion
October 4, 1971

before the House, which after almost two and a half days everyone has agreed would either be unworkable or meaningless. The present amendment would have an important effect upon a series of clauses in the bill, namely clauses 3, 4 and 9 among others.
Interestingly enough, it would have a quite different effect on other clauses, and this simply highlights the danger of proposing an amendment which, though clear, would have a substantial effect on different clauses in the bill. For this additional reason, I would urge Your Honour to find that the amendment now proposed is not in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If hon. members have concluded their contributions to assist the Chair, I would be prepared to make a ruling on the point of order which has been raised on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It might be helpful to the chamber if the Chair were to read the motion and the amendment that is before the House.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) reads as follows:
That Bill C-244, an act respecting the stabilization of prairie grain sale proceeds and to repeal or amend certain related statutes, be amended by adding the following to paragraph (c) of subclause (1) of clause 2 after the word "producer" in line 18 at page 1: "and after the deduction of the increased costs of production, and including stabilization payments, if any;"
The hon. member for Skeena proposes to amend that motion in the following manner:
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after "deduction" and substituting therefor the following: "of the amount by which the costs of production for the crop year within which a levy under section 9 is deducted exceeds the cost of production for the crop year ending on July 31, 1970".
Hon. members will recall that when this bill came on for consideration at the report stage on June 22 last, Mr. Speaker indicated some doubt about the procedural acceptability of some of the motions. In addition, the hon. minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board expressed his doubt about many of the motions, including the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar which I have just read. There was, it seems to me, general agreement on the part of all hon. members at that particular time to debate the substantive aspects of the motion then before the House, and debate proceeded on that basis.
On September 22, the hon. member for Skeena proposed the amendment which I have just read, and on September 24 the Chair, having expressed some doubts about the procedural acceptability of the amendment, heard argument from several hon. members. The Chair has also heard argument from the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and I want to thank all hon. members who have assisted the Chair on this procedural problem.
I might say that because my ruling will be premised on this point I think I should restate, at the outset, the proposition that the motion by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is properly before the House for consideration. Hon. members will recall that I stated during the argument on June 22 that I was satisfied on that point. As an aside, I might say that had there not been the consent of the House to proceed, I might have taken the view that the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was not
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
acceptable procedurally. However, the House is now seized, by consent, with that motion, and the matter before us at this time is whether or not the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena is in order procedurally.
The question for determination, I suggest, is whether or not the amendment substitutes something new in place of the motion, or whether it merely amends the main motion.
I appreciate that one must apply the rules even more strictly when dealing with an amendment to the motion. In effect, it is a subamendment because the motion amends the clause of the bill. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) made an effective argument when the matter was last before the House for debate and I would find his argument very persuasive if the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar were now before the Chair for consideration as to its procedural acceptability.
However, I have dealt with that point; we have accepted the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and what is now before the House for consideration is the amendment, or the subamendment if I may use that terminology, of the hon. member for Skeena.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board has assisted the Chair and, in essence, has argued in some respects along the line taken by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, particularly on the point about the difficulty that the Chair has in accepting an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill. Indeed, the Chair would have that difficulty if we did not have before us the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. With all respect, I cannot agree with the hon. minister, who has just argued the point, that the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena should have some doubt cast upon it because it may go beyond the terms of the recommendation. I think it is probably an argument I would have no hesitation in accepting if it were made in respect of the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I need not repeat that I am satisfied, because of the concern of hon. members, that we are now seized with the motion, so we must deal with the matter on that basis.
Paraphrasing the situation in general terms, it seems to me that the motion by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar provides that the increased cost of production will be taken into account in determining grain sale proceeds, and the hon. member for Skeena amends this by saying that the determination of the increased costs of production shall be measured on the basis of the crop year ending on July 31, 1970. When the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena was before the House on September 14, I invited assistance from hon. members on the procedural point and indicated that at first blush, before hearing arguments, it appeared to me that the amendment might be a substitution of one procedure for another and, therefore, not acceptable procedurally because of the lack of notice as provided under Standing Order 75(5).
The hon. minister has argued today, in addition to the argument of the hon. parliamentary secretary with respect to a substitution of one procedure or principle by another, that the question of stabilization payments is one which the Chair should take into consideration. Indeed,

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
that is the question which gave the Chair, although it was not argued previously, a great deal of concern when considering the arguments. It was my opinion, and I must say I considered the matters raised by the hon. minister, that stabilization payments must be included in or somehow form a part of the cost of production. Therefore, it was my opinion at that time that I could not give the degree of weight to the argument which the minister has urged upon me today.
I might say that after hearing the helpful arguments from all hon. members, and after careful consideration of the Hansard record and the authorities cited, I am of the opinion that the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena does not go beyond the scope of the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and does not substitute one method or principle for another. I think its purpose and effect is to clarify that which would be, I might say with respect to the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, a bit difficult of interpretation if it stood by itself.
The minister argued that point today, and this is something that certainly occurred to the Chair. It is very difficult to understand exactly what the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar means or how it could be operative. It does seem to me that the addition of the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena is of assistance to the Chair in understanding what is before the House.
I am of the opinion, therefore, that the amendment under consideration is relevant to the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar; it makes it more intelligible and, therefore, is in order and should be put to the House. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) moves, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after "deduction" and substituting therefor the following "of the amount by which the costs of production for the crop year within which a levy under section 9 is deducted exceeds the costs of production for the crop year ending on July 31, 1970."


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it was not
my intention to enter the debate and I would not do so were it not for what the government did today. I suggest that the behaviour of the government with regard to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the behaviour of the government today, together constitute the most disgusting kind of contempts for a parliamentary and gentlemanly agreement possible. There has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but if he was listening to my decision he will recall that I did say if the amendment to the motion were accepted we would at this stage be confining the debate very narrowly. I suggest to the hon. member with respect that he should not range beyond the motion and the amendment which are now before the House.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you will have me resume my seat when you see fit. With great respect, however, what I am saying is relevant to the motion and the amendment before the House. I intend, without the slightest disrespect, to continue along the lines I began.

What we have attempted to do through these amendments is genuinely and sincerely change the bill from one which we think is bad to the kind of stabilization we think would be better. That is what we have attempted to do. This is what members in my party and the Conservative party have been trying to do. What the government has done has been not to attempt to meet the arguments we have put forward in respect of their stabilization plan, but deliberately confuse, on the floor of this chamber, on radio and on television, the western farmers into thinking that all that is involved is an amount of money under one act and an amount of money under another act. When the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board do that, they are doing a dishonest disservice to the western farmers of this country. That is not the issue of either the motion, the amendment or the bill. The bill is an attempt to establish a stabilization plan, and you do not have to be a genius to understand it, in spite of the fact that the legalese of the bill makes it difficult to follow.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the Chair.


David Lewis: I will speak to the minister, Mr. Speaker, which does not give me as much pleasure as speaking to the amendment, but unfortunately that is what I have to do. I speak to the minister because he is the cause of the confusion and the distortion with which this Parliament and the western farmers are now faced. What the bill before us suggests is that we establish a measure to stabilize the ups and downs of grain farmers' income, by creating a fund into which the government will pay a certain amount and into which farmers will pay a certain amount, using that fund to equalize these ups and downs or booms and disasters to which the western and eastern grain farmers are subject.
What the motion before the House and the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena attempt to suggest is that the stabilization proposed by the government is stabilization of poverty. If you are going to have stabilization which is of value to the grain farmers, that stabilization must deal with the net income of the farmer, taking into account the rising costs of production. If you stabilize income on the basis of gross revenue only, you will be putting the farmer into a straitjacket of poverty because the gross revenue for the average is established on a moving five-year period, with the cost of production going up and net revenue contracting. The farmer, like every other professional, worker or businessman, does not live on his gross revenue, but on his net income after he has paid the costs of production.
We have therefore urged that the law be changed so that the stabilization is based on net income. This is the reason I say, with respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that what I started to say is entirely in order. This is what the three prairie ministers of agriculture proposed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board last Friday. One of the things they urged on him was precisely the line which is proposed in the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and the amendment by the hon. member for Skeena to the effect that the stabilization be based on net income. It is not the amounts of money that are involved in this. What we want to make clear so far as the members
October 4, 1971

of this party are concerned is that we have objected to the bill not because of any amount of money in it, but because the stabilization plan is a bad plan for the grain farmers since it will be based initially on a period of five years which are poor years. The average established, therefore, will be a poor average and for the two or three years after that, the farmer will be held down by the poor average on which the stabilization is based.
Second, we object to this stabilization plan because it is based on gross income which does not take into account the cost of production which, as we know from history, is bound to rise every year so that the net situation of the farmer may be worse as a result of this bill rather than better. We are all interested in a better situation for the farmer, including I am sure even the ex-dean of law who is now rapidly becoming the dean of lawlessness, in view of his disregard of his duty under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that were the subject the government permitted us to discuss, then the farmers of western Canada and eastern Canada would be able to sit down and try to decide what they think of the law. Most of them with whom I have spoken-and I have had occasion to speak to literally thousands of them on the Prairies in the last couple of months-are very much opposed to the bill just for the reason I have given, but the government has not permitted us to have this kind of discussion.
Despite the fact there had been an agreement last Friday that there was to be some kind of-I do not know exactly what to call it-truce or cease fire for a few days, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went on the air last night and made a statement to the western farmers which I can describe only as being inaccurate and misleading. If the Prime Minister did not know any better, he ought to have made himself more knowledgeable before making those statements. He made statements about the amount of money that would be paid under the bill we are discussing now. He said that there would be $100 million in payments on a transitional basis. I agree that that is there. Then, he talked about $35 million in a year and $35 million the year following. The minister nods his head. I say to the minister, because the Prime Minister is not here, that he does not know and the Prime Minister does not know how much money they will put into the fund two years hence. We do not know what the market will be; we do not know what the price will be, and we do not know what the yield will be or what the weather will be. They are talking out of their hats.
No one can make such a forecast concerning what will happen two years from now. I have often said to farmers in the west and in the east, as a person who has never been a farmer, that they are the real gamblers in Canada. They gamble on the weather, on the market and on the price. Why in heaven's name they gamble with this government is something I have never been able to understand. I say that the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board are misleading the people of Canada and the western farmers by reciting figures about which they know nothing. They have no idea what the amounts will be. They are misleading the farmers because they fail to tell them the whole truth. The minister knows he is not telling them the whole truth. They fail to remind the farmer that he will have to pay 2 per cent out of his
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
gross crop revenue into the stabilization fund. Not only is the government to pay 4 per cent but the farmer is to pay 2 per cent. He never mentions that. He never mentions that if this bill passes the farmer will lose what he has now under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and that from now on he will have to pay the cost of storing any surplus grain which formerly was paid out of the federal treasury.
The minister knows that if this bill passes the PFAA will be removed from the statute books. The farmer who used this as a form of crop insurance will now have to enter into another crop insurance scheme for himself. The minister knows that will cost the farmer another one per cent or one and one half per cent of the sale price of his crop. He never tells him that. I say that the Prime Minister and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board are misleading the western farmer and I, as a member of this House, am ashamed of their behaviour in respect of a bill which is as important as this bill which is before us. Last Friday the minister met with the three prairie ministers. I read the statement he made to the press. I was not in Ottawa on Friday afternoon or over the weekend, but I read the statement he made to the press. I shall not quote him but shall give an accurate representation. Reporters quoted him as saying that the three prairie ministers of agriculture made certain suggestions to him, that he and they agreed that there would be an attempt in this House not to proceed with the matter of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and that the government would not put Bill C-244 before Parliament today but would take some days-the report said a week-to give serious consideration to what the three prairie ministers of agriculture proposed to the minister.
My colleagues-I did not myself, because I was not here-spoke to the two New Democratic ministers of agriculture from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and were informed that that was the understanding between the two ministers and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. They told our members that this was the understanding, that there would be a week of delay before this bill came before the House and that the government would give serious consideration in good faith to their proposals in so far as they attached to this bill. This has not been done. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board spoke to our House leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on Friday, and conveyed this information to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who is sitting right beside me now as he does every day in this House. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board informed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it was his intention that this bill would not come before us today but that the government would take some days-he said not necessarily a week, and my friend will correct me if I am wrong.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I should like to make a correction in respect of what the hon. member is saying. I must say I should do so in respect of quite a number of things he has been saying. Since he said these things in my presence this might leave the impression that I am in some way agreeing. At all times the request to which he refers was from the prairie ministers. At all times it was conveyed as being that to the government and

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
to parties opposite, and was dependent upon certain agreement being arrived at all around. It was also clear at all times that the final understanding would depend upon agreement this morning, Monday morning, between the government House Leader and the House Leaders of other parties. It was that discussion which failed to bring about agreement. I may add that it may well be that if all parties in the opposition had taken the view of his colleague, the House leader for his party, we might have had such an agreement. They did not, and therefore we did not have such an agreement.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister's explanation shows precisely the kind of tortuous route that his mind always travels. I was not present, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) told me what the conversation with him was, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre never deviates one iota from what he is told and what he says. Members of the House know that.
What was the agreement to be dependant upon? The minister answered a question earlier this afternoon in a way that was completely unintelligible to me, and his remarks just now were completely unintelligible to me. What kind of agreement was it that the three or four House leaders were supposed to reach? There was no meeting of the House leaders. The government House leader spoke on the telephone to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. I do not know how he spoke to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Stanley Howard Knowles: By telephone.


David Lewis: I did not know that. Now, I am told it was by telephone. I repeat that there was no meeting of the house leaders. The minister made no proposal to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which that hon. member rejected. We made no proposal to him. Mr. Speaker, he is not telling the entire truth to this House. He is weaseling and distorting what the situation is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It did seem to the Chair that, before the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board rose, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) might have been straying a bit from the motion and the amendment before the House. Perhaps the Chair was at fault. I think, with respect, that the minister did not have a point of order but I felt in fairness, and in the absence of objection, that if he wanted to explain his position, that was fair enough. The hon. member for York South, who has the floor, has responded to that. I think it has been a useful exchange. However, I would hope that at about this time we might try to get back to the motion and the amendment before the House.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in a moment you will see my reason for answering the minister. I say this with great seriousness. When members of this House and the people of Canada read in the press that there has been an understanding among ministers of the Crown, the federal minister and three provincial ministers, it is important for Parliament and for the democratic process that such an
(Mr. Lang.]
understanding be kept, and that it not be betrayed and breached. I know that the prairie ministers, at least the Manitoba and Saskatchewan ministers of agriculture, are planning a press release to make that clear. I am almost finished, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It does seem to the Chair, as the hon. member for York South has pointed out, that the arguments he makes, in which the minister has joined, are important arguments for the people of Canada, and indeed are important for this chamber. However, I know that the hon. member for York South and the minister are both learned counsel and will appreciate that the Chair must be bound by the rule of relevancy. The Chair cannot hear this particular argument at this time. There are other forums in which it can be raised, and I need not mention them. I would ask both hon. members to confine their remarks to the motion and the amendment before the House.


David Lewis: What I seem to have failed to get clearly before Your Honour is that the issue of the basis for stabilization of the grain farmers' income was precisely one of the issues that was the subject of the discussions between the three prairie ministers of agriculture and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It was precisely what was suggested in the motion by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and in the amendment by the hon. member for Skeena. It was precisely the subject matter of those amendments, motions, or subamendments-whatever you want to call them. That was one of the subjects of discussion with the minister last Friday, and therefore it is relevant.
I say that it is important for these agreements to be kept. It is important for the Members of Parliament, to make the government honest in keeping such agreements. Because the minister and the government broke that agreement, and because we of the NDP, and I hope others on this side of the House, will not be parties to the breaching of that kind of agreement by having Bill C-244 before us when it was agreed that it should not be put before us today, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this debate do now adjourn.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In rising to speak to the amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I wish to state that I will support the amendment and the motion to amend Bill C-244.
I might first of all agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) who stated emphatically that it was his impression there was an agreement between the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the agriculture ministers of the three prairie provinces. It was obviously clear on October 1, because, as reported under the heading "Business of the House" at page 8368 of Hansard, the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) had this to say:
Yesterday the government House leader announced that Monday's business would be Bill C-244.1 think everyone in this House knows that discussions are taking place between the federal Minister of Agriculture and the agriculture ministers of the western provinces. I wish to report to the House-and I have so advised the House leaders opposite-that these discussions may continue. In that case, rather than call the agriculture bill on Monday we will continue with the measure now before the House. The House leader will endeavour to notify opposition House leaders as early as possible on Monday.
This gives one some idea that there was an agreement. It is regrettable that agreements mean nothing to the federal government, that agreements mean nothing now to federal ministers. I used to think this only applied to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when he reneged on the agreement he made with the cattle producers of western Canada, but we now see the minister in charge of the Wheat Board disregarding the agreement he made with the three agriculture ministers of western Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Nonsense.


Mr.   Homer@: This gives us some concept of the wording of the present bill. Can the country go along placing faith and trust in the word of a government one cannot really trust very much? When that situation becomes an established fact, it is wise for the government, I suppose, to call an election so that the public can restate its confidence in them or choose another government.
The formula presented to us takes 1970 as the base year, as the year to which costs of production should be related. In order to gauge that year as the foundation year for the establishment of net farm income as a basis for a stabilization program, one has to establish the net farm income position. As the bill now stands, it is really an insurance concerned with marketing the grain. It is not an insurance of the farmers' ability to produce or sell. It is a guarantee for a marketing system toward which farmers are asked to contribute a 2 per cent levy. Has that system worked?

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Net farm income in Saskatchewan in 1966, which is the year this program starts, was in the neighbourhood of $580 million. In 1970 it was down to a low of $194 million. This gives one some idea as to the level upon which the stabilization program would be based. It is based on a declining income from 1966 to 1970. The level will be very low. The Minister of Agriculture realizes the effect that "low years" will have on the bill.
As reported in the minutes of committee proceedings No. 55, the minister had this to say on Wednesday, June 2:
The stabilization program is designed to fill in the very deep valleys which can occur when a bad year follows some good ones.
I want to emphasize those words. We have experienced a series of bad years since 1966. How will the stabilization bill fill in the valleys?


An hon. Member:: All bad years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As reported at page four of the minutes of proceedings No. 55, the minister went on to say:
It does not cut down the good years except to the extent of the producers' contribution of 2 per cent. It could be as good a year as sales really make it. Our emphasis must be on sales and we are optimistic that with continued effort on sales we can see an ever-rising total in the gross receipts from grain in the prairie region.
Well, if we start off with a low in gross receipts, and we are optimistic about seeing a continuing rise in gross receipts, when is the farmer to get the $35 million the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about on television when he said farmers were going to get $35 million this year and the year after, and so on? The minister in charge of the Wheat Board understands this program. The government is geared to getting out of paying money to the farmers of western Canada.
What has been paid under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act? Look at Volume 58 of the committee proceedings. If anyone is in doubt as to the exact interpretation of this bill I suggest he read volumes 58 and 59 of those proceedings. At page 117 of committee report No. 58, it appears that $79.7 million was paid out under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act during the crop year
1968-	69. Since that time the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has deliberately reduced the amount of wheat in storage, thus depriving the farmers of income that was theirs as well as their opportunity to sell their wheat. All that was paid out the following year,
1969-	70, was some $15 million.


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


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When I am through; I have only 20 minutes. Some $40 million was owing in the crop year 1969-70 according to the tables presented to the committee by the Canadian Wheat Board. In addition to that $40 million there was another $20 million owing, making $60 million due to the farmers on August 1, not of this year but last year. If any member doubts my word for this, let him turn to page 15 of the committee report to which I have referred, where Mr. Treleaven, a representative of the Canadian Wheat Board, admitted that $60 million was due as of August 1, 1970, of which, he said, $40 million roughly would be applied against the 1969-70 pool account and the other $20 million applied against the 1970-71 account.
(Mr. Horner.]
What has occurred since August 1? Another $26 million is due for the year 1970-71. Mr. Earl, as reported at page 12 of the report, had this to say:
Of that $60 million, again recognizing that there are two pools open, 1969-70 and 1970-71, we estimate that very roughly about $40 million belongs to the 1969-70 pool. Now were that amount in the pool it would mean to producers in the final payment 9.5 cents a bushel.
This would mean that about 14 cents a bushel is due as of August 1, 1970 and that another 7 or 8 cents a bushel is due as of August 1, 1971. In other words, there is due about another 20 cents a bushel.
In his great lecture to the Canadian farmer last night on television, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not mention the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and the $6 million that the PFAA fund costs the federal treasury every year. In fact, he skipped a year in showing the payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and added a year to his grain stabilization program calculations. By skipping one year's payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and disregarding the PFAA payments, it was no wonder that the Prime Minister was able to present such a lopsided calculation of $170 million as opposed to $112 million under the respective schemes. To me, his statistics just did not add up.
Let me now look at the question whether the payment should or should not be made. It is of interest to note that this whole question was dealt with extensively in the debate before the agriculture committee, and if one were to refer to page 9 of committee proceedings No. 58-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair is finding difficulty relating the remarks of the hon. member to the amendment before the House at the present time. Hon. members have already been advised that when the House is dealing with a specific amendment they should try as much as possible to confine their remarks to the subject matter of such amendment. It seems to me the hon. member is once again opening up the question of payments to be made under some other piece of legislation, and I think he should return to the amendment before the House in accordance with instructions. The Chair had hoped that as far as possible he would do this and invites him to try to keep within the confines of the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I speak briefly to the point of order, though my remarks should not be counted as part of my time. The point Your Honour has raised is a valid one, but the motion and amendment seek to place the stabilization fund on a net basis, using the 1970 crop year as the basis for evaluating cost of production. I am endeavouring to support the establishment of the year 1970 as the basis, and I shall be coming to that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair did not intervene when the hon. member was dealing with that specific point and trying to base an argument upon it. However, he has gone far beyond this point now and is referring to payments made to farmers under another piece of legislation and to the responsibility of the administration for that legislation. In doing so, I suggest he is opening up previous debates we have had on the subject. Therefore, his remarks do not conform to the guidelines that have been given to hon. members.
October 4, 1971


Mr.   Homer@: Mr. Speaker, I realize this is a difficult subject matter to follow. It is also difficult for one to confine his remarks to such a narrow point as using as the basis for calculating cost of production the year 1970. May I refer to catalogue No. 62-004 published by Dominion Bureau of Statistics which gives the price index numbers of the commodities and services that are used by the farmers. This is the way DBS calculates cost of production, which is the cost of the goods and services that our farmers must buy.
It is of interest to note that if you base this equation on gross income, you fail to take into consideration the increase in cost of production, which thereby puts a tremendous squeeze on the farmers-what we have all heard referred to as the cost price squeeze. I suggest one has to examine cost of production over recent years in order to see whether or not there is any merit in basing your calculations on net income and using the year 1970 as the base year. According to the price index of the number of commodities and services used by the farmers as published by DBS, in 1949 the composite index inclusive of living components for the cost of goods the farmers buy was 199.2. In January 1970, it had risen to 390.8, very nearly double over a 20-year period.
In the event that the government's program is enacted, the fact that we are on a downward trend in establishing an average under the stabilization program means that in order for the farmers to collect they would have to build up their gross sales and then suffer a drop subsequently. Notable economists have estimated that there may be one, at best two, payments between now and 1980. Taking the past 20 years' cost of production as a guide, one can readily see that cost of production has doubled. A better way of putting it is to say that the cost of the goods and services that farmers must buy has doubled. As sure as night follows day, the cost of the goods and services that the farmers have to buy during the next ten years will double again, especially if the present government continues in office. This will place our farmers in a tremendous squeeze.
As this squeeze approaches, under the stabilization program that the Prime Minister has put forward and which the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is attempting to pilot through the House, no payment is made unless the farmers have a bad crop year. The $35 million that the Prime Minister spoke of last night will not be distributed to help offset cost of production unless the farmers experience a calamitous year, whereas under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act money flows in each year to help offset the ever-rising cost of the goods and services the farmers buy.
I made reference a while ago to what the chairman of the Agriculture Committee said on page 9 of committee proceedings 58 regarding this whole question as to whether the $60 million should be paid. He said:
That is probably a matter that would have to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.
That is very clear. There is a good legal point here. The Prime Minister said last night that this government is breaking the law, and he seemed proud of that as he lectured the farmers. He went on to say they are in default
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
of payments, and I suggest they will continue to be in default until they change this program in such a way that the bill takes into consideration the net position of the farmers and is related to some time which is more favourable to farmers. If you use 1970 as the year on which to base the net position, that will be fine, but on the basis of gross sales it is not good.
The minister went on to say in respect of the lows and highs of the cycle, and I read from proceedings No. 55 at page 4:
This is an important thing in relation to some of the arguments which have been made by producers about whether there is anything to guard against inflation or cost increases and so on in this program. In a sense there is, in the sense that its sales continue to increase if over-all gross receipts for prairie grains do go up as they have indeed over any past period of years; you can see an increase in total receipts in any long-term graph you may draw.
He is predicting that you will see an increase at some time in the future in respect of gross receipts, and you will know when a payment should be made, but this is the dangerous thing about the grain stabilization program. If a program is to be beneficial to the farmer you must have a situation in which there is continuing growth in gross receipts, but you would have a payment under this bill that merely represents a transfer from one government pot to another government pot. It is merely a paper transfer.
The minister went on to state, as recorded at page 29 of committee proceedings No. 59, regarding the logic of setting up such a fund:
All I can do, in terms of your question, is reframe the statement I made earlier that if you start with a high average, the average is high; if you start with a lower average, the average is lower. Obviously, the only way you know exactly what is going to happen is by starting to forecast the future and that is a thing I have been refraining from doing.
He is reported on the same page as saying:
The logic of making the trade now is very clear in terms of what this stabilization plan will provide in the way of money from the treasury toward the grain industry compared to what would have been provided if we had gone on with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, standing in its present terms, and with less wheat in the system to make room for the barley and rapeseed and better functioning of the system.
This refers to a reduction of wheat in the system. The minister is well aware of the fact that he is starting now in a position favourable to the government rather than to the farmers. If this stabilization program were presented again five years from now, it might find a more favourable climate in this House of Commons because of a change of climate in the agriculture industry. I suggest that if farmers accept this program today, they will accept it to their own detriment.
There is one other situation that is not covered, and this is related to the amendment regarding the net receipts. Under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, money would be paid out if a farmer suffered a calamity, as happened in some parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta this year because of the Bertha army worm. However, under the stabilization program, the farmer would receive nothing because this is a regional situation and is not covered. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board suggests that this should be covered under crop insurance, but there are fewer farmers who took out crop insurance this year in

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
the province of Alberta than last year, merely because it was not to their liking.
There is one statement I should like to put on record before concluding. This statement was made by the secretary of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture when appearing before the committee. It appears in committee proceedings No. 54 at page 37.
Mr. Chairman, in our brief we did not go into the intricacies of the legislative process, thinking that that was perhaps something that you people could deal with, but we are quite clear on the principle, that this bill needs amending, that the total policy package needs amending, and that it is not satisfactory to be in a position where one runs the risk of a delayed payment of a very necessary $100 million if one gives sufficient attention to the bill to get those amendments in the other part of it. If that requires separation, if that is the only way that can be done, then that is fine. The best way to do it is to amend the bill the way it needs to be amended right through the piece and to do it right away. That is the other way to do it, to accept our proposals for amendment of the whole bill, of course.
He goes on to suggest that this is a very complicated bill and a very great deal of time must be spent on it. I make no apology for the length of time this House has debated this complicated piece of legislation. It is regrettable the minister did not bring it forward earlier in order that it might have been passed last June. For some reason known best to himself and the cabinet, he introduced it in a proposal to the country on October 29, 1970 but withheld it from the House until April 3, 1971. It is regrettable he kept it to himself for that long.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. 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 Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Public Service-Extension of regional pay differentials; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr.	Allmand)-External Affairs-
Representations to Premier Kosygin on right of Soviet Jews to emigrate and rights of other ethnic groups.



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).
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I understand that shortly before we had the vote on

the motion to adjourn in the name of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), the minister responsible for the Wheat Board intimated that for some unknown reason the responsibility for bringing this bill back today rests on my shoulders. Perhaps the minister did not intend to create that impression, and if that is the case I will pause here for a moment to allow him to stand and say so.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the statement I made was perhaps more general than that, but I would be pleased to be more specific with regard to the matter. I indicated to the leader of the NDP, who was then speaking, that if the understanding which the house leader of the NDP and I had arrived at had been shared more widely or generally in the House there might, indeed, have been no debate today. If you would like me to be more specific about what I was saying I shall attempt to do so.
I was indicating that during our discussion with the House leader of the Progressive Conservative party there was some indication that any delay or postponement of the debate on both the bill and on any question of legality under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act would depend to some extent on the likelihood of amendments being accepted to Bill C-244. We thought in all fairness to him we should make it clear that the purpose of any delay was, in fact, to give us time to consider what our reply should be to representations made to us rather than for any other reason, and that in our view any question of an amendment to Bill C-244 at this stage of the proceeding was pretty remote.
As I understood it, it was no longer acceptable to the Progressive Conservative party, represented by the House leader, that the debate on both questions should be delayed. For that reason I understood there was not the kind of agreement on all sides in respect of which the request of the prairie agricultural ministers could be accepted. Therefore the order of business was confirmed in the original format, and Bill C-244 was called.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the minister has clarified the situation to some extent, but I think I have no alternative than to repeat what I said this afternoon when the House opened. Throughout the discussions which took place last Friday, the firm impression was created in my mind that one of the reasons for seeking a moratorium in respect of the debate on this bill for a week was, among other things, to consider the question of whether there would be amendments to the bill. Quite frankly this was the main subject of the exercise at the inception of this debate. Our side made this quite plain. Without any substantial amendments our views could hardly be met.
I kept that view until this morning when, in discussion with the Government House Leader, I told him this was my impression and he then, I assume, got in touch with the minister. The minister then made the statement, which the government House leader repeated to me, that the chances of any amendment to Bill C-244 were very, very remote. I think those were the words the minister used. In any event, they are the words which were passed on to me. On that basis, I had to say the impression I had derived on Friday was certainly changed, and so far as we were concerned there could be no commitments given of
October 4, 1971

the kind asked because the whole basis for discussion had been destroyed. Then, the question was asked whether or not we were prepared to proceed with the bill, and to that my answer was categorical, that it was for the government to decide. The government has the carriage of business in the House and brings measures forward when it desires to do so. I believe the minister and I are not too far apart, but I thought I should make plain at the first opportunity that this was the discussion which took place.
In my opinion, I bear no responsibility for this bill being here today. It is for the government House leader and the government to decide what they want this House to discuss.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair has given an opportunity to the hon. member for Peace River and the minister to clarify a point for the House. Insofar as it is possible to be lenient, the Chair has done so because this is a very important question. However, I believe it should be left at this point now that both hon. members have had an opportunity to express their views on the matter.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to the motion which is before us deals with the question of the net cost element being introduced into a stabilization bill. There have been quite a number of statements about the problem of the grain farmers' income position as requiring some special modifications under the stabilization bill, notwithstanding the fact that we on our side made clear at all times that the stabilization bill was indeed a partial increase in the amount of support the government was giving to the grain industry, immediately and prospectively, but that the over-all question of support by the Canadian people as a whole to the grain farmer was a question which would continue to require examination. I made this quite clear in statements I made on March 15. I stated that, for the moment, this bill was adding $40 million or so for this year and increasing the commitment for future years compared to the commitment under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and its declining amount of payment estimated on the basis of keeping the elevator system and transportation system operating efficiently. I said this was what we were doing and that the stabilization plan as a whole was particularly important in that it gave massive protection to farmers against drastic declines in gross sales in world markets over which no one has control because control is dependent upon climate and growing conditions throughout the world.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in this connection referred to an amount of $60 million or $70 . million or so on a comparable basis which would in fact have been paid under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The question I had wanted to put to him in that connection was whether he would mind referring to the amount of money which would have been paid in those years if the stabilization plan had been in effect in its present form without the amendment in relation to net proceeds or net deduction of costs which is before us. If he had answered that question, he would have had to say that somewhere between $200 million and $300 million might have been paid in each of the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 compared to the $60 million or $70 million which in fact
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
was paid under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act in those years.
For the future, one can afford to look at the government's commitment of expenditure in an absolute way and estimate it. This does, of course, involve some speculation about sales, except that those of us who are optimistic believe the amount will in fact rise.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I will let the hon. member wait until I finish.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you.


Otto Emil Lang: The question of the future, and the commitment of say $35 million estimated for this year or next year of course, depends upon some speculation concerning the level of sales. However, it is a fairly realistic, if modest, estimate of the amount which may be spent based on the 4 per cent contribution by the federal government. The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act provisions are likely to result in a declining amount to something like $30 million in the current year and perhaps down to $20 million or so in the following year. If one looks at the amount to be paid to farmers in those years it becomes more speculative but it is unlimited. The amount paid to the farmers may well exceed the amount being paid out of the treasury because of the commitment in the bill to lend, in an unlimited way, interest-free to the fund, whatever is required to keep the farmers' income or gross sales level at the previous five year average.
The amendment comes to the House in an interesting fashion. It really demonstrates not the objective on the part of the opposition to improve the plan, but simply part of the tactics we have seen in adjournment motions and other motions to delay Bill C-244 being voted on in the House. The reason it does this is clear. I should like to remind hon. members that the principal motion which is here being amended was brought before the House for debate on June 22. After a couple of speeches from the opposition side praising it, I made a very short interjection in which I indicated that in my view it was in its form unworkable and, I might have added-and I did refer to the committee proceedings-that there had been other suggestions about that kind of amendment and that it would, in fact, be impossible to give any meaning to it. Notwithstanding that advice, hon. members opposite lauded the motion proposed to the House.
Yet when the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) introduced his amendment, he said he felt that without this further clarification the motion would have left wide open just what was meant by increased cost of production. His statement is recorded in Hansard at page 8089. In the course of the debate on this amendment the hon. member for Skeena later on, as recorded at page 8148 of Hansard, referred to that amendment as being one which was necessary in order to make the motion intelligible. Further comments were made by the hon. member for Crowfoot as recorded at page 8150 of Hansard, to the effect that the motion produced by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) may be very difficult to implement.
8406

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
This was very kind language to use in describing their colleague's motion but it meant what I had said at the very beginning of the debate, that the whole thing was very unworkable. Indeed, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), referring to whether the amendment was in order, as recorded at page 8152 of Hansard, said he did not quarrel with the suggestion of the minister with regard to the fact that there is no possibility of an accurate determination under the amendment. Now in its place they have moved a subamendment. In view of the fact that in order to delay debate, in order to stall debate, they have had this long debate on an amendment which they have agreed to be worthless, I would hope hon. members would pay careful attention to my comments on the subamendment which they propose.
By their subamendment hon. members would change the definition of "grain sale proceeds." As I indicated on the question of order, this would have a different effect depending on which clause in the bill it is applied to. In particular I would like hon. members to refer to clauses 4 and 5 of the bill where the term "aggregate grain sale proceeds" is used, "grain sale proceeds" being already defined, or when they are used as the basis for determining the payout to be made to a farmer in a particular year.
Since hon. members, by the subamendment, would deduct from grain sale proceeds the increases in costs of production incurred by a producer, the producer who himself had the greatest increase in his costs of production from the base period to the period in which the amount is being paid would, in fact, find he is eligible for a payout reduced that much more-reduced more than that paid to another producer whose costs were increased to a lesser degree or, in fact, whose costs were reduced. In the first amendment we had an unworkable amendment or one which would be meaningless. It would simply have been an obstruction if the House were to adopt it, and I urged the House not to do so.
Now we have an amendment which seems to increase the amount paid to farmers in the prairie region at a particular point in time on a basis which might be impossible to determine. But with respect to an individual person, where you could more likely determine his increases in costs, there would be a real reduction in the amount to be paid to him under this plan. Surely anyone who continues urging the House to support this amendment, or indeed the amendment to which it is an amendment, is clearly demonstrating that his interest is not in helping the prairie farmer, is not in a plan which is workable and he is only willing to stall the debate, helping to prevent the law from coming into effect, endlessly using up the time of this House to do that without putting forward any suggestions of real merit with regard to the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) wish to ask a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member can only do so if the minister accepts the question.


Otto Emil Lang: I accept it.
(Mr. Lang.]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question has to do with the stabilization fund. Isn't it also a criterion under the stabilization fund that it will be reduced by the net loss in the grains pools, oats, barley and wheat, and aren't we in a position today that there will be a loss in the barley pool, a loss which was previously picked up by the federal treasury?


Otto Emil Lang: The rules relating to deficits in the pools may well lead to such deficits-which, I may say, are highly speculative at this stage-being paid out of the stabilization bill fund. But the reduction of the fund by any amounts required to pay deficits in no way reduces the amounts to be paid to farmers, because those payments depend not on the amount in the stabilization fund but upon the formula; and behind the fund stands the clause in the bill which the hon. member continues to ignore, which says that the federal government, where required by the formula, will lend money interest-free to the stabilization fund of whatever amount may be required to make a payment out of the fund.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But today this is a grant paid out of the federal treasury. Under the stabilization bill plan it will have to be paid back.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair cannot allow a debate on this point.


John Leroy Skoberg: May I ask the minister a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member wishes to ask a question. Does the minister consent?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes.


John Leroy Skoberg: At the end of his remarks the minister suggested that he was undecided as to whether there was any material gain to be had from continuing the debate in the House. Can the minister say whether he believes that nothing constructive came out of his discussion with the three prairie ministers of agriculture on Friday last?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated quite clearly to the prairie agricultural ministers that I would always be ready to talk with them about problems relating to the grain situation and the prairie income situation, and indeed we were intending to follow up our initial discussions last Friday with other discussions. We will still do so even though the debate now before the House is continuing.


John Stratford Burton: Would the minister permit another
question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Again, this may be done only with the permission of the minister. The Chair hopes that hon. members will not go too far in exploiting this possibility now that the minister has completed his speech.


John Stratford Burton: I was wondering if in his meeting with the three prairie ministers of agriculture on Friday he discussed the subject matter involved in the amendment and subamendment now before the House. If so, was there any understanding or agreement on the part of the ministers who were making representations to the minister in
October 4, 1971

charge of the Wheat Board or on the part of both parties involved in the discussion?


Otto Emil Lang: There was no agreement on the substance of any proposals except on the need for further time to discuss a number of them, including major questions about the prairie grain income situation and how the federal treasury would pay an extra $100 million or $200 million a year to assist in that direction. There were proposals which did touch on a variety of things, including the legislation now before the House, but certainly no proposals in the material I saw which would in any way link the amendment and subamendment before the House, in the sense that I have indicated both are meaningless and unworkable, and I am quite sure the prairie ministers of agriculture would not be willing to be associated with them.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, that is a good note on which to start. The minister is within his right to say that in his judgment a particular amendment is unworkable, but when he goes on to say it is meaningless he ceases to put forward any logical debate. At that point he ceases to meet the real argument and contention that we have put forward from this side of the House. He is continuing in the arrogant way to which he has adhered solidly since this bill was first introduced.
The real sense of our amendment was repeatedly brought to the attention of the minister and the government when the bill was before the standing committee. It was repeatedly brought to their attention by farmers' organization after farmers' organization who said that this proposal should be a factor in arriving at a formula which sought to stabilize or establish a certain standard of farm income.
It may have been meaningless to the minister, but it certainly was not meaningless to a large number of farmers and the organizations which spoke for them. They felt that this particular point had a great deal of meaning. I suppose the reason it would have such meaning is that the two factors, costs of production and gross returns, are factors that decide whether a farmer is to stay in business, just as they decide whether any individual operating an enterprise of any kind in Canada could stay in business. It is quite understandable, therefore, that it should be meaningful to farmers and farm organizations. I am sure it was also meaningful to the prairie agricultural ministers who came to Ottawa last Friday. I am surprised how lightly the federal government dismisses that visit.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am surprised how lightly it dismisses the representations they made. The minister and the government, Mr. Speaker, dare not take four or five days to consider the representations made to them; they must immediately bring this bill again before the House.
The government says that the things we propose are meaningless. I would judge, then, that in their opinion the things that the prairie governments proposed to them were also meaningless. If they were not, this government would have listened to what they had to say. None of these prairie governments has been in power for long. All are 24319-43J
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
newly elected. The government of Alberta came to power with an overwhelming majority only within the last few months, so no one can say that it is not representative of the rank and file voter in Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In Saskatchewan, a government was elected with the same strong thrust of voter support as in Alberta. It turned out a government of the same stripe as that opposite, a government without the courage to come here and point out what was being done to Saskatchewan farmers.


Murray Arndell McBride: They will tell in Assiniboia.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: You have listened to that so long you begin to think it is true. The two governments were elected last summer and, unquestionably, speak for the people in these two provinces. The Manitoba government is barely two years old. It was elected by a slim majority, but when it went back to the people in by-elections it received the unquestioning support of the voters.
In the measure now before the House, Mr. Speaker, this government has disregarded the representations of farm organizations, it has disregarded the representations of the provincial governments who speak for the voters and the farmers in their provinces, and then it accuses us of being unintelligible and of talking nonsense. This reminds me of the story of the two old people who were sitting in front of the fire. The old fellow said to his wife, "You know, I think almost everybody in the world is a little odd except thee and me, and sometimes I think thee is a little odd, too.'' This government should watch out.


Gerald William Baldwin: "Queer".


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Well, queer is an idea. With all this weight of opinion, the government still cannot afford to stop for a day or two to give a little thought to what might be done to meet the considered opinions of the prairie governments and the opposition. It cannot afford a few days of thought. Does the minister and the government consider it is easy for us on this side of the House to debate at such length a measure that is supposed to be for the benefit of western farmers? I heard a report that as soon as one election was over we would drop our opposition and fall into line. Mr. Speaker, I want to inform members on the other side of the House that we are not using this bill to fight elections.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell us another one.


James Alexander Jerome: Alf, you are losing your credibility.


Mr. Dinsdale:: That is all the Grits think of.


An hon. Member:: All they do is heckle; they never speak.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I expected to draw a little fire on that, Mr. Speaker. The bill presented to us is essentially wrong. The minister says that this amendment is unworkable, but in some respects his bill is unworkable. In the three prairie provinces there are partnerships, co-operatives, corporate farms comprised of a father and a couple of sons, partnerships of a father and son, and so on. This bill is not

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
workable for such people. It was designed on one course. No suggestions were made that would make it workable as it went through the general legislative process.
The minister says that we should not consider net income. I should like to quote some figures on net income, taken from Statistics Canada. In Saskatchewan in 1970, the net income received by farm operators from farm production was $158 million; in 1969 it was $420 million. In other words, the net income received by farm operators in 1970 was one-third what it was in 1969. But if you look at the gross income, Mr. Speaker, that is not the picture you get.
I do not have the figures on gross income from Statistics Canada, but in a paper entitled "Proposals for a Production and Grain Receipts Policy for the Western Grains Industry," issued by the minister's office, some figures are given. On the first page we see that cash receipts from the six major grains in the 1969-70 crop year were $878 million. They were down $270 million from the average receipts applying to the preceding five years. The decrease, therefore, is in the order of 25 per cent. I mention these figures to illustrate to the House that bad though these figures might be when applied to gross income, they become much worse for the western farmer when applied to net income.
I merely say to the minister that if he really did not like the kind of amendment we have advanced, which would take into account some kind of realistic net income for the farmer, he should have taken the necessary steps himself to arrive at a workable formula. In other words, he should have sat down with the prairie Agricultural Ministers and worked out a formula that might have suited his kind of logic.
I do not think anyone on this side of the House insisted on the minister adopting the particular proposals that were made. I do not think the farm organizations which came here at the beginning of the hearings on this bill insisted on a particular formula. They merely said that the provisions of this measure must bear some relationship to the costs of production. If the government had come in with a proposal or amendment along that line, I am sure it would have been carefully considered.
I do not understand how, in this day and age, we can justify a stabilization program that does not take into account costs of production. In our society all manner of people, professional people, working people and people who run industries for profit, as well as those who made representations to the Prices and Incomes Commission, insist on using as a factor in calculations increases in the cost of living or costs of production, as the case may be. Unions bargaining with industries insist on the cost of living being considered. All these people say that unless such a factor is included in these calculations we will inevitably become poorer and poorer while the rest of society either maintains its standard of living or enjoys a larger measure of well-being.
There is nothing far out in insisting on this kind of approach. It is done in western countries. It is as much a part of our present economic system as profits and wages. It is an accepted part of our system. Yet when we try to tell the government this their reaction is that we are
(Mr. Gleave.]
putting forward an idea that belongs to the eighteenth century. Maybe this bill belongs to the eighteenth century.


An hon. Member:: To the seventeenth.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Perhaps one day we will persuade the government to catch up to modern trends. I am sure the government is still getting representations from western farm organizations on this bill, just as we are. The Alberta Wheat Pool, in a release dated September 30, 1971, said:
Alberta Wheat Pool's position concerning proposals recently mentioned in the House of Commons has previously been made clear. It seems necessary to reiterate them again.
Then it goes on to say bluntly:
This organization does not believe the grains receipts and income stabilization plan as it is presently written provides adequate provisions for maintaining economic health in western grain production. Alberta Wheat Pool has requested several modifications to the plan, including a provision which would recognize any increasing cost of production.
The ideas advanced on behalf of the prairie farmers are not peculiar to the people sitting on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, this government operates, through the Canadian Dairy Commission, a dairy program which gave certain increases to the producers of dairy products during the past year. Those increases took into account changes in costs of production and the manner in which dairy farmers had to operate. The government did that last year for the dairy farmer, yet when we talk about doing the same thing in a moderate way for the grain farmer, we are charged with putting forward an unworkable idea. Really, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what to say. I do not know how they have the gall to talk that way.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Oh, they have lots of gall.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: It takes an original mind to put forward ideas like that. The Alberta Wheat Pool goes on to say in its release:
The present proposal takes no account of the serious effects of inflation on prairie grain income.
The proposal does not consider the effects of inflation at all. That is what the Alberta pool says. I could quote statements made by various farm people in western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the opposition is now convinced they would like to bring the House to a vote tonight, so I will take only a few minutes to make one or two points with regard to what is now known as the amendment to an amendment to Bill C-244.
October 4, 1971

I appreciate that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) are sincere in their desire to attempt to change the format and try to propose a plan which in their minds would be of more benefit to the grain farmers of western Canada. They are concentrating their proposals on net receipts, the difference between costs of production and sales. The people involved, those who have worked for months and have endeavoured to plan this bill in such a way that it will be fair to all farmers as well as being workable, have decided that in the interests of a bill that is workable they should arrange the formula based on the sales or the receipts to farmers. The question arises with regard to formula.
I am sure everyone has read bulletin No. 5 issued with regard to the prairie grain stabilization program, wherein is very clearly outlined how the bill will operate and how the formula will work. I wonder if serious consideration has been given to the problem relating to costs of production. I am not concerned whether it is farm produce or any other type of production, such as automobiles. People who have operated a head office and branch plants understand that a formula of payment to the managers of the plants, suggested while meeting in convention, based entirely on the net average would not be well received because there are so many variables in this respect.
Farmers operating on a similar basis will show a different net profit. How can it be suggested that someone, somewhere is to be told that we in this House have decided that the net cost of producing a bushel of one type of grain is a certain figure? Farmers in various areas will say, "Oh, no, that is not the net cost of production. My cost is different; it is more than that. You have taken the wrong average." We then get into the question of management and all kinds of variables which control the costs of production.
I have found in the various plants with which I have been associated that bigness alone is not the answer. Often a big plant operating at the wrong plateau, where the unit costs are difficult to control, will have a lower net profit per unit than a smaller plant. We have found that bigness alone is not the answer. When we consider the possibility of working out a formula on net receipts, we must come to the conclusion that it is unworkable. It is a matter that will end up the subject of an arbitrary decision by somebody.
I am not sure that anyone in western Canada would like to declare to western farmers that he has the expertise to decide for them what are their net receipts. I suppose we might say we can get this information from each farmer. I wonder if the fund can afford the cost of the bureaucracy which would be required to analyse the various costs of production, in order to arrive at the net figure for each farmer.
Let us look at the other side of the question, the matter of sales. Under the Wheat Board, the sales per unit formula is more or less established. In fact, if the true intent of the Wheat Board is carried out by all the farmers involved, it is not too difficult to establish a unit receipt or unit price. There is also the fact that the grain is delivered to only a few places in the country. The required information will be easily available to those in charge. In my opinion this formula will be much simpler.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
Then we come to the business of unnecessary pride. We shall find those who in their own minds decide they have a formula they would like to use. It might not be compatible with the formula which is established as required. So it would mean getting rid of unnecessary pride. I do not think we want to impose this on farmers. It appears to me that if we consider this matter in a serious vein, the plan as proposed is workable and is one which could eventually be accepted by all farmers in the west. The Palliser Wheat Growers Association, a well-known group of successful grain farmers, has said through its president, Mr. Walker Nelson, of Avonlea in the great province of Alberta, that the board of directors has decided publicly to support the controversial stabilization bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Avonlea is in Saskatchewan. Will the hon. member permit a question?


M. Ervin Pringle: Palliser, in my opinion, is in Alberta. I am sorry if the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is objecting to my mentioning the great province of Alberta. I did so because I thought it would please him. I realize that the Palliser triangle is a large area.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, the hon. member who has the floor mentioned me in the course of debate and I only corrected him to say that the Palliser Wheat Growers Association is mostly in the province of Saskatchewan. He referred to it as being in the province of Alberta. The president's home is in Saskatchewan. I just wanted him to be correct, that is all.


M. Ervin Pringle: I thank the hon. member. I happen to have spent most of the day with one of our big wheat and rapeseed farmers from Saskatchewan, a well-known citizen of Alberta, as a matter of fact. He is from Falcon, Alberta. He is a well known member of the Palliser triangle. I have been listening to him all day and perhaps I did not make the right statement geographically. I quote from the press release. Mr. Nelson said:
The Temporary Wheat Reserves Act placed the emphasis on storage of grain, rather than movement of it, and with the new government policy of keeping wheat stocks low, the TWRA loses much of its importance as a factor in farm income. Under the new act, the fund can be used to keep Canada competitive in world markets by using competitive pricing at all times, and placing more emphasis on moving grain rather than spending money on storage, which tended to subsidize the elevator companies.
We are now discussing the amendment to the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would he read the whole of that news release put out by the Palliser association, from the first paragraph?


M. Ervin Pringle: I would be prepared to do so. I did not want to prolong the debate. I made requests of the same kind to the hon. member in committee, but he did not oblige me. I now quote from the press release issued by the Palliser Wheat Growers Association:
Mr. Lang, minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, has assured us that fullest consideration would be given-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are reading the third paragraph, not the first.

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) has the floor.


M. Ervin Pringle: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take advantage of the hon. member for Crowfoot. When he interrupted me I was reading the first paragraph.
President Walter Nelson of Avonlea said today, "The decision was not an easy one as our association does not agree with certain aspects of Bill C-244, but if it is faced with choosing between acceptance of the stabilization plan or retaining the storage-oriented Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, we must concede the new act is a big improvement."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: To continue:
"Mr. Lang . . . has assured us that fullest consideration will be given to placing actual producers on the advisory board which will administer the fund," Mr. Nelson said. "This will ensure that it will be used for the benefit of the man who grows the grain, thereby enhancing our marketing position."
"In view of all the ramifications involved," Mr. Nelson added, "our association has reached agreement with several farm organizations, including the Manitoba Rapeseed Association, the Saskatchewan Rapeseed Association and the Carman Farm Business Association to make a public plea to Members of Parliament to allow Bill C-244 to come to a vote in the House."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: We are now considering whether we should scrap the whole formula, which is based on receipts, in order to adopt, possibly, some other formula which would be extremely difficult to administer, one which I have heard described as unworkable, in my opinion properly so. The amendment to the amendment is rather meaningless. The stabilization act is applicable to wheat, oats, barley, flaxseed, rapeseed and rye and the federal government contributes at the rate of at least $2 for every $1 put in by producers.
A payout to producers will be made when the total receipts of grain sales fall below the five-year average. Computation of receipts is a comparatively simple matter, although some problems will certainly be attached to it. The producer board, which has been promised by the minister, and all those directly concerned will have to work out some of the details. But I am sure anyone who has been concerned in operating a business will say that it will be much simpler than any other method which has been suggested. If the point were ever reached at which consideration could be given to working on the basis of net receipts, the whole basic formula would have to be changed. There is only so much money available for this.
The minister has told producers that if they wish, they may also contribute 2 per cent of receipts from their sales of approved feed lots and other approved buyers. I presume they would have to submit cash receipts showing what sales have taken place. The bill is so designed that payments into the fund will be made by the federal government on an annual basis. Four per cent of receipts will be contributed on an annual basis and this, especially in the present year, will amount to a very large sum of money.
The grain growers of the west will also be in a position to contribute to their own future and build up a meaningful fund which could be used to advantage when they needed it. I am sure that although we buy insurance

policies, we hope we will not need to collect the insurance. Similarly, we hope that sales of grain will be sufficiently large that the farmers will not have to draw upon this fund in order that the fund can grow.
[DOT] <8:20 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Filibuster.


M. Ervin Pringle: It has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that I might be filibustering, so at this point I will close with my thanks to him, since I am sure he now wishes to call the question and have the House conclude debate on this bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by my colleague for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the subamendment of my colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) deal with the crux of the measure now before the House. They deal with the formula upon which payments under the grain stabilization act will be made, which really is what this whole controversy is about. I think there would be no difficulty in getting the agreement of this House to proceed very quickly with the legislation were the minister prepared to look sympathetically at a formula that would be more realistic and in keeping with the farmers' needs.
I have seldom heard a speech so full of unctuous selfrighteousness as the one the minister delivered to the House this afternoon. According to the minister, the members who are proposing amendments are not trying to improve the legislation or serve the needs of the farmers; they are merely trying to obstruct the minister in his efforts to get the legislation through the House. It is only the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) who is interested in the farmers; every other member is trying to keep him from playing Robin Hood to the prairie farmers.
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to the minister that everybody else is out of step except him. The governments of the three prairie provinces have sent their ministers of agriculture to Ottawa to tell the minister what, in their opinion, is wrong with the formula contained in the grain stabilization legislation and why this legislation will not meet the needs of the prairie farmers.
I wonder whether it has ever occurred to the minister that all of the farm organizations have expressed their disapproval of this legislation. These organizations are not anxious to obstruct. The minister is being paranoic on this subject. The farm organizations are not plotting against the minister or against the government. I read in today's Globe and Mail the statements that were made by the minister. According to the Globe and Mail-
Mr. Lang yesterday expressed regret that prairie farmers organizations had still not said that the bill is a step forward. He said that to date no clear voice on the legislation has been heard from the west.
"I'm concerned that the issue whether this was a step forward was confused in the minds of prairie farmers by the fact that in their zeal to demand more (money) they never chose to admit that this was a step forward".
I cannot conceive of a more childish statement than that the farm organizations would not admit that this was a step forward. The minister then went on to say:
October 4, 1971

"If they'd said this was a step forward . .. then I think that the support for the bill in the House might have been forthcoming more quickly and we would have been out of our difficulty".
Is all that the minister needs in order to make some adjustments to this legislation, a statement by the farm organizations, by the opposition, that this is a step forward? If that is all he needs, let me start by saying to the minister that it is a step forward for any government, particularly for a Liberal government, to admit that there is a need for a grain stabilization fund and that steps must be taken to stabilize the income of prairie grain farmers. Certainly that is a step forward. But when the measure before us completely fails to stabilize the income of the grain farmers of western Canada, then we are duty-bound to say to the minister that there needs to be some changes made in the legislation, particularly in the formula upon which the payments will be made from the grain stabilization fund.
That is exactly what the ministers of agriculture from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta came to Ottawa to tell the minister. They are not plotting against the minister. They are just as interested in the farmers of western Canada as the minister is and, some people may think, more so. They came to Ottawa to plead with the minister to make some changes so that the legislation now before the House will be acceptable not only to the governments of the three prairie provinces but to the farmers and the farm organizations of western Canada.
To judge from the press statement which was released by the three ministers, they left Ottawa under the impression that the minister was going to take some time-they suggested a week, or some days-to consider this matter; that the opposition would cease to belabour the government for not making payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, and the government in its turn would take this matter under consideration, the minister would take the matter to cabinet and probably the cabinet would agree to some fundamental changes.
But what has happened? Instead of this cooling-off period, the minister has brought the legislation back today. I wish the minister had told us this afternoon the answer to some of the questions that have been asked. For example, does this mean that the consideration which was promised the three ministers of agriculture from the prairie provinces has already been given and that the answer is in the negative? If the answer is not in the negative, then what value is there in passing this measure since the minister is going to negotiate some changes?
I think it is perfectly apparent from what the minister said this afternoon that he has no intention of making any changes. I also think it is apparent from what the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said about the information conveyed to him that there is a very remote chance of any changes being made in the legislation. If that is so, then I would contend that the agreement made with the three ministers of agriculture from western Canada was simply a device to get them out of this city. I would say that they have been double-crossed. They went away from here with the distinct impression that the whole formula for making payments out of the grain stabilization fund would be reviewed. It is now perfectly apparent that the government has no intention of reviewing this formula. I go further and say that the government
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
probably never had any intention of reviewing it, that the so-called cooling-off period was merely a means of getting rid of the ministers so the government could proceed with this legislation.
There is no doubt in anyone's mind about the need for legislation to stabilize the income of the grain farmers of western Canada. Anyone who has been familiar with the plight of the prairie farmer over the last 30 years knows that the ups and downs in prairie farm incomes have been such that the farmer has suffered undue hardship because of lack of any stabilization of his income. No one is quarrelling with a grain stabilization act. What we are quarrelling with is that this legislation is not a grain stabilization plan at all. This legislation will not stabilize the income of grain producers in western Canada. The minister put it more accurately this afternoon when he said it was designed to give massive assistance in a year of catastrophe. That is what it will do-but it will not stabilize income.
In the first place, the previous five-year average upon which payment will be based contained two of the most disastrous years, in terms of farm income, in the west.


Otto Emil Lang: And two of the best.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Two of the worst. The average will be low because three out of the five years will be low in terms of the five-year average, and the prospect of getting payment is remote. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appears on national television and tells the farmers they will get $35 million next year and $35 million the year after, I say that is a deception.


An hon. Member:: You are a Santa Claus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In all probability there will be no payments under this plan for the next decade; and if there are, they will only be made in a year of catastrophe or crop failure.


An hon. Member:: Are you predicting that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The second objection to this formula is that it deals with gross income. No other group in the Canadian economy would be prepared to accept as a formula for stabilized income 90 per cent of a moving, five-year average of gross income. The professional groups in Canada, including managers and business executives, have had an average increase of 7.5 per cent per annum.


An hon. Member:: What about the unions?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Trade unions and groups of organized workers on the average have received 6 per cent per year. The cost of living has been going up at the rate of 5 per cent per year, and the costs of farm production have been going up at a rate of over 5 per cent per year. Therefore, to talk about a stabilization formula that is set in terms of 90 per cent of gross income over the last five years is not to talk about a stabilization plan but a plan to fix perpetual poverty on the grain farmers of western Canada. This is a plan to fasten any assistance to prairie farmers at a poverty level.

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What this means is that the farmer will be levied 2 per cent on his grain sales, to go into the fund to provide assistance in any year when there is a catastrophic crop failure or a very serious and radical drop in farm income. The minister said this afternoon there is no limit to how much the government could lend the fund. That is true. But the farmer will then start to pay one-third of the cost of replenishing the fund. If the minister really wants to have an income stabilization plan, I am convinced that in the next day or two it is possible for this House to work out the kind of formula which would be acceptable to the farmers of western Canada and the governments of the prairie provinces.
If the minister does not like the wording of the motion or the amendment, surely it is not beyond the wit of his department to devise a formula under which there would be a factor dealing with farm costs. It is not difficult to work out a formula which would take into account the annual increase in farm production costs. Year after year Statistics Canada and the Department of Agriculture publish figures on farm production costs. The minister could put that factor into a formula. If he did that, much of the objection to this legislation would disappear. Why does the minister not do this? Is it because of mere stubborn arrogance?


Otto Emil Lang: It won't work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it because he is so surrounded with his own conceit that what he proposes is the only thing that can be done? The minister says it won't work.


Otto Emil Lang: Your amendments prove that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister says it won't work. If the minister is telling us it is not possible to put into a stabilization formula a factor which will provide for increased production costs, then he has no right to be occupying his present position. He ought to resign and go back to his ivory tower where he will not be faced with the practical problems of administering a grains program.


An hon. Member:: I hope he doesn't go back to Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suspect that the reason the minister has not been prepared to make these changes to the grains stabilization act is not because his officials cannot devise a formula, and not because he is not seized with the validity of the arguments put forward by farm organizations that net income, rather than gross income, ought to be the basis upon which stabilization payments are made. The real reason the minister is trying to force this legislation through the House is that this is part of the program which arises from the task force on agriculture and the farm adjustment resources mobility plan, which envisage getting off the farm those farmers who are described by the task force as being inefficient. It is designed to get farmers out of wheat growing because they will be much worse off under this legislation.
It may be that under this legislation, with gross income from the six grains enumerated in the legislation, they will remain at a fairly good level. But farm wheat deliveries could be low. Yet out of the few deliveries the farmer is
able to make he will have to pay the storage which is now being paid under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. The wheat farmer will be the worse off. The government wants farmers to get out of wheat growing. I concede that under the farm adjustment resources mobility plan, the government does not propose to leave them negligently alone. According to the government's statement, it proposes to take them into the minister's Department of Manpower and train them as electricians, plumbers and welders so they can go into the cities and join the other unemployed electricians, plumbers and welders.
That is the plan and purpose of the grain stabilization act. It is to reduce the commitment this government is making to support the western wheat grower. The government is seeking to cut its losses and to put the screws on so that only large farmers will survive and this stabilization plan will come into effect only in a year of catastrophe. We could go through an entire decade without a dollar having been paid out of that fund to the farmers of western Canada. I think unless the minister is prepared to amend the formula upon which grains stabilization payments will be made, this legislation constitutes a retrogressive step.
The minister is now making the threat that if this legislation is not passed promptly he proposes to withdraw it. Speaking only for myself, may I say that I do not scare worth a damn. I say to the minister that as this legislation now stands, it proposes to fasten upon the farmers of western Canada a rigid framework of poverty and I am opposed to it. I do not care whether the minister forces it through the House or withdraws it, I will make no apology for opposing the legislation.
I am prepared to go across the Prairies with the minister any time and discuss this legislation. I am prepared to go into the minister's constituency and discuss this legislation. I am prepared to abide by the decision of the farmers of western Canada when they have a chance to go to the polls and say what they think of this legislation, because up until now, despite all the propaganda of the minister, his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the fictitious and misleading figures of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), they have not yet been able to convince the farmers that the legislation is not harmful to their best interests. I for one am prepared in the final analysis to leave that decision to the farmers of western Canada.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the motion and the amendment now before us must be cast within the framework of a rather ominous shadow. That shadow takes the shape of one of the worst doublecrosses western Canada has ever seen. I suggest that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) is the person primarily responsible, at least on the evidence available to us at the present time. If he wants to tag anybody else within the government, that of course is up to him. But he is speaking for the government at the present time and the government is prepared to accept him as their spokesman.
Regardless of the little song and dance he tries to come up with, I think his record in the cabinet as a representative from the province of Saskatchewan is not one to be

October 4, 1971

proud of. I would hope the minister would have a little more sense of history than he has displayed up to now in consideration of this bill. We have had ministers from western Canada who in the view of many of us have not always represented the interests of the west. However, they stood by what they thought; they did not attempt to pull some of the tricks the minister is now prepared to engage in.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) to relate his remarks to the motion and the amendment before the House. With respect, I believe he is roaming considerably wider than the scope allowed him.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to cast my remarks within the framework of the present situation as I see it. I shall deal with the motion and the amendment as I see them within the context of the considerations which must be before members of this House. It seems to me that they go to the very core of the debate in which we are presently engaged.
The plan as presently constituted by the government is totally inadequate. It will be impossible to come up with a meaningful plan for the farmers of western Canada unless provision is made for taking into account increases in the costs of production, as my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has pointed out. Farmers are faced year after year with increases in costs of production. For many years they have seen their gross grain sale proceeds come up to near the level of past years, but they have also seen increases in costs of production. They have seen the portion of their net income upon which they have to live, and from which they have to find their savings and capital for expansion and new investment, dwindle as a result of steadily rising costs.
I think it is important to note some of the factors involved in the proposal which has been placed before the House. First of all, in the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), and the clarifying amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), they are trying to set out the principle that account must be taken of increases in the costs of production if, in fact, western farmers are to have a meaningful sort of plan.
I think it is important to note the differences which exist between the patterns of gross farm income and net farm income as they involves farmers in western Canada. I have some figures I should like to place before the House, which I feel illustrate the difference, the reason this matter is so important to farmers in western Canada and why our proposal is so important to the bill now before us. The minister has pointed out that the provisions of the bill are based upon aggregate grain sale proceeds for the six major grains produced in western Canada, wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. Taking figures which were immediately available to me, I totalled for the last five years the gross cash receipts from sales of these six grains in Canada as a whole. I recognize that some sales would have been made outside the prairie provinces, but I
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
believe it would be agreed that the greater portion would have been made within them.
The figures of the cash receipts from these six grains for the past five years are as follows: for 1966, $1,281.1 million; for 1967, $1,307.3 million; for 1968, $1,191.7 million; for 1969, $929.8 million; for 1970, $1,013.2 million. I made a calculation in respect of these five figures; I attempted to find the relationship between the lowest of and the highest figures. I found the highest figure in these five years, in 1967, was 41 per cent higher than the lowest figure, which occurred in 1969.
Interestingly enough, I found when I looked at the farm income picture for the province of Saskatchewan alone, my own province, that there was a very close relation between the degree of variation between the lows and the highs of total gross farm income province and the sales figures for the six major grains right across Canada. Without quoting all the figures I might note that for the period 1966 to 1970, total farm cash income in the province of Saskatchewan varied from a low of $619 million in 1970 to a high of $976.2 million in 1967.1 found, again, that the high figure in 1967 was 41 per cent higher than the low figure in 1970.
There has been a steady downward trend in gross cash income over the past several years, so that the minister will find, whatever way his present averages hold out, that given another year or two we will be dealing with a very low average figure. I think it is important to note this degree of variation in the gross cash income figures, namely, a variation of approximately 40 per cent over a five-year period when you compare the low figure with the high figure. I think it is important to compare these figures with the variation that exists when you consider farm net income.
The only figures I could use adequately in this sense were of total net farm income in the province of Saskatchewan. I think it has to be kept in mind, as hon. members will realize, that the difference between your cash income and your net income is your costs of production. I would like to note briefly the pattern of farm net income in Saskatchewan over the past five years. In 1966, farm net income in my province was $583 million; in 1967 it was $354.9 million; in 1968, $462.3 million; in 1969, $402.9 million and in 1970, $195 million. Thus, we have a variation between a low of $195 million in 1970 and a high of $583 million in 1966. The figure of $583 million is almost 300 per cent higher than the low figure of $195 million in 1970. We see that while farm cash income, gross income, only varied by some 40 per cent, there was a variation of some 200 per cent when looking at net income figures.
Therefore, we see that we must look at more than the farm cash income picture if farmers are to have a plan that means anything at all to them. That is why many of us have been pressing this matter and have been debating it in the House of Commons. We feel that the present provisions do not provide the type of stability that is required in western agriculture. I think there will not be disagreement with the contention that there has been a high degree of instability throughout the history of prairie agriculture. We in this party, and I am sure members in all parties, have no disagreement with the proposition that
8414

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
we do want to find a means of ensuring an adequate degree of stability in western Canada.
In the grain stabilization bill now before us we have a very specific set of proposals. As I have already indicated to the minister, I have no disagreement or no quarrel with the fact that we have a very specific, detailed plan in this bill. At least we are able to form an adequate judgment on the bill as it is before us. It is a specific plan. It does not simply lay down guidelines, broad criteria, or just provide enabling authority for the government to establish a plan.
It already has been noted in the debate this evening that some farm organizations have expressed approval of the grain stabilization proposals. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle) said that the Palliser Grain Growers Association have expressed themselves in favour of the grain stabilization bill as it is. That is their privilege. They are entitled to present their views. But I think it needs to be noted for the record that many other organizations have continued to express their dissatisfaction with this bill and in fact are now expressing themselves in stronger terms.
I have in my hand a news release issued by the Alberta Wheat Pool last Thursday, September 30, under the name of G. L. Harrold, president of the organization. His news release states as follows:
Alberta Wheat Pool's position concerning proposals recently mentioned in the House of Commons have previously been made clear. It seems necessary to reiterate them again.
This organization does not believe the grains receipts and income stabilization plan as it is presently written provides adequate provisions for maintaining economic health in western grain production.
I am sure there are other members of the House who will agree that the Alberta Wheat Pool is a responsible organization and would not make such a statement unless it had given the matter thorough study and had come to the conclusion that the bill now before us is very inadequate. I am sure all hon. members recently received from the secretary of the Alberta Wheat Pool a letter setting out certain criticisms of Bill C-244. Mr. Broughton in his letter pointed out that since the Alberta Wheat Pool made their submission to the House of Commons standing committee on June 1, the members of his association have become even better informed on its provisions and the association had received further expressions of opinion from them. I quote:
We need hardly mention that they are less than complimentary. It was a shock to many producers to realize during the summer that the Canadian Wheat Board had not received any payments during the crop year under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. Quite naturally, grain producers had operated during the year in the belief that the act was in force and that its provisions could be counted upon in the grain income picture. The realization it was not, was extremely disappointing.
We have, in the interval, also heard on an informal basis from a good number of our members, their viewpoints on the stabilization plan as proposed. It again seems to have failed entirely to capture their support. While no producers are now in doubt that the plan is one for stabilization of the grain producing industry as a whole on the prairies, they relate it quite naturally to their own operations and circumstances. Localized mishaps-
I wish to emphasize this point because I feel it has not been given adequate consideration in the debate so far. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) has pointed out on a number of occasions that

practically every significant criticism of the plan was based on putting more money into it. But there is another problem with respect to the provisions of the bill. It is the lack of equity in the plan in terms of the method of operation set out in the bill. This point is dealt with by the Alberta Wheat Pool in the following paragraph:
Localized mishaps such as occurred this year through the Bertha armyworm attack on rapeseed can leave an individual farmer or groups of farmers with no income from that crop and under circumstances where the total prairie picture is relatively unaffected, these farmers could expect no assistance from the proposed stabilization plan. This is small comfort to the individual and we believe, will be a continuing and strong influence in his attitude toward the plan. An additional feature is the 2 per cent deduction on any gross grain income which he may have.
As has been pointed out on many occasions, this will take from many farmers whatever net income they have left as a result of the current situation. The contribution to be made by the federal government to the grain stabilization plan has been discussed in this debate, and we heard the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on television last night. I now have a transcript of that broadcast.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is more than your leader had today.


John Stratford Burton: It came in the mail just tonight. One of the statements of the Prime Minister was:
Let's first compare them in terms of money.
He was referring to the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the grain stabilization program.
For the last crop year, under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, we would be in process of paying the western farmer $62 million, for the crop year which we are now in-
I think there is no quarrel with the figure of $62 million, Mr. Speaker, but the Prime Minister was wrong when he said:
... we would be in process of paying the western farmer $62 million, for the crop year which we are now in-
I think it should be pointed out that under the terms of that act the process should now be completed, because all the payments should have been made in 12 monthly instalments between August 1, 1970, and July 1, 1971.


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


An hon. Member:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Unless there is unanimous consent, the hon. member may not continue. There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Mahoney:: We already heard it. Gleave gave us that.


John Stratford Burton: It might do you good to listen to somebody else for a change.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, the pattern of deception that the government has engaged in-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Heigh ho, Silver!
October 4, 1971


Cliff Downey: -over the past weeks and during the debate on this bill, short as it may have been, has been pointed out this afternoon. First there was the failure to observe the law that was finally brought to the attention of those not already aware of it. Last weekend there was the betrayal of the trust of the prairie Ministers of Agriculture. I think they left here in good faith, believing that some of their logical and beneficial proposals, would at least be studied by the minister in the following week. The blatant indulgence in deception that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) engaged in last night after the eleven o'clock news was one of the highlights of any deception that I have ever witnessed.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Your sidekick said there were a couple of minor errors.


An hon. Member:: He read the transcript.


Cliff Downey: Those are minor errors? Today in this House I asked the Prime Minister if the $70 million that he referred to would actually go into the hands of the farmers, but he did not choose to answer. I do not think he can fool the farmers any longer, however. I have the transcript of the remarks he made on television last night, and he said that $35 million will be paid out in the present year as against $30 million, and $35 million next year as against $20 million. He knows very well that unless total agricultural products drop below 90 per cent of the five-year average the money will remain there and not be paid out to the farmers. Yet he came on television with a shrugging approach, that convincing approach, and he is trying to sell this-


An hon. Member:: Convincing and shrugging-which is it?


Cliff Downey: I saw him shrug, yes; I saw him trying to deceive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair regrets having to interrupt the hon. member, but has difficulty in relating his remarks to the amendment before us, which concerns the method of implementing the bill. The Chair would hope that for the purpose of orderly debate the hon. member would return as quickly as possible to the subject matter of the amendment before us.


Cliff Downey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was only after listening to the previous speakers and the range of their remarks that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Especially the minister.


Cliff Downey: Before I go to another point which you may consider more closely associated with the amendment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say it is evident to all of us that there are no principles across the way in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cliff Downey: It is merely a union or an alliance-


An hon. Member:: A team.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Cliff Downey: -concerned with the power to rule; an unholy alliance to say the least.


An hon. Member:: A dictatorship.


Cliff Downey: I should like to read from an act which is still law, the Agricultural Stabilization Act which received royal assent on July 1, 1958, under a Conservative government. I should like to draw parallels between that act and the bill before us. Section 2(1) (a) reads:
in relation to a named commodity-
These are the criteria for increasing farm income under this policy. It went to the 80 per cent formula instead of the 90 per cent formula under the present plan, in relation to a named commodity, 80 per cent of the base price thereof, or such higher percentage of the base price thereof as the Governor in Council prescribes-
Section 8 (1) provides:
In each year the board shall establish the base price for each agricultural commodity, or the grade, quality, variety, class, type or form thereof, the price of which is to be stabilized under this act.
Section 7 (1) provides:
The board shall from time to time in accordance with this act take such action as is necessary to stabilize the prices of agricultural commodities at their respective prescribed prices, and shall take such action and make such recommendations as are necessary to ensure that the prescribed prices for an agricultural commodity in effect from time to time shall bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of such commodity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cliff Downey: Here we have a law already on the statute books which has a built-in inflation factor. Let me read that last part again:
-shall bear a fair relationship to the cost of production of such commodity.


An hon. Member:: Listen, Otto.


Cliff Downey: Section 5(1) of the act provides:
The minister shall appoint an advisory committee consisting of a chairman and at least six but not more than nine other members composed of farmers and representatives of farm organizations.
That act is in force today, but you come along with all this garbage-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cliff Downey: -and cloud the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cliff Downey: Whereas with a few simple, timely amendments you could have amended this act that is already on the statute books and made it work for the benefit of farmers.


An hon. Member:: Boloney.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I hope hon. members will refrain from addressing each other and will, instead, address the Chair. Hon. members should refer to the constituencies of other hon. members or to the
8416

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
positions they hold. I say that without referring otherwise to citation 147. I hope that as much as possible hon. members will refer to the constituencies of their colleagues or to the positions they hold in this House.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) should resign.


Mr. Woolliams:: After the election he will wish he had.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your attempts to get the minister's attention. We want him to get the benefit of some of our counselling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Listen, Otto.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, I read section 2(2) of the act I have been referring to. It provides:
In prescribing a percentage of the base price of an agricultural commodity under paragraph (a) or (b).. . the Governor in Council shall be guided by the estimated average cost of production of the commodity, and such other factors as the Governor in Council considers to be relevant.
Here we have a stabilization act that is far more complete than the bill we are now considering. With a few simple amendments it could improve the entire agricultural picture in this country. It is no longer the aim of my party to save this government from itself.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Some aim.


Cliff Downey: We are tired of saving it from itself. We did that last year for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) when he was piloting through the marketing bill. We prevented his making a fool of himself, as it were, in front of the farmers and people of Canada. I say, let us bring this bill to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Murray Arndell McBride: Now you are with us.


Cliff Downey: Let the people find out what this government is trying to do to them. Let them judge the government when election time comes again.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Orlikow:: Now here speaks a real farmer, I suppose.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Thank you. It is amazing; every time I have risen to speak-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member says nothing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: -in the past 2) years the obvious has been repeated to me. People keep saying, "There's a man who is not a farmer, there's a man who is not a farmer." You would think they would have something new to say. I do not know how many times I have told hon. members, "I am not a farmer," but they do not seem to get the message.


David Orlikow: The hon. member does not look like a farmer.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not one. Farmers are not the only ones who think, and people who are not farmers are sometimes able to speak for farmers. Many whom I have heard today are certainly not farmers; and if they claim to be farmers I do not think any farmer would recognize them as such. I know many farmers and they certainly do not behave the way some people behave. Most farmers are doers.


An hon. Member:: Are what?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Doers. Most farmers are doers. Most farmers are interested in getting things done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Not if they are in the NDP.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I suppose even NDP farmers like to get things done, because they like to eat as do other farmers.


An hon. Member:: What about Conservative farmers; are they different?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Conservative farmers certainly like to eat, but they do not eat as well as Liberal farmers because they use the methods of 50 years ago.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Maybe they are honest.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Without carrying on in this vein any longer, may I say this. I really have one small message. We are speaking on an amendment to an amendment. This is big stuff. We could talk for 50 years on this subject. We could talk for two more or for six more weeks. Although this is supposed to be a government headed by a dictator, it is obvious that we will have to talk for 50 years if the opposition has no new light to throw on the subject. Out of one corner of their mouths they allege we are governed by a dictator, and out of the other corner they say the government cannot get something through Parliament when it is confronted with an absolutely nonsensical, nonthinking filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edmund Boyd Osler: We have various points of view in this House. That is why, probably, we have four parties represented here, with a couple of mavericks who have no party. That is honest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Borrie:: That did not mean you, Stanley.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on behalf of the Speaker?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the present occupant of the chair is one of the members of this House who does not belong to any party, I do not like the reference that was made to Your Honour by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier).


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, as usual, quality shows. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles),
October 4, 1971

who represents the riding next to mine, has made a good point. I apologize to the Chair, for the sake of those who may have thought that I had insulted the Chair and on my own behalf.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not accept.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, honest and honourable people entertain honest and different points of view. Nevertheless, words are only words. They have nothing to do with cash. We agree, as the three premiers from western Canada have agreed, that what the farmers need is cash.


An hon. Member:: Pay your bill.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is no use castigating the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for what he said on television last night. One member has asked him to pay the bill; another has called him a rogue.


An hon. Member:: And what does the hon. member say?


Edmund Boyd Osler: If I did not think that our Prime Minister is the best Prime Minister we have had for a long time, I would not be on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now the hon. member is being carried away.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Hon. members can castigate the Prime Minister and rib the minister. We could spend months doing this. It might be a great deal of fun. It is lots of fun playing the game called politics. The people of Canada are fed up with this game called politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not a farmer, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to delay this bill.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Pay the bill.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am not a farmer, and I will be the first to admit that this bill is not absolute perfection and does not meet all of a farmer's dreams. Actually, I am not qualified to know whether it is perfect or not; I merely know that the farmers of western Canada would rather have $100 million than this entertainment. They do not want to be entertained with the sort of display that has been presented to the people of Canada for the past few weeks. This entertainment is cheap. We do not even charge admission here. Old parliamentarians, to whom we pay a pension, may attend. How we entertain the people of Canada is not important.
I am perfectly willing to stand on the record of this government at the next election. If the people of Canada do not like what I have helped the government to do, they can elect someone else to this House. I am damned if I am going to sit around listening to this garbage week after week while the farmers of Canada go short of cash.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister has made it abundantly clear-I have heard him say it-that this bill can be amended or changed. It will be open to compromise and change as time goes on. For God's sake, let's get something started. This is a new deal for the farmers. They need a new deal. It is nice to be holy at this stage, but what do we have? The people of Canada know this bill has gone through to the report stage. It has been approved in principle and this House is now deciding whether it can be accepted. Having been approved in principle, we now find-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry that I missed some of the speeches which preceded the one being made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier). I am not in a position to judge to what extent hon. members have limited their contributions to the debate on the subamendment. As the hon. member has said, there is a motion, an amendment and a subamendment. My understanding of the rules of parliamentary debate is that we should limit contributions to the question before the House. It does not help the institution of Parliament if hon. members move motions, amendments and subamendments and then entirely disregard the rules and talk about whatever they please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not necessarily referring to the hon. member who has the floor at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: My thought is if we are to make any progress in Parliament, not necessarily in connection with this bill but in connection with the work of the House of Commons in general, we should respect the rules. The basic rule that should be respected at all times is with regard to relevancy. If hon. members were prepared to disregard this rule at all times, I doubt that Parliament could work at all. I invite hon. members to limit their contributions to the matter before us at the present time.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I heartily concur with Your Honour's remarks. I will try to observe your counsel. I hope other members who participate in this debate will do likewise.
This amendment to an amendment is another method of implementing this bill. That is my point. Having arrived at this stage, the House is in general agreement with the bill. We are arguing about ways and means which are becoming finer and finer as the debate progresses. Perhaps this is necessary because there is a certain inefficiency to democracy and the democratic process that is worth debating because the alternatives are so disastrous and bleak. Noting Your Honour's admonition and profiting by it, I will limit my words to just one thought.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edmund Boyd Osler: Hold it. It is a thought I would like to get into their heads, Mr. Speaker. We are at the point where we can go on with amendments and subamendments for the next year. We will probably be able to write home to our constituents and say that we again have 176 inches of snow. This will say, "Big deal; it is really rugged in Ottawa." However, you will not get a single mark unless you allow this matter to come to a vote. In a democratic

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
process, things come to a vote. They must be decided. The time has come to decide. We have talked long enough. If the House will let this question come to a vote, members will have enough courage to live up to their convictions and let us live up to ours. The country will in the long run decide who is right.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question? If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wishes, he can allow the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to ask a question before he resumes his seat. Does the hon. member consent?


Edmund Boyd Osler: In lieu of a vote, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It appears to be rather qualified approval. In view of the circumstances, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but the remarks of some members have prompted me to do so, especially since the previous member seemed somewhat to neglect the importance of an independent member. In addition, Mr. Speaker, you will realize the importance which I give to my mandate as well as to the debate now under way.
In my opinion, we have on several occasions slightly strayed from the subject of this discussion. I will try in the next few minutes to deal with the subamendment and the amendment now before the House.
It does seem that Bill C-244, which guarantees more money and even certain services to farmers, does not contain as many faults as the members of the opposition seem to suggest, but I must recognize the major importance of the amendment and sub-amendment, as regards a policy based on production costs.
Unless I am mistaken, the bill is intended to define a policy of stabilization for the western farmers. Of course, being an easterner, I also understand the problems of the western producers; but needless to say, I shall take this opportunity to ask the minister to pay special attention to any policy that concerns the East as well.
But wanting to be as objective as possible, I should not want to miss this opportunity of showing the members and farmers from the West that we are just as concerned about agriculture in the East when it comes to wanting a sound economy.
The amendment and sub-amendment now before the house are quite significant in terms of the profits of the producers. I wonder to what extent those responsible in government could study seriously the sub-amendment to set up a plan for the stabilization and cost prices.
It was mentioned earlier, for instance, that production costs have changed in the last few years. I think we can justly say that production costs become extremely important in terms of the profits which may be expected. The sub-amendment however deserves consideration from the minister and Parliament. How far could the government go in considering this amendment in order to arrive at a compromise? We have reached the point where we must

at all cost find a compromise in the interest of farmers who are awaiting these payments.
I had the opportunity to say that I surely cannot give my blessing to opposition members who have had the opportunity and plenty of time to pass the bill. Legally, the government should have made payment at a date already past. It proved its good will by trying to give more and by introducing a bill that, in my opinion, is more justified with regard to the small or average farmers.
Now the opposition is attempting to find faults in this bill. As an independent member, I am in a better position than anybody else, I think, to ask for a compromise and this, in the interest of farmers affected by this bill who are still waiting for payments they undoubtedly need. How far would the government accept to go to arrive at a compromise with the opposition members?
I think that the amendment in question which explains production costs should retain the government's attention since any stabilization plan must be based on the agricultural policy while taking production costs into account. We may talk about gross profits but I think the farmers' interests would be protected only if production costs were also taken into account. I wonder to what extend the government could consider this amendment. For my part, I am fascinated by this, because I am among those who believe that production costs must be analysed first of all, when a stabilization program is in question. It may be possible for the government to give more serious consideration to this amendment in order to reach a compromise and to limit the length of the debate on Bill C-244, always taking into account, of course, the interests of the farmers concerned.
So, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my comments, which have the objectivity that is desirable in this House, will help, not to enlighten hon. members-because I do not think that I am qualified to enlighten my colleagues especially with regard to this bill-but only to call their attention to the objectivity which they should always practise. I felt that I ought to point out to them the possibility of reaching a compromise-and this, only in the interests of farmers who are waiting for payment.
We know that the government is willing to pay, as it has demonstrated on several occasions. We also know that members of the opposition are very anxious to improve the fate of farmers in their own ridings. But how far does logic determine our actions? We must look seriously for a compromise, keeping in mind the primary interests of those farmers, who are waiting to be paid.
I would like this appeal which I am making tonight to be one of the last which I will have had to make on behalf of farmers, in view of the interests of the latter, and maybe also of this House, as it seems that stubbornness, whether on the part of one party or another, will contribute to make the public lose its already much shaken confidence in Parliament.
It seems to me that, if we consider that matter objectively, then not only will payments be made to the producers but also the Canadian people will again have faith in the members of this House.


Mr.   Rod. Thomson@Battleford-Kindersley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to suggest some practical changes which I
October 4, 1971

believe could be made to this bill. They all relate to the net income position. I suggest that the minister seriously consider these points. If he were to do so, I do not think we should hesitate to pass the bill quickly.
We have heard comments from backbenchers on the other side about our opposing this bill. I would ask some of them, including the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Osier): Why should the farmers of Alberta grow wheat at below cost of production to feed the people of Calgary? Why should the people of Manitoba grow wheat at below cost of production to feed the people of Winnipeg?
I ask the minister why he has not included in this bill provision for a two-price system. This would take into account the rise in the cost of production and would have relevancy to the cost-price position in Canada. This is a contention we have been making all along, but the minister has not yet told us why he could not include such a provision.
It is a reasonable conclusion that people should get a decent price for a product they grow and the service they have to sell. Members of this House received a 50 per cent increase in their salaries, yet farmers are asked to produce wheat at below cost. What kind of nonsense is this? I do not understand why he cannot include in the bill an amendment to cover this point.
The minister admitted to me when the bill was in committee that if the plan were to work properly a form of crop insurance would be necessary. The PFAA had not only some income value but some crop insurance value. The plan before us deals only with income. If it contained crop insurance features as well, I think we would be more ready to approve it than is the case.
These are two points. Another point is that there has to be a drop in income in the prairie region before any payment can be made under the plan. I ask those who have factories in their areas what they would think if the government said, "All the factories in your area must be shut down before anyone can receive unemployment insurance." Yet this is what the present bill implies. Again, I ask: What kind of nonsense is this?
Possibly the scheme could be dealt with on a regional basis to a far greater extent than is proposed. Let me give the House an illustration. I have rapeseed growers in my area. Some of the land is especially good for producing rapeseed and last year a number of rapeseed growers harvested a crop valued at $100 an acre. If a payment had been made under proposed legislation they would have received money in addition to the $100 an acre. I suggest that should not be the situation. On the other hand, farmers who suffer a complete crop failure may be unable to receive any benefit. For example, this year farmers in certain rapeseed growing areas lost their entire crops to worms. If the general picture throughout the area had been reasonably good, these farmers would not have received a single cent on the basis of the minister's proposals.
These are the sort of objections we are making to the plan which has been put forward. They are practical points which should be looked into. Apparently the minister has not paused even to consider them; he is not listening. I am not talking in the abstract; I am talking about
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
farmers who have suffered from the effects of maladministration by this government. I have suggested that the minister look at some of these problems, but I do not think he has done so.
May I make one more point before sitting down. If I were a farmer operating in the red, not making any money, the plan that the minister envisages could cost me another $300, increasing my deficit by that amount. I have no guarantee that I would get five cents under this plan. I would ask the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. McBride) whether he has returned to his constituency and explained this plan to his farmers. If he did that I think he would look at the plan in a completely different light.
If some of the points I have made were taken into account and the plan amended, it would have an enthusiastic reception on this side of the House. We would shake the minister's hand and congratulate him on his good sense and political good will in solving the problems that are plaguing the prairie farmers.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said on a number of occasions this evening that the basic concept of the bill is one with which members on this side of the House agree, namely, the stabilization of the incomes of western farmers. It is the details of the plan and the way the plan is implemented by this bill with which we quarrel, and I think we have legitimate reasons for doing so.
In case it has missed the attention of hon. members opposite, one of the purposes of the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) is to have the stabilization payments for which the bill makes provision related to net farm income rather than gross farm income. For this reason the amendment provides that increased costs of production be deducted from the purchase price received for grain in order to arrive at a figure for grain sale proceeds.
The subamendment submitted by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) clarifies this amendment by providing as a base year for the purpose of calculating increased production the crop year ending July 31, 1970. This was a necessary clarification. As the minister has said, the original amendment was probably less precise than it needed to be in order to accomplish the intended purpose, and that is why the hon. member for Skeena submitted his subamendment.
Having said that, in his remarks this afternoon the minister suggested that the subamendment as presented would result, because of the way the concept of grain sale proceeds is employed in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill, in the possible reduction of payments to some individual farmers. That may be the case. He concluded, and rightly, that such was not the purpose of the subamendment. He then said for that reason the subamendment confused matters and was therefore not worthy of support.
I submit that this kind of reasoning, coming from the minister in a debate like this where it is perfectly clear that what we on this side of the House are arguing is for a plan based on net income, is simply a cop-out. The minister knows that the purpose of this amendment is to

October 4, 1971
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act
change the bill and to base the plan on net income rather than gross income. The minister knows that if that concept were accepted by the House there would be no problem in making the necessary, consequential amendments to the bill to ensure that it accomplishes the purpose for which it was designed. So what we are debating here is the principle of net farm income as opposed to gross farm income as the basis for the plan. This the minister knows, and to say anything else is a cop-out.
The concept of a plan based on net income is one of the changes for which the three prairie ministers of agriculture came to Ottawa to argue. It is the concept that the three pools, the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture wish to see incorporated in the bill. Because it is not, they continue to oppose the bill. These organizations and the three prairie governments have not wilted when confronted with the government's ultimatum that they either let the bill go through the House as it is or they get nothing. They have not knuckled under to such blackmail. They have not replied to the government's assertion-


Edmund Boyd Osler: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) on a point of order.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I should like the hon. member to document his statement. I do not think anyone has ever heard the government say they would either have to take this bill or get nothing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair feels that the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is argument and a point for debate, not a point of order.


Douglas Charles Rowland: This government has repeatedly said to the farmers of the west; "Either you accept Bill C-244 or you will get no stabilization plan".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: Who's confused now?


Douglas Charles Rowland: The farm organizations in the west are not going to take this kind of approach and neither are the prairie governments. They are not going to give up the fight for justice for the west because of an attempt at blackmail, and a cheap attempt at that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Rowland: Hon. members opposite have complained about the time it has taken to get this bill through and they charge us with filibustering, mounting a blockade, and so on. Despite the agonizing by hon. members opposite, no attempt has been made to change the bill and no logical, reasoned arguments have been advanced on their part for not doing so. If this bill had been drafted by people genuinely knowledgeable about the problems of the west and genuinely concerned for the west, it would be through the House right now because the plan would have been based on net farm income rather than gross farm income.
This bill is supposed to meet the needs of the prairie farmer. The three prairie ministers of agriculture came to Ottawa-


Edmund Boyd Osler: Listen to our farmer talking.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that I am not a farmer, and I am confronted by the same problem as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier). However, the difference between the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and me is this: I know that I have a lot to learn about the problems of agriculture. This is why I listen to the people who know something about agriculture, such as the NFU, the CFA and the Wheat Pools.
Before I was interrupted I was saying that the agriculture ministers representing the governments of the three prairie provinces to which the provisions of the bill are supposed to apply, came to Ottawa expressly to tell the minister that unless the plan were based on net income rather than gross income it would not stabilize farm incomes, which is the intent of the bill. They came to argue, rather, that the bill would act only as insurance of doubtful adequacy in the event of a catastrophic crop failure or some other economic event of equally disastrous proportions.
Nevertheless, the minister would not even listen to them. He misled the ministers from the three prairie provinces into believing that they had reached an agreement with a gentleman, and did so in order to get them out of Ottawa. Then as soon as their backs were turned he tore the agreement up. And this government wonders why there is discontent in the west! It wonders why the government is about as popular in the west as the plague. It wonders why Ottawa is as foreign to westerners as Bangkok.
The treatment this government has accorded the western agricultural ministers supplies the answer to each of these questions. Can anyone here imagine this government treating the ministers of agriculture of Ontario and Quebec as it treated the ministers of agriculture of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta? Can anyone here imagine this government welching on an agreement with the ministers of agriculture of Ontario and Quebec? You're damned right they cannot. This government, composed almost exclusively of easterners, would be falling over itself in its attempts to do exactly what Ontario and Quebec wanted.
Look at the chicken-and-egg war. When Quebec was in obvious violation of the laws of this country, the government would not act. It was left to Manitoba to seek the court ruling which eventually resulted. As long as this government has Ontario and Quebec firmly in its pocket the rest of the country can rot as far as the government is concerned. That is why there is discontent in the west. We are sick of being ignored and insulted. We are sick of government of, by and for Ontario and Quebec.
Why did the three prairie ministers come to Ottawa to ask for a plan based on net income? Why are we on this side of the House determined to have a plan based on that concept? I suggest it is simply and solely because a stabili-

October 4, 1971

zation plan based on gross income will only serve the function of stabilizing farm incomes for small farmers at current levels of near poverty.
It is obvious that if rising costs of production are not taken into account in calculating grain sale proceeds, proceeds could go up and still result in losses for the farmer in terms of net farm income-and net farm income is what the farmer lives on. Many of the current difficulties in western Canada are the result of costs of production increasing at a much faster rate than proceeds from sales. Indeed, while costs of production have consistently risen, prices received for farm products have in many cases dropped. Thus, it is entirely conceivable under this plan for gross income to increase or to drop only marginally, therefore no payments under the plan would be made, while at the same time actual net farm income might drop.
There is absolutely no justice for calling a plan which would promote such a situation an income stabilization plan. It might be called a fire insurance plan, but let no one believe that it will contribute to the stabilization of prairie farming communities. The unwillingness of the government to even give cursory consideration to the concept of net farm income as the basis of this plan is just one more example of the government's determination to drive the small prairie farmer off his land in the name of efficiency, without regard for the tragic social consequences of such action.
What does a man of 55 or 60 years of age, who has been a farmer all his life, trained as a farmer and with no other training in industry or commerce, do when he is forced off his land? He moves to the city and looks for a job. In the cities in this country there are people who, despite the fact they have spent their lives in industry, are looking for jobs. They have been forced out of work and laid off. What does the farmer do under these circumstances? Can the government really tell us that it is more desirable to have farmers wandering around cities looking for work than to have them on the land productively employed in producing the agricultural products necessary to sustain life? That is what this plan will do.
The time has come to demonstrate that the west will no longer stand for legislation which has as its effect the destruction of its culture and its way of life. We are drawing the line on this side of the House at Bill C-244. We are insisting that this bill be changed so it is based on net income, will provide real income support for the small farmers and some sustenance for the western way of life. That is what this debate is really all about. That is why we on this side of the House are not giving up. That is why we will continue to fight this bill until we get some change.
The government has not heard the last of the three prairie ministers. They will be back here to raise the same points. The minister has probably seen and heard enough about net farm income. He is probably sick of the phrase. But if he is sick of it now, he should wait and see how sick he will be in a short time if he refuses to listen.


An hon. Member:: Bring it to a vote.


Douglas Charles Rowland: My friends on the other side suggest we should bring this to a vote.


An hon. Member:: Some of them are westerners.
Prairie Grain Stabilization Act


Douglas Charles Rowland: This bill will come to a vote when the minister has made the changes necessary to see that it serves the needs of the western farmers. There is not one western member representing an agricultural constituency who has spoken in favour of this bill. There is a reason for that.


An hon. Member:: The minister has spoken.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Someone suggests that the minister has spoken, and he represents a western agricultural constituency. I doubt very much whether the minister's words in cabinet were the same as we heard in this House. If they were, he is not the member we thought he was because he should be fighting for western Canada. I suggest he has been shot down. He could not persuade his cabinet colleagues and now comes to us with this half-baked plan.
With the legions and legions of members on that side of the House from Ontario and Quebec, it is understandable that they may not know what this legislation will do to western Canada; but it is understood on this side of the House. We represent western Canada and we cannot allow it to pass without change.
I think there might be general agreement to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, since my voice is giving out.


An hon. Member:: You have two minutes left.


Douglas Charles Rowland: If there is no agreement, I will continue to croak on until the clock has run its course.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call it ten o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, has anyone on the government side checked with the powers-that-be and been authorized to state that we will be continuing with this bill tomorrow?


Otto Emil Lang: I think it can be expected that we will continue with the item that we have been debating tonight.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: His master's voice.


An hon. Member:: He might change his mind tomorrow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you sure it will not be changed?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You had better check with the authorities.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

["Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reply to my colleague the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and to commend him for his concern on this rather important matter, one which I think concerns members on all sides of the House and from all parties.\nThe government intends to pursue the inquiries made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Premier Kosygin last May concerning emigration of Soviet Jewry to Israel or other countries of their choice, and to raise again the question of the reunification of Soviet citizens of all ethnic origins with their relatives in Canada. The government has always supported the principle of freedom of movement of persons between countries but recognizes that the movement of a national citizen is one of national sovereignty.\nThis does not detract from the concern which we all share. I had the privilege of visiting the Soviet Union with the Prime Minister when he had talks in the Kremlin and these matters were discussed, and I thought they were very well received by Premier Kosygin. At that time many people in Canada who were deeply concerned about relatives and people of like culture or religion in the Soviet Union had made representations to many of us who were going there. We appealed on behalf of Soviet citizens who had applied to come to Canada and whom Canada had agreed to accept, and received a positive response from the Soviet premier.\nIn subsequent discussions as we travelled through the country with Soviet officials the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon), the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and myself had an opportunity to pursue these objectives on a personal basis. Certainly they are subjects which were discussed in May and will be discussed again on the occasion of Premier Kosygin's visit to Canada, when we hope he will receive a warm reception and realize the desire of many of our citizens to see their families and their culture flourish in their homeland that they may be able to express themselves culturally and religiously.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.", '\nTuesday, October 5, 1971']
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before I join the rush to enjoy whatever delights there

October 4, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
are in the west block I should like to avail myself of a few minutes to refer to a subject I raised the other day with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). I should like to state first my philosophy as an optimist, in that I live for the day. I have lived for the day with the belief that the people of Kent County in New Brunswick, where I grew up as a boy, would one day vote Conservative, with the hope that Henry Aaron would hit his 715th home run, and with the hope that the Canadian government would take seriously its objective of overcoming regional disparities and its fight against discrimination.
Today the first objective was achieved when the people of Kent County in New Brunswick voted Conservative. I suspect that Mr. Henry Aaron will hit his record breaking home run in September two years from now, or in April or May of the year following. But until there is a change of government, or a very strong change in heart on the part of this government, we will not reach the objective of seriously overcoming regional disparities in respect of pay. Let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary-no, he has left. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) is the one who blesses us now with his presence, if I may use that phrase. I shall get around to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) in respect of one of his statements in a moment. The other day I asked the President of the Treasury Board the following question:
Will the policy of pay differentials in the regions of Canada, which has been presented as the federal position in the case of nurses, be extended as a matter of policy to other categories-
This appears at page 8353 of Hansard. It can be said about the President of the Treasury Board that he may not be wise, but at least he is sincere. The hon. gentleman's answer was the following:
The policy of pay differentials for people not required to have a high degree of mobility has been progressively introduced or proceeded with over the past four years. It is the intention of the government to continue in this direction as it produces a much better relatively and a much greater sense of fairness than attempts to equate unequal parts.
I said immediately, "Ten o'clock" and I meant ten o'clock. There are nurses-I shall deal with them first- employed by the Department of Veteran Affairs, by the Department of National Defence, where it operates hospitals, by the Department of National Health and Welfare and even by the penitentiary service where one nurse is employed. The nurse in the penitentiary service is not serving "time" but is there to assist in that service.
According to H. M. Larsen, research associate for the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, there were 2,027 nurses employed by the federal government in hospitals across Canada last year. Mr. Larsen says that 470 out of 590 nurses who left the federal government payrolls in 1970 were dissatisfied with their salaries and gave this as the reason. The turnover rate is always about 25 per cent. Their complaints boil down to this: salaries are too low, orderlies whom nurses train and supervise sometimes get more money, and nurses work for the same department at different wage levels across the country.
This is the name of whatever the President of the Treasury Board called it when I read his answer a few

moments ago. The fact is that the nurses' agreement expired on December 31, 1970. They have been in a process, first of negotiation and now are before a special board consisting of Mr. Justice Andre Montpetit as chairman and Jean Massicotte and Professor S. M. Jamieson as members of a tribunal of the Public Service of Canada.
What about the view of the Treasury Board in its submission to the tribunal? This is a watershed decision. It is one of the most important decisions we will ever have in the history of Canada in so far as the legislation which is now before us, and which governs the relations of government or Parliament with the Public Service of Canada, is concerned. This is big stuff indeed. This is what the Treasury Board, the great fighter against regional disparity, said:
As a nationwide employer, it is essential that our policy on pay and benefits take into account the rates of pay and patterns of benefits applying to workers in related employment in the private sector.
I say that that is a departure from a policy that was instituted back in the days of Robert Borden when the Civil Service Commission of Canada started its work. That shows how far reaching the decision of the government is, and what little regard is paid to the amenities of the law they have operated under.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or to the cause of national unity.


Robert Jardine McCleave: In the name of something. It is not in the name of national unity; it is in the name of computerized efficiency. I quote one paragraph from the nurses' brief, and this is where our concentration is going to be:
The concept that one level in the group should have regional rates is peculiar to this group.
I do not think that is so, but that is what the nurses thought.
Of the 28 groups in the scientific and professional category only one other group (education) has regional rates, but in the education group the rates apply at all levels. Regional rates are used because-
Here they quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney), as recorded in Hansard at page 7263 on June 22, 1971:
"-it has been the board's position that zone pay systems ensure that fair and competitive local rates of pay apply to its employees. It has been demonstrated that there is relatively little mobility among those nurses on zone pay rates and the board therefore feels that zone pay rates are entirely appropriate."
Of course there is little mobility among the nurses in receipt of regional rates of pay. Who in their right senses would offer to perform the same services for the same employer for more than $1,000 reduction in salary because they crossed a provincial border?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have had examples of dealings with the dockworkers in Halifax and Esquimalt where the Treasury Board took the top of a board report for wages at Esquimalt and the bottom of the report for wages in Halifax. This computerized nonsense has to stop somewhere. I hope that I am starting to put a stop to it right now.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of regional pay differentials as applied to nurses is not some-
October 4, 1971

thing new but has been in existence for a variety of occupational groups for a number of years. Examples of other groups where regional pay differentials exist are the education group, education support group, ships' officers, general labour and trades, general services, hospital services, printing operations, ship repair and ships' crews groups.
It is the intention of the government to extend the policy of regional pay differentials to other occupational groups where it is feasible and appropriate to do so, that is, to those groups where the outside pay data indicate significant regional variations from the Canadian average, where the area of recruitment and mobility of employees is limited and where the population of a group is distributed in two or more regions.
These circumstances are typically found in groups in the operational category and administrative support category, but exist in groups in other categories as well. Where these circumstances exist, it is considered more equitable and operationally more effective to establish rates of pay on a regional basis.



William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) certain questions regarding his agenda with Premier Kosygin on the occasion of his official visit to Canada. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would discuss with Premier Kosygin the problem of visits by Soviet citizens to relatives in Canada and the reunification of families split by the Iron Curtain. In reply the Prime Minister asked me what I would like him to say to Premier Kosygin. In order to rely to the Prime Minister I put this matter on for the adjournment debate this evening.
I would like the Prime Minister to ask Premier Kosygin two things: first, as a general rule, that he allow Soviet citizens to visit members of their families living in Canada; second, as a general rule, that he allow Soviet citizens to emigrate from the Soviet Union especially where this will assist in uniting families. In both these matters I think we should appeal to the humanitarian instincts of the Soviet Premier. We should also remind him that the Soviet Union agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in article 13 (2) that everyone has a right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his own country.
From recent news reports it would appear that Premier Kosygin might agree to such a request. Yesterday there was a report that the Soviet government made a significant gesture to world Jewry by stating that it is willing to release its grip on Soviet Jews who wish to emigrate to
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Israel. That is one good sign, Mr. Speaker. Another good sign was reported in the newspapers to the effect that the well known Russian atomic scientist, Andrei Sakharov, states that he appealed to the Soviet government to allow Soviet citizens to emigrate if they wished, saying, "A free country cannot resemble a cage even if it is gilded and supplied with good food."
I would ask the Prime Minister, therefore, to put these matters on the agenda for discussion with Premier Kosygin when he visits this country and to put to him this important point that I have raised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to reply to my colleague the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and to commend him for his concern on this rather important matter, one which I think concerns members on all sides of the House and from all parties.
The government intends to pursue the inquiries made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of Premier Kosygin last May concerning emigration of Soviet Jewry to Israel or other countries of their choice, and to raise again the question of the reunification of Soviet citizens of all ethnic origins with their relatives in Canada. The government has always supported the principle of freedom of movement of persons between countries but recognizes that the movement of a national citizen is one of national sovereignty.
This does not detract from the concern which we all share. I had the privilege of visiting the Soviet Union with the Prime Minister when he had talks in the Kremlin and these matters were discussed, and I thought they were very well received by Premier Kosygin. At that time many people in Canada who were deeply concerned about relatives and people of like culture or religion in the Soviet Union had made representations to many of us who were going there. We appealed on behalf of Soviet citizens who had applied to come to Canada and whom Canada had agreed to accept, and received a positive response from the Soviet premier.
In subsequent discussions as we travelled through the country with Soviet officials the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon), the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and myself had an opportunity to pursue these objectives on a personal basis. Certainly they are subjects which were discussed in May and will be discussed again on the occasion of Premier Kosygin's visit to Canada, when we hope he will receive a warm reception and realize the desire of many of our citizens to see their families and their culture flourish in their homeland that they may be able to express themselves culturally and religiously.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.16 p.m.


Tuesday, October 5, 1971