1971-05-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in the two official languages-Mr. Lessard.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minisler of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table under Standing Order 41(2) the summer employment survey of postsecondary students in Canada 1970, in both official languages.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous consent to make a motion of urgent and pressing necessity based on statements about the Solicitor General made by law professor Desmond Morton and evidence of continuing disturbances at Millhaven and today at Dorchester. I move:
That the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be empowered to inquire into the role of the Solicitor General in the recent disturbances at Kingston penitentiary.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, did you call motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, motions were called a few minutes ago. We would require the consent of the House to revert to motions. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of the U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol on Consultations which was signed in Moscow on May 19 by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R. and the Prime Minister of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think it may be understandable that the Acting Prime Minister forgot to table that document. I would like to ask him a question about the discussions regarding NATO going on in Moscow and specifically whether the subject being discussed is a reduction of troops or a reduction of troops within a certain area-in other words, a withdrawal of troops?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the NATO powers did make a proposal at their last meeting that there should be discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions, particularly in central Europe. The Soviet Union has now apparently indicated that it wishes to have negotiations on this question. The nature of these negotiations, of course, is very complex. The purpose is to try to reduce the confrontation now existing in central Europe without in any way affecting the balance of power.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government of Canada is actively considering a further reduction unilaterally in its NATO troops in Europe as opposed to a joint reduction, or joint withdrawal by the NATO organization?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada is neither actively nor otherwise discussing or considering any reduction beyond the point that was announced some months ago and that has now been accepted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister in fact has under-

May 20. 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
taken to act as a mediator between the Warsaw Pact countries and the NATO countries with regard to achieving a balanced reduction of forces?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition perhaps knows, the Prime Minister has indicated quite definitely that he is not intending to play any such role.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he knows what was the basic answer of the Prime Minister to Mr. Brezhnev's alleged statement in order to test out the U.S.S.R. in regard to the seriousness of its proposals for troop reductions? Was there any answer from the representative of Canada or did it just pass off without answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think we shall have to await until the Prime Minister's return, but I am quite sure he dealt with this question just as adequately, as enthusiastically and as successfully as he deals with answers to questions in Canada.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any knowledge of what other countries have agreements similar to this protocol that Canada now has with the U.S.S.R.? Also, because of the importance or apparent importance of this agreement and its effect internationally so far as Canada is concerned, would he be prepared to make a statement in reference to the agreement in order to give us some fill-in on what actually took place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that when the Prime Minister returns he will give the House a report. I have today tabled the text of the protocol which indicates the scope and nature of the consultations that we have undertaken to have between our two countries. In answer to the first question, I know of at least one country that has a similar agreement with the Soviet Union, and that is 'France.


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


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this document I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs would agree to have it appended to Hansard so that everyone will have an opportunity to read it, rather than just tabling it.


Mitchell William Sharp: If that is agreeable to the House, Mr. Speaker, have no objection. I think it is an historic and important agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement that the document in question be appended to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of agreement referred to above, see appendix.]


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is perhaps the converse of the question put to him by the hon. member for Calgary North. Other than the countries that Russia has such agreements with, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs know of any intention in his department to have protocols or agreements, similar to the one signed with Russia, with other countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, we have much more extensive machinery for consultation with, for example, the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom. This protocol dealing with consultation does not, of course, go nearly as far as the existing understandings we have with our older friends and allies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a further supplementary and then go to the next subject and recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: While I fully appreciate the minister's reply as far as countries like Great Britain and France are concerned, I am really thinking of China, a country which has recently been recognized by Canada and one of the newer countries on the world scene. Does the minister anticipate that Canada will make overtures to have such a protocol signed on the same terms as the one with Russia in order to get exchanges flowing back and forth?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman agrees that we have taken the first step in trying to bring about better relations between China and Canada and China and the rest of the world by entering into diplomatic relations with the Peking regime. What will happen in the future I am not sure, but I hope there will be the kind of improvement in relations between that country and Canada and the rest of the world that we all hope for.



PENITENTIARIES


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he has any report to make to the House on the disturbance which took place at Dorchester penitentiary today?

May 20, 1971


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, order has been restored since ten o'clock this morning. All prisoners have returned to their cells and the situation is under control.


William Arnold Peters: How many prisoners have been injured at Dorchester and what is their condition?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, during the troubles, a number of prisoners tried to escape and the guards fired shotguns to warn them that they would be penalized. A few pellets hit two inmates who were carried to the hospital, taken care of, and sent back to their cells. A third inmate came out on his own from the place where a fight had apparently broken out among prisoners. This prisoner was carried to the hospital outside the penitentiary so as to be X-rayed to check the extent of his wounds.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if it is his intention to have a departmental inquiry into the reasons why prisoners from the assembly hall within the institution itself were wounded?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we will follow standing practice under the Penitentiary Act. The Commissioner will appoint a board of inquiry to investigate the causes of those riots.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Solicitor General tell the House what causes brought about the riots in this penitentiary?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, there was no committee of inmates properly speaking, but some inmates handed us a document outlining their complaints. I could enumerate some of these, such as the fact that they had pork three times within the same week, that there are not enough classification offices, that salaries within the penitentiaries are inadequate, that clothing, and the type of clothing should be changed, that inmates do not get prompt replies to their applications for medical examinations, that they object to Parliament's having passed an act making probation compulsory.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Concerning clothing, would the Solicitor General be prepared to recommend tailcoats, for instance?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DORCHESTER PRISONERS' COMPLAINTS AND PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CAUSES OF DISTURBANCES

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Before I ask my supplementary question I wonder if the Solicitor General would agree to table the document containing all the requests outlined by this group of prisoners. My question is, in view of the alarming number of incidents that have taken place in federal institutions in the past few months of a similar nature, is the government or the minister's department now prepared to establish a full public inquiry into the nature of these problems so that their basic causes can be dealt with?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as for the prisoners' demands, I have listed them; there are a few other personal requests.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I will repeat what I have already stated in the House, that the government plans to carry out a systematic, progressive and dynamic program in the penitentiary field. This program will be set up, through the co-operation of the prisoners as well as that of the wardens and the people. As far as prisoners are concerned, they have nothing to gain by resorting to violence or by fostering disturbance, because it can only delay the implementation of essential reforms.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Does this mean that the Solicitor General is not planning any kind of public inquiry and that there will not be any information or public disclosure with respect to the serious problems in these federal institutions in order that there may be effective public discussion before decisions are taken by the government with regard to possible changes?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we do not need disturbances or violence to know what to do. We are willing to meet with prisoners, to discuss with them and to inform them of our intentions. In fact, we took measures before the riots at Kingston and Dorchester, and we shall continue to take action. If the prisoners-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Minister. [English]
Order, please! It seems to me we are entering the field of debate at this point. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a supplementary. That will be the only supplementary allowed at this time and then the Chair will recognize the representative of the political group to my extreme left.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has stated that he has a list of complaints from the prisoners at Dorchester. Did he not have it two days ago when he told the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that things in Dorchester were working out quite well?

May 20, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have never said anything of the kind. I have no crystal ball to predict what will happen in Canadian penitentiaries.



MANPOWER


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the minister tell us whether or not agricultural training and management courses will be available to Quebec farmers next year, or whether negotiations are under way with the province of Quebec with regard to the purchase of courses for farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, negotiations generally are going on with the various provinces in connection with the appropriate purchase of courses. I will be glad to ascertain for the hon. member whether these specific courses are now included in next year's set of courses to be purchased in that province.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question.
In order to allow these farmers' wives to contribute more to the success of the farm, would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration negotiate with the province of Quebec the purchase of training and farm management courses for the wives of farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the standing practice has been that farm wives as well as farmers could be included in the management courses. The only rule upon which the department intends to operate is that two members of the same farm family should not be on a course as long as there are others who have not taken the courses, desire to do so and are capable of taking advantage of them.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I want to put another supplementary question.
Would the minister consider that on a farm, the farmer's wife takes part also in the management of the farm and that she should enjoy also the same advantages-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a suggestion or a representation and he must take it for granted that it will be considered by the minister.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister said that it is not possible for two members of the same family to follow the same course, does he
intend to bring changes to the legislation or to initiate discussions with the province of Quebec in order to enable two members of a family to follow the same course?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say once again that there is no rule against wives taking these courses. The only practical rule which is in place and which I think is perfectly appropriate is that under ordinary circumstances the course will be offered to one member of any farm family before it is offered to two members of the same farm family. That seems to me to make perfectly good sense. Whoever is doing the farm management work can take advantage of the course.



HOCKEY-RESEARCH ON PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR-ENFORCEMENT OF STANDARDS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent deaths that have occurred among hockey players because of inadequate protective headgear and the comments by Dr. Noble as the result of a recent death in Ontario, is the minister taking any action to encourage research, to establish headgear standards and to force compliance with these standards?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member is, of course, of great importance, but I wonder whether it should not normally be placed on the order paper. Perhaps the minister might reply quickly and we will then go on to the next subject. If the hon. member should wish to pursue the matter thereafter, he might give notice for consideration at the time of adjournment.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that a subcommittee met as late as last Friday and has been working on the matter for some time. A subcommittee of the Canadian Standards Association is testing the helmets of about five different manufacturers. They will be making a recommendation with regard to a particular helmet if it proves to be satisfactory. The other charges by the gentleman to whom the hon. member referred are completely inaccurate.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that young hockey players tend to emulate NHL players, is the minister going to meet with the NHL and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association to discuss this problem and see if they will lead the way in the use of protective headgear?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we are entirely satisfied as to the worth of the particular helmets to the degree that they have been scientifically approved, I think that matter could be referred to Hockey Canada to take up with the NHL.

May 20, 1971



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADIAN POSITION IN INTERNATIONAL HOCKEY AND ROLE OF HOCKEY CANADA

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the excitement of the Stanley Cup series is now behind us, will the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions soon to clarify Canada's position in international hockey and certain major domestic issues such as the role of Hockey Canada?


John Carr Munro: I will be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister's statement outside the House yesterday that the $35 million needed to extend seasonal unemployment insurance benefits can be better used to help the unemployed, to what program of assistance to the unemployed does the government intend to apply this $35 million?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: The point I made outside the House and inside the House, if the hon. member wants to read Hansard, was that if we extend seasonal benefits at a cost of $35 million we have no way of knowing precisely what portion of that $35 million will go to those unemployed people who are entitled to some extra help because, fortunately, we do not and never should include a means or needs test as one of the reasons for receiving unemployment insurance. So in extending seasonal benefits to everybody receiving unemployment insurance we would obviously be extending them to many people who do not need extra financial assistance. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He cannot criticize the plan for not adhering to the insurance principle and simply being a welfare fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: As so often happens, the statement the minister made outside the House is different from the one he made inside the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: He knows that is so. In light of the statement he made outside the House to the effect that the $35 million could be better used for programs to help the unemployed, may I ask on what particular program the government intends to spend this sum?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, the minister was just on the point of rising.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair was just on the point of recognizing the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I trust your decision will prove to be a wise one, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister mind explaining in greater detail the statement he just made?
He said that the $35 million might be wasted and yet the minister knows full well that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me, with respect to both the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, that they are inviting the minister to make a general statement of a kind which ought normally to be made on motions.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, I did not ask the minister to make a statement. I asked him to name the program that he wished to spend the $35 million on.


Some hon. Members:: Order, please.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I rise on a point of order. What I said in the House yesterday-


George Harris Hees: I said "outside the House".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should
resume his seat. I suggest to him and to both hon. members who have been asking these questions that this is a matter of debate. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings may disagree, but as I interpret the matter they are inviting the minister to make a general statement which ought not to be made at this time. If the minister wishes to make a statement of this kind, I suggest he make it on motions. It is just as simple as that. There may be other supplementary questions in connection with this important matter and I have no intention of preventing hon. members from asking them. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Given the fact that to be eligible for seasonal benefits people must meet certain specific criteria, can the minister explain what he means by saying that the $35 million that would be spent on such people if the benefits were extended would be wasted or not paid to people who actually need the money, if in fact they must meet certain criteria in order to get it?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the contrary, there are no criteria. The condition they must meet is one which offers much more latitude than at any other time of the year. I hope the hon. member is not implying that seasonal benefits are extended only to those working in specific occupations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 20, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF ADDITIONAL FOREIGN AID UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT IN CANADA DECREASES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement yesterday that additional foreign aid is to be extended, I wonder whether the government would undertake not to extend any additional foreign aid until such time as unemployment in Canada begins to decrease?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to that question is a definite no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I am surprised the hon. gentleman should take such a view. I thought the view of his party was that it is one of our responsibilities to increase the flow of international aid, but if that is not the case I am glad to know it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a question of privilege, I simply asked the minister whether he would withhold such increases until our economic situation has begun to improve.



WELFARE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Social and Family Services for Ontario, the Hon. Thomas Wells, to the effect that the Ontario government intends to tighten up its welfare administration particularly where young people are concerned, and in view of the fact that money for welfare purposes is paid in part by the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan, may I ask whether there have been consultations between the minister and the Ontario authorities with respect to this matter?


John Carr Munro: There has been no consultation with respect to the particular statement the hon. member has noted. I am not sure that every time a provincial minister wishes to make a statement of that kind he should have to consult with the federal government. We are more concerned with the practices under the Canada Assistance Plan as distinct from statements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Mr. Wells said in his statement that he intends to ask the federal government to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, may I ask whether the government has kept in touch with this aspect of the situation?


John Carr Munro: I saw Mr. Wells fairly recently and this matter was not raised at the time. If he wishes to talk it over with me he is free to do so at any time. He may raise it, if he desires, at the next meeting of the federal-provincial welfare ministers, which is not too far off.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In light of the statement now made by Jacques Sauriol that some ransom money was paid to the kidnappers in the case of Mr. Cross, can the minister tell us whether the Prime Minister or any member of the government refused to take the same action in the case of the late Mr. Laporte?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: I will have to take the question as notice. I have not seen that statement.



FINANCE


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister.
He indicated in a previous answer that aid to underdeveloped countries would not be reduced despite the serious situation that now exists in Canada. I entirely approve of his attitude; nevertheless, I shall ask him the following question: Does the government intend to assist underdeveloped areas in Canada by granting them interest-free loans, as we do for underdeveloped countries of the third world?


Mitchell William Sharp: To that question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, but of course all equalization grants which are made to the provinces and most of the assistance given to underdeveloped parts of the country carry no interest charge whatsoever.



AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION AFFECTING BUSINESS, FARM AND FISHING LOANS TO MAKE LOANS MORE EASILY AVAILABLE

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: May I ask
the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the negative reply by the Acting Pime Minister to the question asked by the leader of the party to my left, he has any plans to amend the three specific loan acts having to do with

May 20. 1971

business, farming and fishing in order to make loans more easily available, bearing in mind the fact that in the slow growth areas of Canada they are least available at the moment?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: I have received no complaints about these three acts in recent months from anyone, including the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: A report issued by the minister's office only a few days ago indicates that only two or three loans per quarter were being made to one province and very few to the whole Atlantic region. In view of that report, which certainly is evidence that these acts are not being made use of, would the minister investigate and consult with his parliamentary secretary who is thoroughly familiar with the ineffectiveness of this program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to look into a situation and he has to assume the minister will do so.



SUGGESTED INTEREST-FREE DOAN TO QUEBEC BY BANK OF CANADA

Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Temis-camingue like to put a supplementary question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Prime Minister has stated a while ago that in Canada gifts are given but no loans are made. Now, recently, the premier of Quebec went to the United States to borrow $75 million at 9J per cent interest and I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the Canadian government is willing through the Bank of Canada to grant interest-free loans to Quebec?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising from the Barber Commission report on farm machinery. One of the major recommendations in the report suggests that more encouragement should be given to the development and manufacture of farm machinery in Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether he has had consultations with the Minister of Agriculture on this important recommendation, and can he indicate what initiatives his department is taking in this regard?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned the report is being studied now. I have had no consultations
Inquiries of the Ministry
on this particular topic, with the Minister of Agriculture but in due course I am certain I will.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture in regard to the Barber Commission report. In view of the fact that after obtaining all of the facts pertaining to the machinery industry the commission has seen fit to withdraw its charge that the machinery companies have been making handsome profits, is the minister taking any steps to have this misleading statement clarified since it has had an adverse reflection upon domestic manufacturers in Canada?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any member of the government made that statement, and I do not believe it is the responsibility of members of the government to ask other people to withdraw what may be their opinion.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the growing number of nations either floating their currencies or considering doing so, and in view of the consequent fear of the breakdown of the present monetary safeguards that have been so laboriously built up, does the government now intend to return soon to a pegged dollar?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that I obviously cannot answer.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Vegreville and it concerns research. In view of the suggestion made in the Barber Commission report that the Canadian International Development Agency might establish farm machinery research facilities in other countries where we are either selling or hoping to sell farm machinery, would the government also look at this possibility?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I
repeat the statement that I made, Mr. Speaker, when I tabled the report, that we have already moved to enhance the activities of our research department respecting agricultural engineering.

May 20, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN MINT



INQUIRY AS TO CLOSURE AND TRANSFER OF OTTAWA FACILITIES

['Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will have a look at the statement made by the Soviet Union last year and their latest statement, and if possible in some way provide information to the House.']
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is the Acting Prime Minister in a position to inform the House whether it is the intention of the federal government to close out the Royal Canadian Mint in Ottawa and to transfer its facilities to another area of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have heard no such suggestion.


Robert Carman Coates: I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would check into this and also inform the employees of the Royal Canadian Mint that their employment there will not be jeopardized?



Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return for a moment to the question of troop withdrawals. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate very briefly the nature of the change that he suggests has taken place in the position taken by Russia regarding troop withdrawals, as it was my distinct impression last summer that at that time the government of Russia was prepared, indeed anxious, to discuss troop withdrawals but regarded troop reductions as a global rather than a European matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope the recent willingness of the Soviet Union to discuss mutual balanced force reductions means what it says, and that there has been an advance in the Soviet position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate what he considers to be the nature of the change in the position of Russia, as I think this is important to all of us?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would take me some time to do this on questions. There will, of course, be an opportunity to discuss this matter at very great length at the forthcoming meetings of the NATO powers in Lisbon, when I am sure this will be one of the major topics of conversation. The question is a very difficult one. As I said earlier, what we have to ensure is that in the process of mutual balanced force reductions there is a maintenance of the present balance; otherwise, neither side would agree.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this question to the understanding of all of us, would the Acting Prime Minister take an early opportunity on motions simply to explain to us the change in position as
he understands it? Certainly it is not clear to any of us at the moment.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will have a look at the statement made by the Soviet Union last year and their latest statement, and if possible in some way provide information to the House.



FISHERIES


Mr. Thomas S. Barnetl (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning certain activities of the United States coastguard, with whom we usually expect and normally enjoy very good co-operation. In light of the fact that a Canadian vessel and Canadian citizens were recently harassed by elements of the U.S. coastguard in Canadian territory and forced to flee for sanctuary to the port of Prince Rupert, and in light of the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member would ask his question; we are running short of time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of some delicacy internationally and I want to be sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs understands exactly what I am asking. In light of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries, both in the House and in the committee this morning, said that Canadians can fish in these waters, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, if this vessel or others return to these waters, they can in fact be assured of enjoying adequate protection from Canadian patrols of one kind or another?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we claim that these are Canadian waters. Therefore we have told Canadian vessels that they can fish in these waters. We would assume that even though there is some dispute-the United States has not accepted this position-there will not be harassment of Canadians.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE ON ACTIVITIES IN CANADIAN WATERS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT FOLLOWING CONCLUSION

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the present time there are important discussions being held between representatives of the French and Canadian governments on the question of Canada's right to exert authority over our fishing resources and the phasing out of fishing operations in waters coming within our jurisdiction, such as the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In view of the serious decline in our fishing resources, will the minister be making a state-
[Mr. Olson.)
May 20, 1971

ment on motions at the conclusion of these talks so that fishermen in Atlantic Canada will be made aware whether any progress has been made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be possible to make a statement. I do not know how much progress may be made and what the nature of this statement might be but, as the hon. member says, we are now having discussions whh representatives of the French government and I hope that we can make good progress.
# * *



INDUSTRY


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the by-election in Central Nova is only ten days away, can the Acting Prime Minister advise how soon an announcement will be made as to whether a grant will be made to keep the McBean mine in operation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member will realize that he cannot ask a question in those terms.


Robert Muir: Then may I rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that these coal miners, 200 of them, have been waiting upon an announcement by this government in regard to a grant to continue this coal mine in operation, on which the livelihood of the miners, their wives and families depends, and since the announcement has not been made up to the present time, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it will be made prior to May 31, or after May 31?


Mitchell William Sharp: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but I am sure my hon. friend would not want to suggest that we would make this announcement at a time that would be favourable to the government candidate.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period has just about expired. I should like to recognize the hon. member for St. John's East on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, but I would suggest this is all we have time for. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I would hope the foreign aid which is available and about which the minister spoke would be available to these coal miners. How long is this government going to play a political cat and mouse game with these 200 coal miners?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH



ALLEGED USE OF STALLING TACTICS TO PREVENT ABORTION APPLICATION BEING DEALT WITH

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fresh complaint of Dr. Byron Hyde of Riverside Hospital that stalling tactics are being consistently used to prevent abortion cases from coming before their review board, and in view of the fact that his applications on May 3 involving three young women, one of them 15 years of age, were delayed until May 19 and then cancelled, will the minister consult with the minister in charge of hospitals in Ontario to see what can be done about this dangerous and indefensible roadblock?



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin).
Whereas last May 6 the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce promised that he would come to Ottawa and discuss with his counterpart the closing down of shoe factories, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce inform this House whether such a meeting has been held and if so, whether a solution to this problem has been developed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I myself went to Quebec City to accommodate my provincial colleague and we are now both working on possible measures which could help this industry.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs at what level his department is represented in the talks today with the representatives of France regarding the phasing out of French fishing activities. Perhaps at the same time he might permit me to ask if our delegation is putting forward a position regarding the continental shelf and the jurisdiction of France over the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government is represented at a level comparable with the French delegation. The question of the continental shelf is not under discussion. This meeting relates purely to fishing.

May 20, 1971
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



WEEKLY STATEMENT

Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, on a Thursday point of order, I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council about the business for the rest of this week and for next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we shall begin today with the pilotage legislation and when that is completed we will continue the discussion on the Wheat Board Act amendments. Tomorrow will be an opposition day. On Tuesday and Wednesday next week I propose to call government legislation beginning with the government organization bill and, hopefully, the Judges Act. Thusday and Friday of next week will also be opposition days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I draw to the attention of the President of the Privy Council the extreme difficulty some of the standing committees are having in dealing with the business assigned to them, much of which has to be dealt with by the end of the month. Therefore, may I ask whether consideration will be given to adjourning the House for one or two days between now and the end of May so that the committees may complete their important work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consider any change in practice that would assist in accelerating the business before the House and before the committees. I will be glad to discuss that further with the other House leaders.


Jack Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the President of the Privy Council would take particular note of the fact that both the chairman and Vice-chairman of the Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs were not in attendance this morning which meant that the National Capital Commission witnesses had to leave and therefore a lot of time was wasted. The minister should investigate this type of situation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of the unfortunate occurrence because of the absence of the chairman and vice-chairman. I must say that the general attendance at the committee from all sides of the House was very impressive this morning.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, regarding the point of order I raised a few days ago perhaps this might be a good time to direct it to the government House leader and ask him whether he has taken up with the organization committee the question of whether or not it is legal for standing committees of the House to sit and hear witnesses without a quorum?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not the job of the House leader to rule on points of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order arising out of the answer the Minister of Agriculture gave me this afternoon. The minister stated he had no
intention of clarifying the conflicting statements which appeared in the two versions of the Barber Commission report, one of which referred to the machinery companies making handsome profits whereas the one in the final report suggested that the machinery companies were making merely moderate profits. I suggest that because this commission is a government appointed commission the minister certainly has a responsibility to clarify these misleading statements. I would ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order, I suggest with respect to the hon. member for Vegreville. It may be a good point of argument. I gather we will all be back here tomorrow and the hon. member might ask the question again then.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to use up the time of the question period. I know how precious it is.


Mr. Speaker:: 

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-246, respecting pilotage, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the objective of the bill is to provide the greatest possible degree of safety for ships which move through Canadian coastal and inland waters. In general, the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Pilotage have been followed in the presentation of the act and while there is a considerable number of differences in regard to matters of detail, 36 of the 39 major recommendations made by the Royal Commission have been accepted.
By the establishment of four regional authorities, it is expected that the decentralization of the administration of pilotage services will be effected to the greatest possible degree. This is in keeping both with the recommendations of the Royal Commission and the wishes of the pilots and shipping interests of Canada as expressed over many years.
The bill replaces Part VI of the Canada Shipping Act which relates to pilotage in general and Part VIA which pertains specifically to pilotage in the Great Lakes. This bill is required because the accepted legislation, being of ancient origin, no longer corresponds to modem requirements. The Royal Commission found our present system
(Mr. Sharp.]
May 20, 1971

to be essentially sound but suggested new legislation to give it proper legal authority. In decentralizing the powers and functions of pilotage in Canada, essentially as recommended by the commission, the ministry will no longer be burdened with unnecessary involvement in matters relating to the day to day administrative operations of pilotage nor in the establishment of tariffs which, to an increasing degree, has resulted in increasing government subsidies.
The new bill envisages pilotage services operated to a large degree by regional authority rather than referring to a central authority. The regional authorities will operate with a great deal of autonomy in both regulatory and financial matters. It is anticipated that they will become financially self-sufficient and that subsidization will be reduced to a minimum, partly as a result of our over-all policy that the cost of government services should be met by the users. In place of the present 29 pilotage districts, there will be four pilotage regions.
The Atlantic Pilotage Authority will include all Canadian waters about the Atlantic provinces, plus the Bay of Chaleur between New Brunswick and Quebec.
The Laurentian Authority will include the St. Lawrence waterway from the northern entrance of the St. Lambert lock by Montreal to the waters of the gulf north of Cap d'Espoir in Quebec.
The Great Lakes will run from the northern entrance of the St. Lambert lock to all Canadian waters in and around Ontario and Manitoba, including Hudson Bay.
The Pacific Authority will cover the waters of British Columbia.
The four authorities will each have a chairman and a maximum of six members, appointed by the cabinet. The Chairman of an authority will be the chief executive officer and will be employed full time. In the larger regions, a full time vice chairman may be appointed. Their salaries will be set by order in council, as will be per diem rates for other members.
The pilotage authorities will have the objects of establishing, operating, maintaining and administering an efficient and economic pilotage service. They will be proprietary corporations under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act and will not be agents of Her Majesty.
The pilotage authorities will have powers to own land, buildings, boats and equipment, to borrow money and to make investments. They will be subject to audit by the Auditor General and will report annually to the minister. They may make by-laws for their internal management and shall file copies with the minister. Assets and liabilities of existing pilotage authorities will vest in the new authorities.
Pilotage authorities will establish compulsory pilotage areas and determine which ships are subject to the compulsory pilotage. In the compulsory pilotage areas, the person having the conduct of the ship must be either a licensed pilot or an officer of the ship holding a pilotage certificate.
Pilotage Act
All of the existing pilots' licences will continue in force and pilotage authorities will issue new licences to persons who qualify under the regulations. There will be periodic examinations of pilots in order to maintain their licences in force.
Pilotage authorities will either employ pilots on salary or, if the majority of pilots in a particular area so elect, may contract with a corporation of which the pilots are members for the services of pilots, and no person may exercise the privileges of a licence except under such conditions. A pilot's licence will not be valid unless he is an employee of the authority or a member or shareholder of such a pilot corporation. Pilots who become employees will be entitled to superannuation under the Public Service Superannuation Act and may count as prior service under that act the time they spent as licenced pilots under the Canada Shipping Act.
A pilot's licence may be suspended or cancelled when a pilot ceases to meet the qualifications set by regulation or when he violates certain disciplinary provisions. If the suspension exceeds 15 days, the pilot is entitled to a hearing, as he also is if an authority refuses to issue a licence. The hearing will be by the authority and may be held in public, and there is provision for an appeal to the minister. Appeals may also be made to the federal court if the appellant so desires.
Pilotage authorities will be empowered to make the regulations necessary to carry out their functions. Besides establishing compulsory pilotage they may prescribe classes of licences and pilotage certificates, the examination procedures for applicants for such licences and certificates, and limit the number of licences. These regulations are subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and in the case of those establishing compulsory pilotage areas and prescribing qualifications for the holders of licences and pilotage certificates, prior notice must be published in the Canada Gazette. If any objection is made, the minister may direct that a hearing be held and may require the pilotage authority to vary the regulation before it is approved by order in council.
While pilotage authorities establish the qualifications respecting local knowledge, the Governor in Council will establish minimum qualifications respecting navigational certificates, sea time, age and health of applicants, and the examination respecting these matters. These regulations may also prescribe the forms of licences and certificates, the rules of procedure for hearings before a pilotage authority, and the establishment of compulsory pilotage areas where regional authorities fail to do so.
The charges for pilotage services will be established by regulations of the regional authorities with the approval of the Governor in Council. Every proposed tariff will be published in the Canada Gazette and any interested party may raise an objection with the Canadian Transport Commission. The commission will hold such investigations, including hearings, as it deems advisable, and pilotage authorities will be governed by its recommendations.

May 20. 1971
Pilotage Act
Because of the nature of pilotage in Canadian waters contiguous to waters of the United States, there will be a need for continuing consultation with the United States authorities in regard to the use of Canadian pilots in American waters and vice-versa. The bill provides for the promulgation of necessary regulations to continue the present Great Lakes pilotage arrangements and to make similar arrangements in other areas if necessary.
That, very briefly, is a summary of the objectives and the intent of the legislation now before the House. I may say that it is the result of exhaustive and lengthy consultation with various groups, including the pilots representing themselves, the shipping community and others who might conceivably be affected by this legislation.
I am aware that while, as I mentioned, there has been general agreement in principle with most of the provisions of this bill, certain reservations have been filed by interested parties, and I suggest that these can be discussed in detail when the bill is considered in committee. Certainly, I am disposed to hearing recommendations and to seeing what can be done to accommodate those who in the present circumstances feel that the bill should be strengthened or changed in certain respects.
At this point I might make reference to one matter in particular which I do know has concerned at least a small number of pilots and possibly a large group from whom I have not heard, and that is the possibility that in some instances their employment might be terminated prior to their having reached an age at which they could obtain full pension benefits. There is an ability within the legislation for such cases to be dealt with, and I certainly undertake here in the House to look at this particular provision and to ensure that there is no arbitrary abandonment of a man's work if the results or effects to him are very bad from a pension point of view.
Other representations have been passed along to me with regard to Bill C-246. Some of them are a reflection of the views of some of the more experienced pilots in the country, and to the extent that it is possible to implement these or to change the legislation in order to meet their suggestions, many of which I am sure are logical, we will be glad to consider them in committee.
I feel that what we have to do here is to bring the pilotage arrangements within Canada in line with modern conditions. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks, some of them are quite outdated. Indeed, one might even describe them as antiquated in terms of present circumstances. This is an effort on our part to meet the various representations that have been made over the years and also to comply with the proposals as set down in the royal commission report which was a very exhaustive, one might even say exhausting, exercise which has lasted for many years.
So with this I simply want to add that I will be appearing with the officials before the committee and at that time will deal with the specific matters that have been raised. Hopefully, we will arrive at a bill wh;ch can be reported back unanimously to the House in adequate time for it to take the place of the present more or less
ad hoc arrangements which expire, I believe, at the end of June.
May I at this point express my apologies to the opposition speakers who will be commenting on this matter and ask their indulgence for not being in my place during that period. The fact is that a delegation from Calgary came down here before I knew that the legislation was going to be discussed in the House at this particular time, and I will be with them for a few moments but will try to get back in time to hear the conclusion of this debate.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, we accept the minister's regrets. At least he is one minister who apologizes for not being here. I hope it is a good sign for the future.
In the latter part of the minister's remarks he made reference to guarantees to pilots. This gives me a chance at the beginning of my remarks to join him in mentioning this very important aspect of our marine activity, that is the pilots who serve as our navigators in and out of our harbours. This is a very noble profession, and in peace and wartime these pilots have made a great contribution to our country.
The legislation is based, as the minister said, on the Pilotage Commission report. The Pilotage Commission was established in 1962, and its report, as I said, forms the main basis for this legislation.
I just want to mention a member of the original commission Mr. R. K. Smith, who performed great service to this country in marine activities and in the Pilotage Commission. Mr. Smith had a very unique career. He was three times elected as a Member of Parliament and then, by some happening that I doubt could ever occur today, became a deputy minister of marine and fisheries, then Chairman of the National Harbours Board. Later, he was appointed to the Pilotage Commission. As I say, his was a unique career and he made a tremendous contribution to the country. He is a wonderful person, and his imprint is evident in a lot of the recommendations of the Pilotage report.
Again as the minister has said, this bill is designed to replace a part of the Canada Shipping Act, I think from section 323 on, dealing with pilotage. That part is all out-dated, and this bill is to meet new requirements. The old legisation was drafted to deal with conditions obtaining over a century ago. In the case of Saint John, in which I have some interest, I found that the people there had some pilotage requirements immediately after the Loyalists landed in 1783. This piece of legislation is one of those which Parliament amended from time to time and, as a result became very complicated. In fact, that applies to the whole of the Shipping Act. This is a point we should keep in mind during discussions in committee. Certainly, this is one bill that should not receive too much discussion now but should go to committee for detailed hearings.
The former pilotage authorities or local commissions were gradually usurped by the Department of Transport.

May 20, 1971

I notice a former minister of transport sitting in front of me, and he knows the difficulties with respect to regulations and routine work that the department had with the local pilotage commissions. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Pilotage were quite clear in this respect. The Commission felt that the responsibility for pilotage should be withdrawn from the Department of Transport and placed under separate local authorities. A quick glance at the bill convinces me that this is only partially being done. There are various shades and degrees of bureaucracy, and its tentacles on power are still showing here. In any event, that was one of the recommendations and I want to go on record as saying that the removal of responsibility for pilotage from the department, so far as it is possible and practicable, is desirable. Of course, I agree that the Department of Transport, with its new re-organization, has to be a factor in anything we do.
The new legislation should be simple and clear. In it we should set out our intentions as clearly as possible, so that the public servants who may be involved with its administration will have a guide that will give them enough leeway to do what is desirable with respect to the day-to-day requirements and problems of the different regions that make up our pilotage service. We will have to state our intentions as definitely as we can in the legislation, but there will be many regulations involved. The problem will be to determine just how much control can be put in the legislation and how much should remain in the regulations. The Royal Commission on Pilotage said that the legislation should include precise, statutory definitions, and that principles and values should be enunciated. The new act should deal objectively also with the new organizational structure.
I return to the point which is the theme of my caution with respect to the legislation. I am not sure whether this is a direct quote, but Parliament should retain exclusive legislative control over those sections of the act which are of general application, and the pilotage authorities should deal with the rest of the regulations, particularly those of a local nature. The question is whether the bill fully meets this intention of the Pilotage Commission.
Clause 3 deals with the fitting of the legislation into the re-organization plan of the department, and implies the desirability of removing pilotage from the Department of Transport as far as possible. The four new pilotage commissions or authorities have been mentioned by the minister-the Atlantic, the Laurentian, the Great Lakes and the Pacific Pilotage Authority. There is some question as to where Churchill will fit, but that can be asked in committee. The commission recommended the creation of a greater number of authorities. This is a matter we should deal with. I am not saying that I object to a smaller number of authorities being created, but this will mean a need for more appointments to these authorities from the different areas, so that they will have on-the-spot knowledge of the navigational problems of the various areas.
The minister dealt with the question of the appointment of the chairmen of the various authorities and, in
Pilotage Act
accordance with that well known phrase, the Governor in Council will decide on the boundaries. This is something we may have to consider in committee.
Clause 4 deals with the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority which in some way is to be included in the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. We will want to know the reason for this. There may be administrative reasons, but I can see some difficulties since we know that the Seaway Authority has been losing money, and we would not want the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority to start out on a very pessimistic note.
Clause 6 deals with the question of appointments to the authorities. It does not state the conditions to be met by an appointee. Let us hope they will not be the usual political hacks, but people with a knowledge and experience of local navigation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: In clause 12 the language used in setting out the objectives of the authorities is not very colourful marine language. I would think we could improve on it. It talks high mindedly about the "safety of navigation," which is exactly what we have as an objective, but it appears to me that a landlubber wrote that phrase, or somebody in the department with a more technical problem in mind.
Later clauses deal with the matter of compulsory pilotage, the problem of the different types of licences, and the necessity to have pilots aboard ship. We should distinguish between pilotage licences and pilotage certificates. Anybody who has kicked around the waterfront knows that entirely different privileges are involved. I am not sure of the number of the clause which deals with regulations regarding United States pilots working in the seaway, but this and the clauses which deal with the matter of investigation are very important. We all know of the inquiry on the west coast into the case of a pilot who was under the weather during his working hours and although there are not many such examples, this is an extremely important matter.
Conditions governing licensing and suspension must be clearly stated in the act. Only Canadian cit.zens or landed immigrants are entitled to be licensed. If we are to encourage Canadians to go to sea and take up this aspect of marine activity, it is important that it be stated in the act as a definite requirement. Suspension of a licence is left in the hands of the chairman of one of the four authorities. My quick perusal discloses that the question of suspension and cancellation of licences by the pilotage commission is a very complicated one, and I think it should be dealt with extensively in committee.
Now, we come to the very important section dealing with the different tariffs for pilotage. The CTC is involved in this in some way which will be unfolded in committee. This is good or bad, depending on how you view the success of the Canadian Transport Commission, but at least there will be full publication and a formaliz-
5994

May 20, 1971
Pilotage Act
ing of the tariff. The next section of the bill subjects the entire financial aspect to the scrutiny of the Auditor General. Of course, this is desirable but since public funds are not actually involved there will be no control by Parliament. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee will not approve this I am sure, and indeed I think most of us would have hoped for something more in the way of parliamentary control than the annual tabling of the report. This is another aspect which can be unfolded in committee.
1 do not expect the minister to reply in detail now, but if I am on the wrong track entirely I am sure he will straighten me out. I would close by saying that this is a very technical bill and it is extremely difficult for laymen to understand this type of legislation. It will have to be gone into very extensively and I hope we will have an opportunity to hear the views of the pilots and the shipping community. I am not sure that we should start a series of hearings to rival the pilotage commission itself. The hearings of that body were very extensive and should be our guide.
That is all I wish to say now, Mr. Speaker. I think this bill should be sent to committee for full review as soon as possible. This legislation has been a long time in coming but it is very necessary. If we bring back a good bill from committee it will help navigation in and out of our ports and Canada will become a greater shipping nation. Perhaps we will encourage our young people to follow this worth-while phase of seafaring life more than we have in the past.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the immense spectrum, the highly technical and complex activities that come under the umbrella of what is now described as the ministry of transportation is rather difficult for laymen to understand. I have always described it as one of the silent services which provides much of what makes it possible for Canadian citizens and their commerce to move with some degree of safety and regularity. Although I represent a coastal constituency and thus should perhaps know a little more of the current needs of the department than some other people, I confess my knowledge is rather fragmentary and rudimentary. So, it is with some diffidence that I rise to comment on this bill.
In his introductory statement, the minister largely confined himself to a description of the framework of the bill. He did not do much about putting it into perspective with the total picture that is emerging, I feel, about the changing requirements of the transportation of cargo by sea. Certainly, the operation of the pilotage services in the various parts of our country has an important relationship to the way in which that traffic moves. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that considering the leisurely pace of the Royal Commission on Pilotage it is rather startling to find this bill before us when we are being told that the final part of the pilotage report will not be available for some time.
If the introduction of the bill at this time means anything, I hope it means that there is recognition of a need
to act more quickly on some of these matters than has been the case in the past. As we consider this bill in committee, we may find that it is a companion to Bill C-2 which we discussed recently. The latter bill was designed to cope with the changing pattern of traffic and in particular with the use of high-powered vessels carrying larger cargoes which are in some cases, increasingly dangerous. There may be some interrelationship between the amendments which were made in that new part of the shipping act with respect to the bulk carriage of oil and other contaminant cargoes and the fact that the government has decided to introduce the legislation now being considered.
One thing I should like to say, in agreeing immediately that this bill should be read a second time and be referred to the committee, is that I hope there will not be any disposition on the part of those on the government side who may be responsible for the arrangements with respect to the committee to rush the bill through the committee. From my observations it seems that the bill, in some respects, has caught the pilots themselves off guard. Although they have been aware of the recommendations made by the royal commission, it is my impression that the abrupt manner in which the government has put forward these proposals on a matter that very closely affects their future as components of the marine work force of Canada has been a bit of a shock to them. The provisions of the bill will affect them directly as individuals and as groups of individuals.
I think most hon. members will agree that some of the basic rights of the people who have been within the pilotage services of the various regions of the country ought to be upheld, that their interests should be respected and that their careers should not in any way be unnecessarily interrupted or adversely affected by the proposed terms of this new bill. Having said that, I find myself inclined to agree with the recognition in the bill of the need to establish regional authorities which, in many respects, will be self-regulating and self-operating. The need for these stems from the fact that traffic on the Pacific coast-by that I mean the way it moves and operates and the components of it, whether made up of deep sea traffic or coastal trade-is very different from the kind of traffic that operates in the Great Lakes regions or on the Atlantic coast. So, the idea of establishing regional authorities seems a fairly sound approach. I gather that it arises in large measure from some of the recommendations of the royal commission.
I am not sure whether I understood correctly the observations of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell); from my understanding of the bill, recognition has been given for the necessity of some kind of co-ordination between the ways these various pilotage authorities will operate. This co-ordination necessarily must be exercised as a result of appropriate action here, in Ottawa, under the authority of the governor in council. It appears to me at first blush-and this matter ought to be examined and discussed in committee-that the bill as

May 20, 1971

drafted preserves a fair balance between the idea of local and regional autonomy and the necessity of the exercise of essential co-ordination in order that we do not go off in all directions at once with respect to the uses and functions of pilots.
In several committees of this House recently, Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of discussion about what is required in order to secure adequate safety of navigation along our coasts, in waters leading to our ports, on the seaway and on the inland waters of Canada. One matter very much to the fore when committee consideration was being given to the unfortunate Arrow accident in Chedabucto Bay was the question of whether some of our basic ideas and basic legislative authorities in the field of navigation are adequate in this day and age. As most hon. members probably will know as a result of reading the press or of having read the proceedings before that committee, Dr. Patrick McTaggart-Cowan, who headed that task force, emphasized that ships on the seas approaching our coasts ought to be controlled in much the same way as aircraft are controlled at our airports or in our air corridors. He suggested that there ought to be parallel types of control procedures. Some people have questioned that concept and wondered whether such control procedures would necessarily be parallel. May I point out to the House that other witnesses quite independently, witnesses who were unaware of the position taken by Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, have said that this type of control is a necessary consequence of developments that are taking place.
This point of view was expressed the other day in the committee considering the dangers inherent in the proposed establishment of an oil tanker route from Alaska to Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and then farther south. A suggestion has arisen that these vessels will be under direct traffic control through the use of radar and other electronic means, throughout their entire trip, or, at least, during certain parts of their journey. Certainly, there will be close control of navigation in the Straits of Juan de Fuca and up through Hecate Strait or Rosario channel and in the lower part of the Strait of Georgia. I say at once that this suggestion, to me, makes sense.
It is being pointed out in these discussions, however, that that concept challenges some very ancient maritime traditions under which the master of a vessel is a king of his own little domaine. One can recognize that in days of old when sailing vessels were out of communication with their home ports for extended periods, it was necessary for the master of the vessel to have this ancient authority. Under that concept, as I understand it, the pilot on a vessel serves, basically, in an advisory capacity to the master and the decisions remain in the master's hands. However, if the traffic control for vessels is to be somewhat similar to the kind of control exercised by an air controller operating from the control tower of an airport, it seems to me that we shall need to clarify not only the role of a master of the vessel and the question of who has ultimate power and authority, but also, in this context, the question of the role and authority of a pilot.
Pilotage Act
The bill makes provision for compulsory pilotage areas to be drawn by the different pilotage authorities. I agree with this. In fact, the concept of allowing masters of ships and those managing them to pay pilotage fees in lieu of taking on a pilot, thereby leaving inexperienced masters, inexperienced at least in local areas, in complete control of their vessel without benefit of advice, is archaic. In any realistic appraisal, certainly in view of the kind of discussion we have been having about the proposed tanker route on the west coast, there may be no option of that kind allowed.
If we think of the total pattern of marine traffic in a waterway such as the Strait of Juan de Fuca, we have to recognize that this kind of control, with its resultant elimination of the former authority of the master, may have to be applied to the master in charge of a large supertanker and also to masters in charge of other forms of traffic in difficult waters, be they towboats in the coastal area or freighters that carry dry cargo. I am sure hon. members agree that no matter how perfectly a supertanker is operated, if a freighter, inadequately manned in so far as expert navigational personnel are concerned, rams into it, the damage may be just as great as if the tanker were at fault.
I raise some of these questions because, in considering this bill, we should consider it in the total perspective with regard to the necessary requirements for the safe, normal and regular passage of marine traffic to and from our shores. I wish to emphasize that arrangements should be made so that this bill can receive adequate study by the committee. There should be a bit of a time lag in order to enable the pilots to properly assess the full implications of it as far as they are concerned. Steps should be taken to alert all who may be interested in the shipping field and, indeed, those who are concerned with the impact of a bill such as this on the marine ecology in the areas adjacent to our shores. I am glad the minister indicated there is some flexibility in his mind with regard to the details. When this bill is passed, it should be in a form which will make it a large part of a developing pattern to not only ensure free transport of our commerce, but also full protection of the ecology of our coastal areas.
In the past few days I have discovered that certain people who are very much concerned about what this House does really have not been made aware of some of the legislation we have passed. I do not know whether this is our fault. It may, in part, be theirs. Yesterday, someone whom I would have expected to be fully acquainted with the implications of the Shipping Act, which we dealt with earlier this session, had to admit he had not yet seen a copy of it. When I stated in a committee that this pilotage bill had been given first reading in the House, there was immediate interest. As a result, one of our messengers took steps to procure copies of this bill for distribution. The bill was eagerly seized upon by witnesses before that committee because they recognized it was something in which they were directly concerned.
24107-29J

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
In one case this was navigation matters and ship design, and in another case it was a scientific concern in oceanography and the necessary steps that should be taken to protect the ecology. Having said that, I am happy to see the bill receive second reading and be referred to the committee.


John Howard Lundrigan: Toward the end of his remarks, the minister referred to some aspects of the bill which are causing concern to pilots who feel their pension rights will be jeopardized by lack of protection when this bill becomes law. He stated that he will ensure that these matters will be thoroughly dealt with when the bill is before the committee. He also said he will guarantee that these pilots will receive protection under this legislation. With that kind of understanding, I will refrain from making any detailed remarks at this time.
I look forward to the response of the minister and his officials during the committee stage. The minister has received official representations from pilots who feel their pensions will be jeopardized. I want to express my appreciation on their behalf of any move by the department which will assure them of their pension rights under this legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-238, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-238 is grouped with a number of grain bills which the government has brought before the House. Two of them are now receiving study by the Standing Committee on Agriculture. When one considers the plight of western grain farmers, it is interesting to note that a spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board stated quite clearly this morning that there are 46,675 farmers in default on their cash advance borrowings from the wheat board. This gives one some idea of the plight of western farmers. To my mind this is a shocking figure. Farmers and people generally have the right to ask why.
It was also pointed out that the Wheat Board had carried out a deliberate policy of refraining from filling space available in commercial storage. There are some 170 million bushels less in storage this spring than was the case a year ago. I see the minister scurrying to look up figures. The figure I just gave was for the end of March-the amount varies from week to week. It can be said that farmers have delivered more wheat than they did last year. They delivered more this year because grain sales have been better than they were last year, but it remains true that the Wheat Board has carried out a program of refraining from filling elevators. What does this mean in terms of cash returns to farmers? It means we are not allowing farmers to sell as much grain as they otherwise might.
Now the minister is asking us to approve an amended Wheat Board act giving the Board jurisdiction over flax, rye, rapeseed and other things. The Wheat Board Act has been on the statute books now for 35 or 36 years. In essence, it has been a sacred cow. Western Members of Parliament and people generally have been afraid to criticize it because their remarks are immediately misinterpreted as meaning they are against the Wheat Board. I am for the Wheat Board. I think the Board has served a very useful purpose in western Canada. Nevertheless, I feel changes should be made. The act ought not to be a sacred cow; we should examine it. The direction of change should, in my opinion, be toward greater flexibility rather than greater rigidity. The act now before us places the farmer in an inflexible situation. The whole quota system has been altered in such a way as to make the farmers' position more rigid. It might be argued that since the government is handling grain sales through the Wheat Board it is in the best position to decide what farmers should deliver. Has the government allowed the Wheat Board to take all the grain for which it could find commercial storage? Is has not. These elevators could be filled. Instead, they are not being filled. This means less money for the farmer, less money for the machinery companies, for the grocery stores and for circulation in the economy generally.
Why has the government decided on this policy? I come back to the straightforward answer I suggested earlier. The government is deliberately trying to get rid of a lot of the small farmers. Some might say I am making no more than what amounts to a political statement-that nobody really believes it. Actually, though, this is Liberal policy as enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Winnipeg on June 2. He said on that occasion that a policy for small farms was necessary. Farmers would be kept on their land, but when they sold it, or moved, or retired, the land would have to go to a large scale farmer or else go back, to use the Prime Minister's phrase, into public hands. In other words, the government would own it. This is wrong. In my opinion, there will always be small farms. The government has the idea that once the operators of small farms have been got rid of the large scale farmers will be able to look after themselves, and no one in Ottawa will have to worry about them. This is a misleading line of thinking

May 20, 1971

because the large scale farmer of today becomes the operator of a small farm tomorrow, if we carry out a policy of this kind. Indeed, carrying this theory to the extreme, we could end up having only one farm. The Prime Minister likes to explain himself in that manner, by carrying things to extremes.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board comes from western Canada, from the Province of Saskatchewan. He should know what wheat has meant to the economy of that province. He should know how short of money the farmers are in that province. But either he does not care about the people there, or he has no authority. I like to think it is the latter, because I believe the minister must care. He would not have run for election to Parliament if he had not cared a little for his constituency. On coming here, though, he realized that the policies had already been laid down by the bureaucracy in Ottawa. His job was only to carry them out, to administer them and to pilot the necessary bills through the House.
When the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was in charge of the Wheat Board he used to say he had nothing to do with the affairs of the Board. The Wheat Board sold wheat. Today, quite evidently, the Board does not run its own affairs. A representative of the Board, an able gentleman, was asked a number of questions in the committee this morning to which he replied: "I cannot supply the answers." He could not supply the answers because he knew the Wheat Board is now being directed from Ottawa. This is wrong. There should be an amendment to the Wheat Board Act giving the farmers the right to elect a member to the Wheat Board. The Board is composed of five members. I would think that two, or better still three of them, should be elected, one from each of the Prairie provinces, so that the farmers would have a representative on the Board who would be responsible to them. This is one provision that should be in the act and is not. For too long the Wheat Board has been accused of not making sales, of being reluctant to make sales or of adjusting the price of grain, and this has caused anxiety and concern. If the farmers had a voice on the Canadian Wheat Board, the Wheat Board would then be directly in touch with the farmers whose grain they are selling, and any anxiety in the country would immediately be reflected in the decisions of the Board.
This bill is asking for permission to put rapeseed, flaxseed and rye under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. In a press release recently-the minister is the greatest fellow for press releases-he said he had no intention of putting these crops under the full control of the Canadian Wheat Board, that he would consult the producers first. This reminds me of the famous Bill C-176. The minister had no intention of taking the cattlemen into the bill, so he told the cattlemen. He said he would eliminate them from the bill, but he has not done so yet. The minister has stated that he has no intention of ever creating a cattle marketing agency.
Do you really think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister would consult the producers of rapeseed before plac-
Canadian Wheat Board Act
ing rapeseed under the rigid control of the Canadian Wheat Board? Would he do that in view of the fact that he brought in this bill without even consulting them? The Western Producer carried an article recently in which it said that when the minister attended a meeting on the Prairies he was amazed to learn that the rapeseed growers did not come within the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. I see the minister is smiling at that, and I know he does not want me to read the article because it is slightly embarrassing. It goes on to say that the minister from Saskatoon put his head on the chopping block, and certainly I would not want to put his head on the chopping block.


Otto Emil Lang: You have had it there so often. My head, I mean.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry if I have left that impression because that is far from my mind. What I am asking is whether, as producers, we can believe that this government will consult us in view of the fact that it made no attempt to have prior consultation with the producers before introducing this bill to Parliament. The minister issues a press release in which he says these producers will never come under Canadian Wheat Board control or be included in the bill. This leads me to ask why they were put in the bill in the first place. This business of bringing in a piece of legislation, including provisions offering the producers, and then turning round and trying to reassure the producers that they will be unaffected by the bill just not good enough. Alarm has been expressed by our customers throughout the world at this measure. They want to retain their present flexible arrangement whereby they are able to buy rapeseed, in particular, without going through the Canadian Wheat Board. Rapeseed, flaxseed and rye are considered to be what are commonly known as cash crops; producers can grow these crops and sell them.
I should like to ask the minister whether it is his intention to pool the price of these grains when he does give control of them to the Canadian Wheat Board. He will probably consider the situation for some time, and if he does put them under the control of the Wheat Board perhaps he will pool the prices. I should like to know whether this is his intention, or whether he is doing this in order to make his grain stabilization program work and to enable him to keep accurate accounts of the cash received by the farmers.
I think it is a combination of both these two factors, but what is going to be the net result? Already alarm has been caused our customers. The farmers foresee it being slightly more difficult in the future to market their grains. For years we have had a surplus of wheat, and I think we should continue to have a surplus of wheat. I say this because we are entering a period of what I refer to as surge buying on the part of various countries. China and Russia have had crop failures I think three years out of the last ten and bought huge amounts of grain from Canada; we were fortunate to have that grain available. Under the program the minister is now carrying out, the amount of grain in commercial storage will be reduced.

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
In that case, unless he is very careful, he will be unable to assure Russia, China, or Japan, which is buying in volume, that we will be able to make such deliveries.
This is the difficulty foreseen by the farmers in marketing their crops. I think we need a clear cut statement from the minister assuring us he is going to make every attempt, before the end of this crop year, to fill up all available commercial storage. If he puts forward the argument that by following this course difficulties will be created in the throughput of the grain handling system, that argument will not stand up. We have had our commercial storage facilities filled before. In various crop years in the past we have delivered huge amounts of grain to Russia and China during periods of near capacity grain storage in our commercial facilities, and there has been no difficulty with the throughput.
I submit that the first purpose of this legislation is to eliminate the operator of the small farm. The government thinks that the large scale farmer will then be able to look after himself and there will be less load on the government. The second purpose is to reduce government spending on agriculture. The government must have commercial storage either empty or practically empty so that it does not become involved in any major expenditure. Thirdly, the government wants to create a situation where it knows exactly what is being produced by any and all of the farmers. The government wants more control.
In a speech I made earlier in this House, on the subject of agriculture I said that what the government wanted was power, that the government wants to control every facet of our society, that the government is power hungry. It is not just content with being in office; the government wants power to control every facet of our society. That is what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) wanted when he introduced his marketing bill, though I do not think he wants it any more. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is searching for power. He is trying to build up an empire for himself so as to control and to manipulate agricultural products. Instead of letting the Wheat Board run its own business, directions will be given from Ottawa. Instead of bringing in a bill to allow the farmer to have some representation on the Wheat Board, there is to be more rigidity in the system.
If one carefully studied the agricultural situation during the past number of years, one would realize that the most successful farmer has been the farmer who has been most flexible, who has been able to shift his energy from one phase of the industry to another and therefore meet the market as it develops. The rigidity this government is bringing to the agricultural scene is wrong. It will prohibit the flexibility required in an individual farmer's operation. In my opinion, the whole concept goes back to the question of supply management. This government is firmly committed to supply management. The Operation Lift which the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board brought in last year was a direct
attempt at supply management. Now, the minister throws out his chest and says that it was pretty successful because the amount of wheat was reduced. Yes, he reduced the amount of wheat because he introduced a program whereby if a farmer did seed wheat he could not deliver it. That was the way the quota system worked.
Canada is a small country in population but a country which is large in resources and ability. For a long time the farmers have listened to the government experts, the bureaucrats, say that greater efficiency is required in the agricultural industry. The farmers need more effectiveness from the government rather than greater efficiency. Now, the minister states that supply management will give this. Canada is a country which has the ability to produce something in the neighbourhood of less than 10 per cent of the world's wheat production and yet it has nearly 50 per cent of the world's surplus. We need sales. If we say we cannot sell it then, in effect, we are saying that all the people in the world go to bed with no more desire to have a greater supply of food. We all know this is wrong. We know there are many people throughout the world who require more food. To me, the concept of supply management is an example of negative thinking. We are opting out of competition throughout the world. We should be doing the direct opposite.
The Canadian Wheat Board should be adopting a system of selling agencies or if the Canadian Wheat Board does not wish to do this the government should do so. I asked the former chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board about this and he said he felt the board should be involved in a pricing, pooling and orderly marketing system. However, he would prefer not to have selling agencies under the board because the board must be impartial and must treat all the various selling agencies alike. If that is the opinion of the board, then the Canadian government should be giving financial assistance to the newly established selling agencies which the pools and the UGG have formed and which it is hoped will play an active part in the selling world. This government has not mentioned anything about this. There are many things which could be done which would be far more effective in helping the farmer than the three pieces of legislation the minister has brought in. Each piece of legislation creates more and more difficulty for the farmer in his attempt to remain in business.
The Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the major tools in assisting the farmer in respect of marketing his grain in the past number of years. However, the system should be changed. It should be made more flexible. The Canadian Wheat Board should be made more of a market-oriented board for Canada rather than a board which just controls the amount of grain produced by the farmers. Another thing I should like to mention is that in respect of the pricing system of the Canadian Wheat Board there should also be some changes. Last fall, because of the inflexibility of the Canadian Wheat Board we saw a situation in which Canadian barley sold at least 20 cents a bushel less than it should have for over a period of nearly two months. Because of the corn blight

May 20, 1971

in the United States, the demand for feed grain in Europe and Japan increased. We made sales because we were removed from the pressure of the demand in the barley market. If barley, however, were under the Canadian Wheat Board the pricing system would be too rigid. The rapeseed growers are worried about the possibility of a similar situation developing in respect of rapeseed.
Rapeseed is in severe competition with other oil seeds. With the selling system we have today there is a demand for the product. We know the supply and we know the demand. The Canadian Wheat Board is aware of the supply situation. It knows how many million bushels are in the elevators across Canada, at the Lakehead, at Vancouver and at Churchill, but the board must be more sensitive to the demand. It knows the supply situation but sales cannot be made unless we have the two factors at work, supply and demand. The rapeseed producers fear, if rapeseed is placed under the Canadian Wheat Board, that because of the inflexibility of the board's structure there might be a tendency to hide the demand for their commodity. This commodity is in severe competition with other oil seeds. Surely every farmer in Western Canada knows this. Surely a person who comes from Saskatchewan University should know this because Saskatchewan University has done a great deal of work in developing various uses for rapeseed. They should be well aware that demand must be registered. Because of the structure of the Canadian Wheat Board there might be a slight tendency to hide the demand. Therefore there is a great reluctance on the part of the growers to have rapeseed come under the Canadian Wheat Board, with all the rigidity which is built into the system. I think perhaps this bill, along with the other two which are before the committee, will receive exhaustive study.
Before I conclude, may I say that this morning in the Agricultural Committee the spokesmen for the Canadian Wheat Board were very poorly prepared. When they were asked questions they did not have the ansnwers. They said that they really did not think the question were within the terms of reference of this bill and so on. It would seem to me

and I come back to where I started-when you have 46,675 farmers in default on payments in respect of cash advance loans, then the committee study should encompass the whole spectrum of farming. I have never seen the representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board appear before an Agriculture Committee as poorly prepared as they were this morning. I know these are capable men. Why then did we have this situation? It must have been because of pressure from the top to release only what had to be released and no more. That is what I believe. I believe there is this pressure because the government does not want to become involved in a big debate.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is intimating there is some direction to the officials not to release information. I should like to make it perfectly clear that there was no such direction and that all the information which was availa-
Canadian Wheat Board Act
ble and relevant was certainly made available to members.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The wrong interpretation as usual, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Minister of Agriculture suggests a wrong interpretation as usual. I was at the committee and was questioning the witnesses. How can the minister say all the information available was given and there was no direction from the top when he was not there? He does not know what information was requested. He does not know what information was not available. At one time the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board went before the Agriculture Committee and was given a thorough study section by section. This procedure has not been followed for the last two or three years. I wonder why. The Canadian Wheat Board hired a very able and capable writer. He can write and he can carry on a great public relations job for them. Surely, he should be able to write enough about what the Board is doing for the Canadian farmer. The minister can say that there was no direction from the top, but I am only trying to analyse why more information was not made available. As we get into the study of this bill and of the Grain Stabilization Act, all the facts must be laid on the table and must be made available. I was disappointed.
I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture for 13 years, and I was very disappointed. Officials of the Wheat Board have always been very able witnesses before that committee. They have always known their facts, and they always gave out their information clearly and freely. This morning nearly all the same men were there. I understand that the chairman is in the hospital, but I am not certain about that. However, his assistants were there. They have always been before the committee, but for some reason or other much of the information was not available. The minister said that enough pertinent information was available. That is his opinion, but surely before we pass the three bills all the information that is required regarding the operation of the Wheat Board and the sales that they are supposed to have made as well as those they have made should be made known.
In addition, the action the Canadian Wheat Board took to reduce the amount of grain in storage must be explained. I think the truth will come out that this was a direction from the top, a direction which resulted in empty elevators throughout western Canada and which forced farmers to store more grain on their farms, in this way depriving them of much ready cash. It seems to me that this Action will only force farmers off the land, and that is exactly what the government is doing.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkion-Melville):: I want to spend a few minutes making some remarks on Bill C-238. I will be brief as the House has had before it in the last few days several different farm bills and all of us have had

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
an opportunity to express our thoughts. These bills will be before the House again.
The bill before us deals essentially with a whole series of matters. First of all, there is a series of housekeeping provisions on which I do not intend to comment. For example, the bill provides for the extension of the crop year. I think most of my constituents are pretty well unanimous on this provision. The bill also makes some alterations in terminology. It refers to Thunder Bay rather than to Port Arthur and Fort William. When I say housekeeping provisions I do not mean it in the negative sense, but a large part of the bill deals with housekeeping matters.
The main point about which I and many other members of the House are concerned relates to the provision which permits marketing of flax, rye and rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board. What we have essentially is enabling legislation. If the minister or the cabinet see fit to include these commodities under the Wheat Board at some time, they will do so. I should like to ask the minister when he rises to speak again why he does not move now to include these commodities under the Wheat Board. Why is he again at this time in the position of going half way and not all the way? Why is he just half pregnant? This is often all too typical of this government. They go a little way down the path but not all the way. This is another small example of their over-cautiousness and of the timidity of the minister.
My position on the matter is quite clear. I am in favour of the immediate inclusion of flax, rye and rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board. I know other members of my party suggested this on Monday when they spoke in the House. I am in favour of the orderly marketing of all grains by the Canadian Wheat Board, an agency that is responsible to the public and to the producers. This is what we must have if there is to be any type of income stability for the farmer. In this way, farm commodities will not be the subject of speculation on the market, as is the case at present. This is why I should like to see the minister move as rapidly as possible to include these three commodities under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Why do I say this? First of all, to be very brief, the major farm organizations and farmers unions, the wheat pools in the three provinces, and the Federation of Agriculture have all agreed that these commodities should be included under the Canadian Wheat Board. Since 1935, our party has passed resolutions at several conventions recommending the inclusion of these grains under the Wheat Board. I know that my constituents and the farmers in my area are in favour of such a move. I believe that this is the type of action which we should take, and we should not be pussyfooting around delaying it.
I am all the more convinced that we should take this action when I look at who is against the inclusion of these commodities under the Wheat Board. I see that, for example, the private grain trade is against such action, and so is the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. The other day one of the members in the House quoted a letter from James Richardson and Sons, a newsletter which was sent
out on April 22. I do not have the letter here but I know that James Richardson and Sons are against the inclusion of these commodities under the Wheat Board. When I learn this, I am all the more convinced that we must do so immediately because companies, organizations and corporations such as this have been living off the farmers and exploiting them for all too many years. It is about time we did something about such exploitation. As I said, such organizations have been living off the farmers, but this is not their fault; it is only natural. They are private corporations, and their aim is to make the maximum amount of profit with the lowest amount of effort. Their aim is to have a handsome profit from the sale of grain and other commodities which the farmer raises or produces. This is why the government should take the lead now and should initiate action at this time to include these three products under the Wheat Board.
It is not only the Liberal government that is half pregnant. We also find that the Conservative party is in a similar position. On the other hand, some Conservative Members of Parliament are against the inclusion of these commodities under the Wheat Board. I think that this type of attitude is nothing but an extreme right wing attitude which hearkens back to the age of the dinosaur. It assumes that the farmer can go out on the open market and fight for himself. The other day the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that the government is committed to a policy of economic genocide against the small scale farmer. I think he is right. I think the government in forcing small scale farmers off the land. This is their announced intention.
If some Conservative members vote against a piece of legislation such as this, then it can be assumed that there is certainly Conservative complicity in working against the operators of small farms. They want us to move even faster to force these farmers off the land. The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), the two former cabinet ministers, left the cabinet because they thought the government was too cautious and too conservative. Now, we have some Conservative members saying that the government is not conservative enough. I think this speaks for itself. This is not the direction in which we must move. We must move in the other direction so that the farmer will have some protection and some bargaining power when he goes out into world markets. He must not be left to cope with the vagaries of the speculative market, but must be given some kind of stability. I think the minister knows this.
The minister is from Saskatchewan. I know he has been in contact with farm organizations. I hope he will act upon their recommendations as soon as possible because it is his duty to lead the way and to bring these commodities under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. He should listen to these organizations, and listen to them before the end of this crop year. If he does not, then perhaps there is some validity to the suggestion of some hon. members that a plebiscite be held. But that plebiscite would be a foregone conclusion because farmers are in favour of this legislation.

May 20, 1971


Mr. Schumacher:: Where did you get that idea?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think all the hon. member has to do is go out and talk to some of his own constituents.


Mr. Korchinski:: Some organizations are not in favour of it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) says that some of the organizations may not be in favour of it. If that is the case I suggest they are few and far between because most farmers are interested in strengthening the Wheat Board, and in orderly marketing. Of course, you do have people who are critical of some of the ways in which the Wheat Board acts. There are many who feel it should be more aggressive, that it should be permitted to sell grain in a much more vigorous way.
But this is not the fault of the Wheat Board. This is not the fault of the basic idea of the orderly marketing of grains. This is the fault of the government for not giving the Board enough money, enough leeway, and enough motivation to go out and pursue better markets. If these commodities are included under the Wheat Board there is a better chance of finding markets for them, and a much better chance of getting more stable prices for the farmers. After all, this is what we want. Since when did the private grain trade have the interests of the farmer at heart? When did they become the friend of the farmer? Their purpose is to make a profit, as large a profit as possible. This is why I urge the minister to act as soon as possible, and not leave the whole thing up in the air, as apparently is being done today. We must strengthen the Wheat Board, make it more vigorous, give it more power and influence. We must make it a more aggressive agency. This is what the overwhelming majority of farmers in western Canada want.
I do not want to repeat myself, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to say that western agriculture is in really serious danger today. Farmers are rapidly disappearing from the land. The net income of the farmer has gone down and his costs have gone up. If we do not do something soon to reverse this trend the small farms will disappear, we will have huge corporate impersonal farms; local towns will become ghost communities or remain just as service centres for the corporate farms. Just a few weeks ago the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showed that net farm income in Saskatchewan over the two year period from 1968 to 1970 fell by 56 per cent. This is a gigantic drop. It underlines the severity of the problem facing western agriculture. And it is not only the farmer who is suffering. The operators of small businesses are affected, the unemployed, and in fact the whole population. A drop in income of 56 per cent should make us all realize there is something drastically and fundamentally wrong.
The bill before us is only a small one, but it provides for a fundamental change that would give a little more stability to some suffering farmers in western Canada. I hope the minister acts as soon as possible to have rye, flax and rapeseed brought under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Perhaps when he rises to reply he will elaborate a bit more, tell us that he intends to 24107-30
Canadian Wheat Board Act
make a thorough, in-depth study of the matter, and indicate what his final decision will be. I have put forward what I find to be the general position of most people I talk to in rural Saskatchewan, and that is the position of the farm organizations also. It is about time that the farmer did have some bargaining power. It is about time that the farmer did have some protection. This is one little piece of legislation that would help the farmer in contending with forces which he cannot control by himself.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my neighbour from Yorkton as he recited the dire conditions in which many western communities find themselves. He stated that there is a need for greater income in western Canada. He pointed out that some rural communities were depleted, and with all of this I agree entirely. I think he presented a good case showing there was a need for effective means to increase the income of the western farmers, and he also mentioned the needs of western businessmen.
Three of the major crops that western producers have been selling, wheat, oats and barley, have been under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board for some time. Mr. Speaker, it was the dynamic salesmanship of the Wheat Board that piled up the huge surpluses that we now have, and so the hon. member for Yorkton immediately refutes his own argument when he says we should put other grains under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. Even though the Wheat Board was not able to handle the situation with regard to wheat, oats and barley, the hon. member suggests that it be given control over three more grains. And he suggests that then we will have orderly marketing.
We have had orderly marketing, Mr. Speaker. As a result we have stacked our surpluses up so neatly and so high that the whole world can see them. It doesn't matter where you stand, you can see piles of wheat in Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Do you want to abolish the Wheat Board?


Stanley James Korchinski: I did not suggest that I wanted to abolish the Wheat Board, but I do not want it burdened with any more commodities since it has indicated it cannot handle the three commodities already under its control.
The one salvation western farmers have had was the fact that rapeseed and flaxseed were outside the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. It was not the Wheat Board's salesmanship that sold those commodities, to the point that we had no more rapeseed left to sell. In fact we had to increase our production of rapeseed, and we hope to increase it again. It was not the Wheat Board that did the work for us. It was the Rapeseed Association and the private trade which did the effective work. The hon. member may chastise the private trade, and suggest that it is living off the farmers, but I do not know how an elevator system can be maintained without deductions collected from the producer. As a producer I realize that, and what concerns me is that the elevator system may disappear if these other three grains come under the

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
jurisdiction of the Wheat Board because then the absolute control will be in the hands of that board, which ultimately means in the hands of the government.
I have before me the report of the Canadian Grain Marketing Committee submitted to the Canadian Wheat Board, and on page 6 I read that in the year 1969-70 Canada's percentage of the world wheat carry-over was 39.4. At the same time, of the world wheat acreage in production, Canada has only 4.9 per cent-5 per cent of the total production acreage in the world and 40 per cent of the surplus. And wheat was handled by the Wheat Board, if you please! Do hon. members want a similar situation to occur with regard to rapeseed? As a producer I believe in pooling many things but at the moment I do not believe that rapeseed should be included. Now that somebody else has done the work the Wheat Board wants to move in. This is typical socialist philosophy, as I know very well having lived under it. They do not want a man to think for himself nor do they want the individual to make a profit. Personally, I do not mind anybody making a profit, though I may mind the margin of profit. I am more concerned about the man who is losing money because we know that profit is a great incentive.
The rapeseed industry is in competition with peanut oil, soya bean oil, coconut oil-you name it and we have it, but we have managed to sell our rapeseed. Now, the Wheat Board says it has the answer. It did not have the answer when we had a surplus of wheat. And what is the situation in regard to feed grain? In a newspaper report of a paper written by Dr. George R. Winter of the University of British Columbia there is the following statement:
Canada's share of world exports has fallen from nearly 30 per cent in 1963 (and a huge 40 per cent in war years) to less than 20 per cent in the last two years. On the other hand, Dr. Winter said, "We have only 3 per cent of world feed grain exports."
Only 3 per cent of world feed grain exports, Mr. Speaker! What about barley and oats? When we had a surplus of barley, farmers were moving it across provincial borders and doing everything to save themselves because the Wheat Board was not moving it. Then, there was a corn blight in the United States, although the Wheat Board did not realize this, and suddenly there was a windfall. However, the board sold barley at reduced prices. Before the Board caught on to what had happened they had committed themselves so far ahead at these reduced prices that the minister has had to up the ante by ten cents this year in order to encourage the delivery of barley. He established it low enough at first to protect himself, but now he has to deliver and he cannot do it because the farmers will not deliver at the reduced price. The minister has had to increase the price. That is the way the Wheat Board manipulates things; they up the ante and the elevators do not spot the cars. How do you get your barley into the elevator? There is no way you can operate a system that is obviously inefficient.


Otto Emil Lang: The cars are coming.


Stanley James Korchinski: Drag in some more dead cats if you like.
I believe that thorough discussion of this matter can only be obtained through the holding of a plebiscite. Let the trade explain its position if these profits are being made. However, at the same time we have to explain why we want rapeseed excluded. The farmers will be the judges. If the minister has any dilemma about who should participate in the plebiscite I suggest that any producer who has interested himself in the production of rapeseed over the last 10 or 20 years should be given a vote. I do not say every permit holder should be given a vote because if a permit holder were interested in producing he had the opportunity to do so over the years. Of course, he may be interested in the future, but then I may be interested in something else in the future. If you have a plebiscite of egg producers you only give a vote to those producers, not to the men who grow the grain that feeds the chickens that lay the eggs. The man who produces the particular grain which is the subject of the plebiscite should be the judge because he knows the situation.
The argument has been made that you need a pooling system because of the necessity to make long term sales. I reject that argument, Mr. Speaker, because we have a pooling arrangement in other commodities and it has not necessarily given us long term sales. In cases where it has, we have probably found out that some of the terms written in were not to our advantage. I can remember the U.K. agreement, a pooling arrangement which cost us $600 million. Western Canada was reeling for ten years after that and it was not just the farmer who lost, it was the whole western economy. When the rest of the world was making money we lost $600 million.
This question of averaging is an interesting one. If sales in the fall are low, then the quota itself establishes the price. You can only sell so much. For example, last fall we had some sales at $2.39 a bushel and then when the quota came up in January, we had some sales at $2.68 a bushel. There was a pooling effect, therefore, but there was no quota. The farmer is, therefore, necessarily restricted by the quota. The quota itself is a mechanism that will, in effect, balance off the average. That is what the Canadian Wheat Board is all about; it is a pooling arrangement, an averaging of prices through the mechanism of the quota.
We are told the pooling effect is needed for long term sales. But what is to stop an agency of the government or the Wheat Board from going into the world to find a market? They could ask potential buyers, "How much do you need and how much will you pay?" Then, they could come back to the producer and say, "We have a potential sale for X number of bushels, will you produce it at such and such a price?" The farmer could then be the judge and enter into a contract or take his chance elsewhere. This could be done right now. If they have their supersalesmen sitting waiting for the starting bell then I say to them, go to it. We have situations at the moment where, because of their yearly requirements, some processors guarantee the farmer a certain price, then work out the

May 20, 1971

final details later. As a matter of fact, sometimes the processors give the producers an advance. This method is competitive and it works. It is the old auction mart method-"How much will you offer?" Many of us have been to auction marts and some of us have been sucked in on occasion, but there is nothing wrong with that method of selling. You establish a price; the buyer looks at the block which is for sale and says, "I do not have to hurry; I can pick up the goods whenever I am ready." As I said before, we were not indebted to the super-salesmanship of the Wheat Board.
I have a little clipping from the Country Guide in my hand. It is about one year old, but the article I wish to read is still very good. It would be worth the while of my socialist friends to my left to read it, study it and analyse it to see what can be done when people work for themselves independently, inspired by one thing only, the knowledge that they have a good commodity for sale. The rapeseed growers did not get the government to sell their rapeseed. Some people say to the government, "You must sell our product for us because you have the funds." Then, when the government does not sell enough those people raise Cain. That is done oflen enough, and you cannot lose your argument if you blame the government for your ills. My socialist friends have a lot to learn.
I am a producer of rapeseed and I have done fairly well. The only thing that kept my farm from going bankrupt was rapeseed; rapeseed sales saved us. We were able to pay our bills because we sold our rapeseed through private trading.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It was not sold by the Wheat Board.


Stanley James Korchinski: Wheat Board sales did nothing for us. May I read from the article in my hand:
Rapeseed is the brightest hope of surplus plagued Prairie Farmers. Exporters say it's the one crop farmers can grow with some hope of selling in the current crop year-
Credit the Rapeseed Association of Canada for much of this optimism. The association, formed 2 years ago, set out to boost Canada's rapeseed sales-
The association sent out teams of skilled commodity traders and research scientists to find new markets and prove the value of rapeseed and rapeseed products. It promoted rapeseed oil to consumers in Western Canada and it introduced it to home economist and dieticians in Eastern Canadian universities and institutions.
It published a cookbook in two languages and an animal nutritionist's manual in three. It organized leading plant breeders, animal nutritionists and oil chemists into research teams to develop better varieties and products.
The article goes on to mention the activities of the rapeseed association:
Its first trade mission went to Japan in May, 1968, J. M. Bell, University of Saskatchewan animal scientist, and Dr. R. K. Downey, oilseeds researcher, went along to explain to Japanese scientists the merits of rapeseed and rapeseed meal, and to help set up feeding trials there.
Feeding trials results were convincing. Early in 1970 a major Japanese feed firm began using rapeseed meal.
24107-30i
Canadian Wheat Board Act
The article then quotes what Mr. McAnsh, an official of the association, said:
'It was a breakthrough,'... 'If rapeseed meal were to make up only 2% of formula feeds, Japan's need for rapeseed would be doubled.'
The Japanese need for rapeseed would be doubled if rapeseed meal, as the article points out, were to make up only 2 per cent of formula feeds. That article shows how rapeseed was sold. It was not sold through government intervention. People sold it by doing something for themselves. It was not the government or the Wheat Board that made those sales. The people who grew rapeseed paid a dollar or two into the association to create a fund and used that money to find a market for rapeseed. They knew what they wanted; they knew they had a good product and they knew it was needed by the rest of the world. Because it has been such a good crop everybody wants to get in on the act. The article continues quoting Mr. McAnsh:
Our marketing system has some built-in bottlenecks, he says. For example, he claims that restrictions set by the Canadian Wheat Board on the size of rapeseed stocks that can be held at Vancouver are a threat to export sales. The limit is 1.5 million bushels, not enough to supply the market. Two or three large ocean vessels can clean out this stock.
That shows the effects of Wheat Board control. I hasten to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not object to the Wheat Board. Actually, it was a Conservative government that established the Wheat Board.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That was when the hon. member was progressive.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not know if I was out of the shell then. In any event, we must be very careful to make sure that we do not mess up a market that provides ready cash for producers at this time.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that a plebiscite is a good idea. Who are those who object to the plebiscite? Since when have we said in Canada that democracy should not be at work? Since when have a few almighty people who sit on plush cushions had the right to say that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Who objects?


Stanley James Korchinski: Who objects? I thought I heard the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) suggesting that it was not necessary to have a plebiscite. He suggested that we have enough information to know the answer. You see, there are some super-politicians here and they know everything in exactly the same way as the Wheat Board seems to suggest that it knows-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I said that if the government feels a plesbiscite is necessary, they ought to have one. I had predicted that the outcome would be overwhelmingly one way. I did not say nor did I suggest that there should not be a plebiscite.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member suggested that there was enough information from various organizations to make a plebiscite unneces-

May 20, 1971
Education Standards
sary. I thought he said that since farm organizations, wheat pools and so on have already indicated their support, there was no necessity for a plebiscite. I thought the hon. member indicated that there was sufficient evidence to prove that everyone was in favour of it. I suggest that what a few elected representatives here and there say about the matter is not sufficient proof that it is so. I suggest that a plebiscite might be an interesting change. It might be refreshing. The Wheat Board might have to explain some of its actions. I have talked to some of my constituents, and they would welcome an opportunity for the Wheat Board to explain to some of them, personally, the basis for its actions. Wheat Board news releases are not enough. They are fine art jobs. The people want to know what the board is doing. Farmers want to make deliveries but deliveries are slow because of the lack of boxcars and because elevators are congested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It is my duty at this time, 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 Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Indian Affairs-Northwest Territories-Alleged bigotry of supervisors in not ensuring jobs for native people; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Agriculture-Farm machinery-Implementation of commission recommendation respecting manufacture in Canada- Clarification of statements on company profits; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Use of radio bands for transmission of listening device signals.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers).



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


David Orlikow: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, Ottawa, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding 'Development of guidelines by which Canadian equivalence can be established for degrees and diplomas in foreign countries.'
He said: Mr. Speaker, this country has carried on since the end of World War II an aggressive policy of immigration. Under that policy, every year since 1945, between 100,000 and 200,000 people from almost every country in the world have entered this country. For many years we traditionally attracted immigrants from western Europe, particularly Great Britain, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Germany and, in recent years from countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Yugoslavia. We are now attracting immigrants from the West Indies and some Asian countries. We have been able to attract large numbers of highly educated and skilled people such as doctors, engineers, architects and accountants. We have been able to attract people from every field.
I welcome the entry of such people into Canada. However, some embarrassing and difficult situations have arisen. I do not intend to list them today. I will give a couple of illustrations. Speaking from memory, I will cite one situation which occurred three or four years ago. The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons operates under Ontario law. It decided to restrict doctors who came here from India. They found it almost impossible to get licences to practice in the province of Ontario, so were faced with very difficult and time consuming training.
Many doctors who came here from India have received postgraduate training in countries such as Great Britain. They have worked in Ontario hospitals for years, filling positions which would normally have been filled by Canadian trained doctors. They do their job adequately, but receive a relatively low wage. Canadian taxpayers are subsidized because of that low wage while they are working in hospitals. Without an evaluation of their medical qualifications, in India, they are told that no doctors from India will be able to practice in the province of Ontario. This is despite the evidence that is adduced which indicates that they have written their medical council examinations. It has been conclusively proven that a higher percentage of doctors from India pass the Canadian Medical Council Examinations than doctors from European countries, such as France and Germany.
At the time of the difficulties in Czechoslovakia several years ago, a number of immigrants came to Canada from that country. They had worked full time in Czechoslovakia. As far as one could tell, their work was adequate and satisfactory. Despite the fact there was a tremendous shortage of dentists, particularly in the smaller towns and communities in northern Ontario, the Ontario Dental Association made it virtually impossible for these people to be given licences to practice dentistry. There have been similar cases in other provinces with regard to nurses.
In today's Toronto Star, there is a report of the appearance by Professor Grant Reuber of the University of Western Ontario before a Senate committee yesterday. I will summarize the article briefly. Professor Reuber stated that some labour unions impose undue labour

May 20, 1971

restrictions on people with skills and crafts and make it difficult for them to work in this country as skilled tradesmen.
Parliament and the people of this country ought to look very carefully at any private agency which sets restrictions on people. The interests of a particular professional group or trade union may not be the same as the interests of the community as a whole. I do not say that in any critical way. I do not say this is so, but it may be that doctors feel it will be better for them if the number of doctors entering this country could be restricted. Dentists, architects and engineers may feel the same way. I can understand it if they feel that way, but what is good for them is not necessarily good for the country. The standards of skills in a particular profession ought to be closely supervised. They should be set in a general way by the government rather than by the group concerned.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration commissioned the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada to undertake a study regarding development of guidelines by which Canadian equivalence can be established for degrees and diplomas in foreign countries. I am sure this is a very valuable document. It can be of use to the government and other people. The people of Canada have a right to know who enters Canada, their qualifications, what they want to do, what they are permitted to do by private organizations and what they are not permitted to do.
I have frequently stated that I find it strange that a government which prides itself on participatory democracy should, on every possible occasion, tell Members of Parliament, the Canadian people and the press that information ought to be confidential and withheld from the public. I cannot understand why the government, with regard to the matter under discussion and almost every question, frequently says that the study is either private, confidential or interdepartmental, that they have made a commitment to those who have made the study that it will not be released, or that the department feels that it is not in the public interest.
It would take me an hour to relate the various excuses which have been given by one department or another as to why they cannot table a study or document which is prepared at the request of the government. All the excuses add up to the same thing. The government always gives the same answer. The answer can be expressed in one simple word. Nine times out of ten the answer is "No, you cannot have this information. No, the press cannot have this information. This is information restricted for government use and we say nobody else can have it."
I say, as I have said before, that there is no reason this particular study should not be made available to Members of Parliament, the press and the public generally. I say this without much hope the government will change its mind in the present case. Nevertheless, it is the provision of information of this kind which would help the
Education Standards
people of Canada to reach decisions in the extremely complex society in which they live. Should we make it easier for doctors coming to Canada from foreign countries to practice? Should we make it easier for dentists, architects, nurses, physio-therapists to do so? Or, leaving the professions, should we make it easier for carpenters, millwrights, machinists, electricians to come to work here? Unless we know what kind of training they have received we cannot make reasoned judgments on these questions. One of the ways we could be assisted to do so would be by the government making public documents of the kind referred to in the motion before the House.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Once again the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is berating the government and, I would say, overstating his case. He is trying to give the impression that this is a secretive government, one which is not prepared to give out information, answer questions or accede to notices of motions for papers which are placed on the order paper.
Mr. Speaker, only today the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) rose to indicate that certain notices of motion were acceptable to the government. Many of these notices of motion are, in fact, accepted. Only two or three days ago the same hon. member announced that of some 1,500 questions on the order paper this session alone, 85 per cent had been answered and action was being taken to see what could be done to answer the remaining 15 per cent. Hardly the mark of a secretive government. Then again, one of the highlights of the parliamentary day, both for members of the opposition and for the press gallery, is the question period. Day after day it has run beyond the time allotted for it in order that the government might answer the questions which are put forward. Hardly what one might expect from a secretive government.
There comes a time when a government has a good reason for not producing a particular document. The hon. member will, of course, approach all the reasons which will be given from this side of the House with suspicion and say they don't amount to a hill of beans, the government is really trying to hide under a veil of secrecy. This is simply not the case. There are occasions when the government, requesting certain information or studies, will say to the individuals concerned. We undertake that the information you give us, the opinions you express, the material you bring to our attention, will not be made a matter of public disclosure. This is done in order that a report may be a better one, a more honest one. I suppose that in many cases it would, quite frankly, be of little consequence whether they were published or not. But the undertaking with respect to confidentiality which has been given is still the reason that, in many cases, some of these papers cannot be made public.
There are areas in which an individual reporting to the government might express an opinion which could be considered as "way out" or reflecting 21st century thinking. Some of us might regard it as being a little weird. The government has then to decide in its own mind whether such a report should be released without it

May 20, 1971
Education Standards
being accompanied by the release of five or six others taking, possibly, a different position, in order that the public might reach a conclusion as to whether or not it was too revolutionary in its thinking.
As to the particular motion before us, I had something to do with the Czechoslovak refugees who came over here. I think it is unfair of the hon. member to seize upon this group to highlight his case. We were faced with an emergency situation and Canada came to the fore, as we did on another occasion when dealing with people suffering from tuberculosis. The government provided a sanctuary to those who were seeking it, without making any commitments. Accordingly, men of various professions came to this country hoping they would be able to practice in their own fields-architecture, medicine, dentistry and so on. The hon. member suggested that the doctors, lawyers, dentists and engineers here were trying to restrict the numbers of qualified people entering their field in order that competition might not become too keen. I do not believe that is true of professional groups in Canada. Just the opposite, in fact. Perhaps I should speak of the profession I know best. Lawyers would welcome more graduates provided they had the capability and could practice law to the benefit of their clients. But I am unalterably opposed to the kind of degrees which can be obtained by studying at night or through correspondence courses. Anyone worth his salt in a profession should be opposed to practices which might lead to the public being defrauded because those acting on their behalf did not possess the necessary qualifications.
I am satisfied that one of the most important responsibilities of an immigration officer abroad is to exercise judgment about the qualification of a prospective immigrant to pursue the occupation he wishes to follow in Canada. To make such a judgment, an immigration officer needs to be familiar with the qualifications which govern a particular occupation in Canada. I would be very suspicious if any immigration officer were to say to an individual: Yes, we need you in Canada and you'll have no difficulty about being recognized in the particular profession you have chosen to practice. I do not think Canada employs immigration officers of that sort, or, if we do, I do not believe senior officials would allow them to keep their jobs for very long. It does not necessarily follow that workers in one part of the world perform the same tasks as their counterparts in different sociological and technological conditions.
Even in Canada we have this brought home to us daily. In Quebec the Civil Code governs civil law suits. The rest of the provinces use common law. To suggest that an individual who has studied the civil code in France, for example, could come to British Columbia and practise law would be fallacious. It just is not done, and I cannot see any immigration officer suggesting that it can be done because these gentlemen are knowledgeable in the work they perform.
I want to deal primarily with one area to show the kind of problem that would be faced by an immigration
officer, and why the department commissioned a study of this particular matter. Although it is somewhat foreign to my own field, I want to talk about architects. I choose architecture because I had some experience studying the particular requirements in the field of architecture during a course of a study that I undertook at one time.
Architects in Canada, as we know, plan and design private residences, office buildings, theatres, public buildings, factories and other structures, and organize the services necessary for their construction. They consult with a client to determine size and space requirements, and provide information regarding costs, design, materials and equipment. Surely, this is a textbook definition of that which an architect does in this country. In addition to this, an immigration officer may point out to a prospective immigrant who is an architect from another part of the world that Canadian architects also prepare sketches of proposed projects for clients; they provide specifications, scale or full-size drawings, and other contract documents for the use of building contractors and craftsmen. Canadian architects may specialize in a particular type of structure or project and confer with other consultants in order to develop feasibility studies, make financial analyses and arrangements, and in regard to site selection and land assembly.
As I say, this seems to be a textbook definition of that which an architect in Canada does. But architects have other problems to meet, such as those caused by the changing seasons that we have in Canada. How could an architect from, say, the state of California, knowing nothing about winter conditions in Canada, claim he is in a position to plan the type of buildings that we need? I think all too often people fancy themselves as architects. They think about building homes, having looked into U.S. magazines and seen pictures of sunrooms, and think it is a good idea to build one, all too often only to find that they are no good in the cold weather with the 174 inches of snow that we have in Ottawa.
An immigration officer would surely have to tell a prospective immigrant that Canadian architects usually graduate with a degree or diploma in architecture that is acceptable to a legally constituted provincial association of architects in one or other of the provinces of Canada; that after graduation they gain experience in architectural practice under the supervision of a qualified architect for a period of time prescribed by an architects' association. An architect from another country who had graduated from a school but who did not have this kind of on the job training, similar to internship in medicine or working with a principal in the practice of law, obviously should not be allowed to participate in that form of activity in Canada.
What I have tried to point out is that persons seeking employment in Canada as architects must meet certain occupational qualifications. Canadian immigration counselling officers must supply information concerning the procedures connected with these formalities. If they are to do their job and do it well they must be as familiar with the requirements for practising architecture in this country as the architects themselves. For this reason, I am sure that the study the department has commissioned

May 20, 1971

will prove beneficial to those who wish to come to Canada. It will give immigrants the ground rules and the basis upon which they can be permitted to practise architecture, or law, or to become licensed as an electrician for that matter.
In conclusion, under existing legislation there are many occupations in Canada that require compulsory licensing. By licensing, I mean the compulsory demonstration of the possession of a certain education, training, experience and other qualifications to the satisfaction of a provincial or municipal authority, or a professional association, before permission to practise a particular occupation is granted. The number of occupations subject to licensing varies from province to province. I understand that in Ontario there are something like 42 occupations on the compulsory list, ranging in alphabetical order from architects to welders. In addition, comprehensive information on the conditions that relate to the employment aspirations of a prospective immigrant, as well as a knowledge of suitable alternatives, is an essential prerequisite to realistic counselling, particularly by immigration officers.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, this is developing into something of a non-debate. It seems to me that the question we have to ask ourselves is why the government does not produce the report in question. It is quite obvious that the report itself is of extreme importance to many Canadians, be they members of professions, professional immigrants trying to become licensed in Canada, or the general public. I think that if this report has anything to tell us it should be released. On the other hand, if there is good reason for not releasing it, then we should be told. However, up to this point I have heard no such reason put forward.
I thought that perhaps the hon. member who spoke on the government side of the House would put forward some reason why the government does not intend to let the House see this report. It could be that the parliamentary secretary is going to use the last few minutes of the hour to explain why the government will not produce the report, and I am willing to wait and see what he is going to say. But if we receive no good reason for withholding this report, then I am going to vote for its production. The government could very easily tell the House that this report is not complete. They could tell us that the study is not complete, or that it would be premature to release the report at this time. Or the government could tell us that the report involves provincial rights to the extent that its release would only create dissension. If reasons such as these were given, then I might be inclined to agree that they had some substance.
I cannot agree with one statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who said he thought that the government should set professional standards. As a professional person I cannot think of anything worse than to have someone within the government regulate the professions. I think the professions have to regulate themselves, and I think they are most capable of doing so, regardless of all talk to the contrary. Perhaps some of the professions-and law is no exception-are inclined to get behind the times, to become
Education Standards
sterile and stereotyped. I am sure this is the case in the legal profession as much as any other. But public opinion usually brings the members of such professions up to date and forces them to give the public the type of service that the public expects from them. So personally I should not like to see any change considered. We are wasting our breath, however, in talking about it here, because these are provincial matters. We have nothing to say about them in this House. The professions are licensed by the provinces. That situation is likely to continue.
But there is another problem which does concern the federal government. I refer to immigration. I believe it has been obvious for a number of years-I can think back at least ten years in this regard-that people have been brought into Canada who belonged to professions in their own countries and believed that after a short period of retraining and brushing up they would be working here in their professions. They believed this would occur in a matter of months, or a year at the most. I know personally of people who came to Canada with the belief that they would be accepted here after they learned to apply their knowledge to local conditions. After arriving here they found this was not the situation at all.
These people would move from province to province in the hope that in one province they would be accepted because there might be a shortage, or because the standards might be lower or might be altered. They had to move around this country to find where they might be accepted and where their qualifications would be considered adequate. So we have a federal agency bringing people into the country to carry on business in their professions, which are licensed by the provinces. There would seem to have been a complete absence of communication between the professions and the federal department of immigration. This situation has developed time after time in connection with doctors, dentists and other professional people who have come to Canada.
I admit that many licensed professionals who come to this country should not be practising their professions in Canada, for three or four reasons. One obvious reason is that the professional standards in the country from which such a person comes may be much lower than ours. In many countries a profession rates much lower than it does in Canada, and therefore the educational standards are lower. In many countries the need for professional persons is very great and urgent. Therefore, these people are admitted to practice in the professions, particularly in medicine, with less training than we consider necessary in this country.
Another problem is language. Many people who come to Canada are unable to carry on their business or profession in the language of the region in which they establish. Nothing is worse than misunderstanding between a professional person and his client. Also, local conditions in many cases are very different. I know, for example, that a great many professional planners are being brought into this country. These people hold

May 20. 1971
Education Standards
degrees in land planning, municipal planning and urban planning. They are brought to Canada to assist us in planning and development although they come from countries where conditions are very different from ours and therefore they do not have the faintest idea about how to approach planning in this country. We see this situation in many areas. Even in the province of Ontario there are examples of it. So there are perfectly good reasons for the professions setting standards which they will not lower.
Having said this, I believe it is high time guidelines were established for the immigration department and professional associations. I think the development of guidelines by which Canadian equivalence can be established for degrees and diplomas in foreign countries is very much needed. I hope the study which has been made is of assistance to somebody; but, Mr. Speaker, it will not be of assistance to the general public if it is retained within one department of government and is not released. I think it will be a loss if the report is not released, especially if it can be of value in developing the lines of communication between the professions and the department of immigration. I believe it would be an excellent move if this report were made public.
As I said at the beginning, I would be willing to accept valid and convincing reasons for the report not being made public. There may be some. I recognize the difficulty, particularly the jurisdictional difficulties. However, I have not yet heard of any difficulties which convince me that the report should not be made public, and with a great deal of interest I am waiting for a better explanation than we have had so far.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in speaking in this debate, not so much because of the content of notice of motion No. 30 but because my riding has benefited immensely from the knowledge and hard work of many new Canadians and because our great University of Western Ontario in London has been chosen by people of many lands as the university in which to increase their knowledge and obtain a higher education. The degrees and diplomas of Western are recognized across the world, and the citizens of London are proud to have the graduates of Western speak as ambassadors of our great city and our great nation. Many students return to their homeland to pass on to their citizens the knowledge they have worked hard to obtain. Many remain with us and become very successful in their chosen field of work. We welcome them all as citizens and students.
Canada's resources of highly qualified manpower are constantly increased or diminished by reason of a number of different flows into and out of the Canadian labour force. The magnitude and direction of these flows are affected by such diverse elements as the state of the labour market at home and abroad, immigration laws and investment in higher education. Some flows, such as immigration, are more readily adjustable in the short term, while others such as the output of the educational system can be altered only gradually.

Graduates from the domestic educational system and the inflow of professional and scientific personnel from other countries are our major sources of new manpower. General attrition-for example death, retirement and emigration of employed members of the labour force

causes the prime loss in the system. The importance of each flow has varied over the years as well as between occupations. Graduates from the domestic educational system provide the largest source of highly qualified manpower. While in some professions such as medicine the number of immigrants at times has exceeded the number of Canadian graduates, on the whole total graduations have exceeded the immigration of professionals into the country.
Immigration, as a proportion of graduations, has varied considerably over the years. In 1954, immigration of professionals was equal to 60 per cent of the number of people graduating from Canadian universities. Net recorded immigration of professionals, for example- immigration less emigration to the United States-was 35 per cent of domestic graduations. In 1961, the respective proportions were 29 per cent and 6 per cent. However, since 1961 immigration has increased considerably. In 1966, immigration was 53 per cent of graduations and net immigration was 44 per cent.
The growth of higher education has accelerated through the 1960s. University and college undergraduate degree courses have expanded at a remarkable rate as enrolments tripled from 73,000 in 1957 to 213,000 in the academic year 1966-67 and 237,000 in 1967-68. This expansion of enrolments foreshadowed a rapid increase in graduate output. For example, in 1950 18,000 students graduated from Canadian universities with a bachelor or first professional degree. In 1960, there were 21,000 graduates and in 1967 almost 44,000. There has been an even greater growth in post-graduate degrees. Masters degrees in 1967 were 268 per cent greater than they were in 1950, doctorate degrees exceeded those in 1950 by 249 per cent and BA degrees increased by 142 per cent.
The rapid rise of enrolments in higher education followed a wave of expansion in Canada's secondary schools, where enrolments more than tripled from the beginning of the 1950s to the 1965-66 school year. Part of this expansion can be explained by increases in the size of the relevant age group and part by rising participation rates. These two factors have been of about equal importance in the growth of secondary enrolments during the 1950s and 1960s, and it appears that they will be equally important during the next ten years.
At the university level, the largest portion of the increase is accounted for by increased participation rather than population increases in the relevant age group. Between 1956 and 1966, full time enrolment rose by 180 per cent, while the 18 to 24 age group only expanded by 30 per cent. This implies that less than one-fifth of the rise in the number of students can be explained by population growth, while over four-fifths was due to greater participation.
May 20, 1971

A marked characteristic of this expansion of higher education has been the difference in the growth rate of particular disciplines. The distribution of students a decade ago was quite different from today. Expansion in the fields of pure science and education has been striking. Enrolments in these fields increased by about 450 per cent between 1957 and 1967. Arts enrolments have also enlarged greatly, from 26,000 in 1957 to 94,000 in 1967.
Lack of growth, however, is apparent in the fields of medicine and engineering. Only 300 more students were enrolled in med.cine in 1967 compared with 1957, an increase of 7 per cent. In engineering in 1967, enrolments were 18,498 compared with 13,050 ten years previously, an increase of 42 per cent. A similar trend in growth is found in the number of students receiving bachelor and first professional degrees.
A different pattern of growth emerges from an analysis of post-graduate degrees. The largest percentage increase from 1957 to 1967 in both masters and doctorate graduations has been in engineering. The former was 403 per cent greater in 1967 than in 1957, and the latter was 741 per cent greater. The proportion of engineering graduates to total graduates at the doctorate level increased from 4 per cent in 1957 to 13 per cent in 1967. This contrasts sharply with the very small growth in first degrees of engineering students.
The social sciences had the largest share of masters degrees, while the biological and physical sciences accounted for almost 60 per cent of all doctorates awarded in 1967. The smallest growth was exhibited in the biological sciences, where graduations in 1967 were not quite 100 per cent greater than those in 1957 compared with an average 170 per cent increase for all fields.
The new supply of highly qualified manpower will tend to follow this growth pattern. However, the number of graduates by no means represents the actual domestic inflow into the stock. There are a number of leakages from the system which will tend to decrease the number of new entrants. There are a large number of foreign students who after receiving education in Canada return to their home country to seek employment.
In 1967 there were 12,900 foreign students enrolled in Canadian universities. This represents approximately 5.6 per cent of total enrolments. While we know that many of these students emigrate after graduation, at present we have no data on just how large this group might be. Similarly, many Canadian students choose, rather than enter the Canadian labour force after graduation, to seek employment outside Canada. Others prefer to continue their studies either within the domestic system or outside the country.
Eventually some of these migrants return and add to the flow into the system. Again we have no estimates of the magnitude of these inflows. We do, however, have some idea of the stock from which this flow might come. In 1967 there were some 12,000 Canadians studying in universities in the United States, and 600 in Britain. Growth of enrolments at universities in the United States has not matched the rapid increase in enrolments at Canadian universities. In the former, enrolments in 196667 were 166 per cent greater than in 1952-53. In
Education Standards
Canada, total enrolments were 266 per cent greater over the same period.
Interestingly enough, however, the pattern of growth by field of study was similar at home and abroad. For Canadians in the United States, as in Canada, the proportion studying engineering and health professions particularly medicine, declined. Growth in the social sciences was the most striking. Enrolments in the social sciences in 1968 were five times greater than in 1964. This rapid expansion most probably reflects a growing interest in the relatively new discipline of social science.
The flow of foreign, professional manpower into Canada has grown rapidly in the last decade at approximately the same rate as the domestic educational system. In 1950, 4.2 per cent of all immigrants were professional. By 1960, this percentage increased to 14 per cent, and in 1967 it was 26 per cent. Over this 17-year period the absolute number of professional immigrants increased from 1,686 in 1950 to 30,853 in 1967.
While there has been an ever-increasing inflow of highly qualified manpower both from the educational system and from abroad, the outflow of this type of manpower, at least to the United States, has been remarkably constant. The number of professionals emigrating to the U.S. has varied little in the last decade. In 1956, 5.277 professionals left Canada to take employment in the United States. In 1961, 5,285 left and in 1967 the number was 6,386. The net loss to Canada is probably less than the figures show because residents returning to Canada from the United States are not recorded.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the request made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) as to why this report cannot be tabled, may I say it is due to the fact that the study was provided by officials of a foreign government on a confidential basis. It was obtained after the commitment was given by our officials that at least part of the contents of the study would not be made public. Having given this commitment, it is obvious that it is not appropriate for the department or for the government to make public the contents of this document. It is perhaps regrettable but it is a fact. It is the respecting of an undertaking made in good faith. I think that any member of the House who had made such an undertaking would respect it.
It was a document prepared for the very good reasons that were put forward by the hon. member for Parry-Sound-Muskoka. It was designed to develop guidelines by which Canadian equivalence might be established for degrees and diplomas gained in other countries. It was an attempt to evaluate degrees obtained in certain foreign countries in terms of Canadian degrees in the same disciplines, and it covered arts and sciences and all licensed professions.
Evaluating the preparation which an applicant's education gives him for employment in a specialized field in Canada does pose a problem, and this evaluation plays a

May 20, 1971
Education Standards
central role in the selection of immigrants. In the licensed professions, immigration officials can rely on the licensing bodies set up by those professions and so it is standard practice to advise applicants in licensed professions to write to professional licensing bodies in Canada so as to obtain their qualification equivalency. When it comes to non-licensed professions there is no parallel process for applicants who claim specialized competence. This is particularly true of foreign graduates in the humanities and social sciences, and a relatively large proportion of potential immigrants fall within this category.
The logical course of action has been to assume that the holder of a degree or of several degrees from a foreign university could be considered a specialist in the field of study in which he has concentrated. But the experience of some employers and of Canadian graduate schools has shown that this assumption is not always justified.
It may occur that immigrants on arrival in Canada encounter difficulties in getting their degrees or diplomas accepted. The non-acceptance of the degree then becomes a major obstacle to finding employment and results in understandable frustration. This may happen in spite of the fact that immigration officers abroad did tell the potential immigrant about the problem of recognition of foreign qualifications in Canada. The officers attempt to give applicants among the professions as realistic a picture as possible so as to dispel any misconception which an applicant might have about the opportunity of using his degree immediately after arrival here. The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that he might be forced to take employment in other fields, at least initially, before working in his own profession. Language requirements and lack of familiarity with Canadian conditions also may play the role of delaying factor in this respect.
The department is always interested to find out what level of competence foreign degrees in arts and sciences provide and in establishing how these degrees compare with Canadian degrees. Research in this field is faced with the task of establishing equivalence between foreign degrees and various Canadian degrees. The problem of equivalence in non-licensed professions confronts the department with great difficulties because very little has been done in the past in this area of research. There does not exist any fund of knowledge as in the case of professional associations with regard to licensed professions.
The difficulty of establishing equivalence between foreign and Canadian degrees is illustrated by the fact that even in Canada two degrees received in the same field are not equivalent if they are granted by different universities. In the strict sense of the word, equivalence means that the courses of study and the contents of the courses are identical. As we know, programs of study vary across the country. However, a Canadian university will usually admit the holder of a degree other than its own to graduate work, and such admission can be taken as a judgment that the degree is equivalent to its own. One way, then, of determining what foreign degrees are equivalent to Canadian degrees is to find out whether Canadian universities usually accept those who hold them into graduate degree programs.
There are at least three levels of graduate studies at which a student can be admitted, each representing a different equivalence. If a student is admitted to a two year master's degree program he may be said to have the equivalent of an ordinary bachelor's degree. Admission to a one-year master's program or to a three-year PhD program requires the equivalent of an honours bachelor degree, and acceptance into a two-year PhD program requires the equivalent of a Canadian university master's degree. These three levels signify grades of specialization.
The holder of an ordinary bachelor's degree is considered to have no real specialist competence. He is admitted to the lowest level of apprenticeship. The honours bachelor's graduate is only an apprentice. In this sense he is merely further along in his apprenticeship. It is only the holder of the master's degree who is recognized as meeting the minimum requirements for a specialist. In Canada, such a degree usually demands 18 years of study and a heavy concentration of courses in his subject. In addition, the preparation of a thesis has familiarized the post-graduate with the availability of data sources and the application of methods and techniques of research.
It must be stressed that admission to a Canadian master's degree program does not mean that a person is a specialist. It signifies only that his background fits him to train to become one. Even in the admission to a two-year PhD program the university may be less rigorous in its definition of a specialist than an employer would be. In this connection it must be considered that a university is a training institution and therefore it can undertake to fill gaps in a student's knowledge.
It is, for example, not uncommon for a foreign PhD student to take one or more undergraduate courses in an area where training was deficient in his home university. An employer who hires a specialist does not ordinarily expect him to undertake training in skills usually learned at the undergraduate level. In the absence of other criteria, university graduate admission standards can provide a minimum definition of a specialist in arts and science areas-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I have been very good up to now this week, but due to the fact that one of my favourite poets, Ogden Nash, died this week-a man who was very popular, very human-I thought these lines that were published some years ago could have been written last Sunday:
Gently my eyelids close;
I'd rather be good than clever;
And I'd rather have my facts all wrong Than have no facts whatever.
I didn't go to church today,
I trust the Lord to understand.
The surf was swirling blue and white.
The children swirling on the sand.
He knows, He knows how brief my stay,
How brief this spell of summer weather,
He knows when I am said and done We'll have plenty of time together.
Isn't that appropriate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
At six o'clock the House took recess.

May 20, 1971



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-238, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned at five o'clock I was indicating that I was not happy to have rapeseed, in particular, included within the provisions of this bill under which certain grains will come under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not understand how the minister could say that he had no intention of making the relevant clause of the bill operative unless certain conditions are met.
He tells us that there will be a plebiscite or a registration of intention in one form or another. He did not tell us what method he would select. However, the fact that Parliament will have passed the bill will give the government the right at any time, even in the dead of night as was the case with the War Measures Act, to implement its provisions without prior explanation. We shall merely see a press release the next day saying, "On the basis of our information, we had to do it this say." The government might claim that it had to act that way because of possible fluctuations in the stock market.
In any event, the producers will have no say in the implementation of these provisions. It is all very well for the minister to assure us that they will not be implemented unless certain conditions are met. I point out that he may not occupy his position one year from now, six months from now or even two days from now; perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will shift him to another position. So his assurances in that regard really are not very weighty.
I cannot understand the minister. The committee headed by Mr. Boden that was studying this question suggested that rapeseed should not at this time come under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, yet the minister went against that recommendation. The Rapeseed Growers' Association does not want rapeseed to come under the authority of the Wheat Board operations. An article which appeared recently in the Regina Leader-Post reads in part:
Rapeseed producers' organizations in the prairie provinces will fight to have rapeseed excluded from the marketing jurisdiction of the Caandian Wheat Board, Ken Naber, president of the Saskatchewan Rapeseed Growers' Association, said Monday.
Mr. Naber said the groups have requested a hearing before the Commons committee on agriculture to plead their case.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I know that Mr. Forrest Hetland, former head of the Rapeseed Growers' Association, felt that rapeseed should not be included under the Wheat Board's authority and that the present marketing system was satisfactory. If the rapeseed producers do not want rapeseed to come under the authority of the Wheat Board, surely we should not do it merely because the NDP want us to. I do not accept the NDP challenge and I throw it back in their teeth. They want this to be done merely because of something some of their members said 20 years ago. That is no reason for dragging rapeseed growers into this bill. They should not be manipulated by a group of people who do not understand rapeseed growers' interests. Surely the producers know what is best for them. I can visualize headlines in western newspapers pointing out what some Members of Parliament are advocating.
We know what has happened with our wheat sales; we know how much wheat has been sold. It has been piled up all over the Prairies. We know what has happened to our barley and oats. We have almost gone out of production in some cases. We grow just enough to satisfy our own requirements. Some farmers do not grow enough to fill a bowl of porridge. Why must the rapeseed growers be dragged into this situation? For years the industry fought toward its goal and it is now reaping the reward-but not in this bill.
I want to pay tribute to a former member of this House, a colleague of mine. He is now a constituent of the minister's. Reynold Rapp fought long and hard on behalf of the rapeseed people. He was instrumental in having rapeseed included in the definition of "grain", thus making it possible for it to be carried under the Crowsnest Pass arrangements. The work he did encouraged the production of this grain. Why drag it in now and put it under the authority of the Wheat Board, Mr. Speaker? As has been indicated, pooling arrangements and the quota system mean that there is an averaging in this regard. What will we gain by including rapeseed? Salesmen have enough trouble selling wheat. How on earth will they sell rapeseed? Will they switch from wheat to rapeseed? Will the board employ new men?
Let me point out that the rapeseed growers know their business and have contacts in the markets. In a newspaper clipping, which I do not have before me, Charles Gibbings said that putting all these commodities into one group, to be administered by the Wheat Board and having them serviced by one salesman, just will not work in future. The people who sell rapeseed must be interested in selling. Of course, if an unconscionable amount of profit were being made, perhaps there would be room for concern. But that is not the case. We have been successful in selling that commodity. The minister knows that the industry is trying to empty the elevators. That, as he said, is to our advantage.
There is another reason why I do not want rapeseed included within the ambit of the Wheat Board's authority. We do not know what will be the effect of the government's grain receipts stabilization policy, and if this bill is passed in its present form it will mean that the minister could implement certain of its provisions within six months, say, and include rapeseed under the

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
authority of the Wheat Board. When the minister stabilizes grain receipts, what yardstick will he use? How will he determine how much is to be received and by whom? Although the minister has suggested that rapeseed will not be included, I am not reassured. I should like to know how that stabilization policy will affect the western elevator system.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) suggested that the elevator companies are making the money. He said that the elevator companies are the big birds we should watch for. Frankly, I am wondering how the elevator system will survive in the next year or two if we implement this stabilization program. What effect will removal of elevators have on the small communities? I can just imagine the sort of struggle that will go on between communities which want an elevator near them.
I have lived in small communities and I know how badly some of them want a little hospital or municipal office in their midst. They want something that will attract people. If you remove their elevators-and this is bound to happen-what will the farmers of the area say? If the elevators go, it will mean that costs will go up. I should like to see just how this master plan will work, the master plan that says we must include rapeseed, flax and rye under the authority of the Wheat Board. Is the Wheat Board to control everything we do? Theoretically, that may be the effect of this bill.
I am saying that this bill is an unholy mess and I am afraid of the effect it will have on our communities and on our producers. I know some people will say, "We were stymied with wheat, so why should we be stymied with rapeseed?" They will say, "We were in trouble when we tried to move wheat from province to province, let alone out of the country." I ask the minister why he must enter this area right now.
None of the growers support this bill. The Rapeseed Growers' Association do not want it. The committee which studied this matter does not want it. The only group that wants it is the group to my left-to satisfy their dream of Utopia, where the state has everything.


An hon. Member:: You are kidding.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am not kidding. I either believe you or I do not. Either you tell me what you believe or there is no point saying it. I want to know how the minister will go about this. If the minister would hold a plebiscite and if the plebiscite indicated that the producers wanted in, there would be only a five-minute debate in the House. Who would oppose it if the plebiscite so indicated it was the producers' wish? If a plebiscite is held, every permit book holder should not be asked his opinion. As I pointed out, the egg producer is not the one who produces the grain that feeds the chickens that lay the eggs.
If the minister is serious with regard to flaxseed and rye, I am not greatly concerned. However, I am vitally concerned about the rapeseed industry. That industry has not been developed. It has a long way to go. As a matter of fact, western Canada is just tapping the eastern
market. We want to be able to compete with the Soviet industry, the peanut oil industry, the coconut oil industry, and so on. Are we going to be successful, or are we going to be stymied by bureaucratic inertia? These people have a direct interest-their survival. This crop has been their only income for a long time. It is the only income for many people who produce rapeseed; that is why they went into production. Although they did not know anything about rapeseed, they saw that their neighbours were able to sell it. They sat and wondered what to do next. They talked to their bankers. While interest rates were going up and up, the rapeseed producers had a few dollars at their disposal.
I plead with the minister to withdraw this clause. If a plebiscite were held and its results were in the affirmative, I assure the minister that this bill would be passed in five minutes. Bills have been passed in short order, without contention. It does not require a lengthy procedure. We would have to go through the procedure just as we do on first reading of a bill.
Either the minister's words mean something or they do not. His master plan must mean something. There will be a link missing from it if this clause is not included; perhaps that is the reason he will not withdraw it. If the minister has a plan, I as a producer would like to know the details of the plan. I would like to be able to tell something to the producers in my area. I would like to know how many elevators will be left. I would like to know how we are to survive under this master plan that the master-mind has produced.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on Bill C-238, particularly as it relates to the inclusion of flax, rye and rapeseed. The other clauses of the bill are basically consequential and I find no fault with them.
In his original statement the minister again caused a great deal of confusion in the minds of many producers and saw fit to bring out press releases in order to try and alleviate some of the fears. Frankly, I do not know where the minister or the government stand on this measure. I do not know whether they favour the inclusion of flax, rye and rapeseed or whether they are leaving it to the whim of those who assert the most pressure. If the government is not firmly established in its position, I ask the minister why he has bothered bringing in the legislation at this time.
In his press release the minister stated:
-these sections may never be used and certainly will not be used except after full support of the move is received from producers based on a thorough discussion of the issues.
Like the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski),
I ask how these consultations will be carried out. Will there be discussions? Will it be done in the form of a plebiscite? Will it be based on the reactions and representations of the various farm producer groups, or by way of plebiscite? If consultations are held, I hope they are better than those which were carried out before Operation Lift was instituted.

May 20, 1971

At page 6625 of Hansard for May 6, 1970, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) asked what producer groups were consulted before Operation Lift was established. The minister replied that the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba pool elevators, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the National Farmers Union had been consulted. The minister further stated:
All consulted expressed support for the final version of Operation Lift as a necessary inventory reduction program to place the western grains industry on a solid footing for long-term industry policies and programs.
When talking to these producer groups they told me that they were presented with a fait accompli. This was the program, and there were to be no changes. It was "take it or leave it." If this is going to be the case with these pieces of enabling legislation, there is certainly cause for fear and apprehension among many producers who feel very strongly about the matter, particularly the question of rapeseed coming under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I ask the minister! If in the opinion of the government it is desirable to include these grains under the Wheat Board Act, will Parliament have an opportunity to deal with the matter? Will we have an opportunity to debate the proposal, or will it be invoked or introduced, as the hon. member for Mackenzie suggested, in the same manner as the War Measures Act?
The majority of producers are very concerned about the prospect of these grains being included. In fact, the prospect of inclusion has already had a detrimental effect on markets. The minister knows very well that rapeseed has provided one of the major cash crops in western Canada. Its growth has been phenomenal and its marketing program has been fantastic. In the past three years there has been a doubling of acreage and a doubling of production in each consecutive year. There have been no marketing problems. This is one of the few commodities produced in the western agricultural community that can readily be turned into cash. I might mention that cattle is another. These two commodities, rapeseed and cattle, have in large part been responsible for sustenance of the western farm economy during this time in which very serious problems confront the industry.
e (8:30 p.m.)
The measure before us gives the Governor in Council the option of bringing these grains, at will, under the government marketing agency. Of course, we know very well what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would like to do with the cattle industry. He has not seen fit to bring in the appropriate amendment to exclude cattle. The desire far being included has spread to the hog industry as well. We know very well that these two commodities have been successful in the free market place and there has been no government interference. I believe the producers do not want government interference with these two commodities.
Certainly there have been problems in marketing, but not nearly the problems encountered with the marketing of grain under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. In many cases the decisions which are being made with
Canadian Wheat Board Act
respect to sales policy are not always those which relate to the economic considerations of the day. Rather, many of them are political decisions. We have enjoyed a fairly consistent market and the producers want no part of seeing rapeseed brought under the control of the Wheat Board.
This leads me to examine the minister's observations about the success of the efforts made to sell wheat. Introducing the bill, the hon. gentleman talked about the vigorous sales program in which the Wheat Board has been engaged, the resurgence of sales and the fantastic numbers of sales which have been made. It is clear to me that results have not been lived up to the optimistic forecasts which were contained, for example, in Outlook 1971 which indicated we would be marketing some 500 million bushels of wheat.
If we look at the mini-Outlook which is dated March, 1971, we find it stated that the continuation of the government's more competitive export policy in 1970-71 should result in sales of the order of 350 million to 400 million bushels. Taking the higher figure of 400 millions bushels, we note there has been a drop in the projected sales target of 100 million bushels. I need only remind you, Mr. Speaker, that last year we marketed 347 million bushels, and before that 306 million bushels. So when you look at Canada's surplus in relation to the amount of publicity that is being created, you find that the increased sales are not really significant and, of course, the increase which has taken place has not resulted in any great financial benefit to the farmers.
The opposition has constantly reminded the minister that all is not well with our marketing performance. It is interesting to note that it is not only the opposition which has taken this view. It is widely circulated in the western farm papers that the great wheat selling job we were led to believe is going on, has not in fact taken place. I refer to page 6 of the Free Press Weekly dated May 15. It is not normally my habit to quote at length, but in this case I feel justified in doing so. This article, entitled "A big selling job ahead", is of particular interest because the minister has accused opposition members of belittling a gigantic selling effort. I appreciate the fact that the minister has tried. He has done a great deal on his personal initiative. What I object to is some of the false optimism which has been created by misleading propaganda statements. The article begins by asking a question:
Have the predictions of record exports of grain including wheat been substantiated by the first nine months of this crop year? The answer must be, no.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question? Can the hon. member show me where the minister, or anyone else on behalf of the government, predicted anything beyond a range of between 400 million bushels and some higher figure of bushels of wheat exported in the forecast 700 million bushels of export of grain? I do not take responsibility for what the press may have said. I am talking about what the minister or the government may have said.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This was circulated very widely.

May 20. 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Otto Emil Lang: Give me the source.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure the Free Press Weekly has a certain amount of credibility, perhaps more than the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Give me the source. Where did I say it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I referred to Outlook 1971. There was the prediction that something in the order of 500 million bushels would be exported.


Otto Emil Lang: Wrong again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Then there is the Canadian Agriculture Outlook which is an official publication of the Department of Agriculture. I intend to deal with the question of statistics in a few moments, because it is covered in this article. The correspondent continues:
Exports of wheat, and wheat in the form of flour from August 1, 1970, to April 14, 1971, amounted to 261 million bushels. The average weekly rate was about 7.4 million bushels. Based on this average, total exports to the end of the crop year would amount to about 385 million bushels. The minister was reported to have predicted exports of 700 million bushels of all grains of which he estimated 500 million bushels would be wheat.
The all-grain export figure to April 14 was estimated at 423 million bushels or an average of 12 million bushels per week. With 16 weeks to go in the crop year and based on the average to date, all grain exports would total around 600 million bushels of which approximately 400 million bushels would be wheat.
The article goes on to say that the estimated carry-over at the end of the crop year 1970-71 is 750 million bushels, a figure which has been exceeded only twice in the last ten years.
With an estimated 750 million bushels carry-over, it will be readily seen that Canada still has a big wheat selling job in its hands.
Once more Mr. Lang has been issuing figures which are not borne out by the facts. This policy may have a short-run political appeal, but even this is doubtful. Any figures issued by the Canadian government should carry cold, calculated considerations on what can be done, instead of optimistic guesses which do not pay off either with the western producer or Canada's buyers abroad. There is always the danger that a credibility gap will be established which may take years to live down.
It goes on to state-I believe this point has been made by hon. members who have spoken previously-that the board is not an autonomous organization any more. It
continues:
-the board is now not a board controlled by the producers but, due to the financial position, must of necessity be under strict direction of a minister of the Crown.
As evidence of this, nearly all pronouncements on policy come from the government and not the board. It is essential that the board should operate in such a way that its autonmy should be restored and that the organized producers should know that the board is operating in a surplus position again. This is the intent and the meaning of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which gave the board this autonomous position, so necessary for an efficient operation.
When we criticize the performance of the Canadian Wheat Board, the majority of us do not criticize its structure or its principles. What we criticize is the leadership it is given. As this article states, the Wheat Board's instructions come directly from the government. A look at the World Wheat Review reveals another interesting statistic. The number of bushels in commercial storage as of March 31, 1971, compared with the same period in 1970, was 170 million bushels of wheat less than the previous year. The Menzies committee recommended that the commercial stock of wheat should not exceed 250 million bushels. While this recommendatcon is not yet government policy, according to the World Wheat Review we find Canada has 252 million bushels in terminal positions and in elevator positions at the present time. This is down from 421 million bushels last year and 406 million bushels the year before.
What does this mean? It simply means there is less cash being distributed to the farmers. This morning in the agricultural committee, representatives from the Canadian Wheat Board dealt with this specific item and indicated that some 46,000 farmers have outstanding commitments under the provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and the low deliveries of wheat is the reason for this situation. More wheat is moving this year than last year, but the very fact that stocks in commercial positions are decreasing is playing havoc with the western Canadian economy; correspondingly, much less money is being distributed.
What does this mean in terms of dollars and cents? So far as marketings are concerned, the average yield from the year 1959-60 to 1968-69 as at March 31, was $278 million. So far this year the amount is $190 million, almost $100 million less than the long-term average flowing into the western farm economy. The government says it is pumping another $100 million into the farm economy under its stabilization program, and it is little wonder that the farmers are in such dire need of an injection of cash. While this is welcome, we are aware of the many additional ramifications to this measure.
The World Wheat Review also indicates that over-all sales throughout the world have increased by 30 per cent this year over previous years. So naturally Canada should be increasing its sales too. The question that we have to ask is whether Canada is increasing its market penetration. There is a great difference between sales volume and percentage of penetration in world markets. According to the Canadian Wheat Board report, at the beginning of the crop year 1969-70 the outlook for an improvement in international wheat trade was bleak. However, optimism grew in Canada as the crop year progressed for it became obvious that the U.S.S.R. and Argentina would harvest lower crop yields and that supplies of quality Australian wheat would be reduced. Naturally, this would have a greater impact on sales by Canada than previous years. But have we increased our market penetration. That is the point of significance here.
This leads me to another matter that I have raised in this House previously regarding the marketing policy of the Canadian Wheat Board. I refer to the various outstanding contracts now held by the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister has commented on these contracts and they are referred to at pages 14 and 15 of the annual

May 20, 1971

Wheat Board report. The Canadian Wheat Board also issued a press release in which Mr. Treleaven, assistant chief commissioner of the board, said that with one exception all countries contracting to buy wheat from Canada had fully lived up to their agreements. There is an article entitled "Default charges denied" in the Manitoba Co-operator of May 13, 1971. When I raised the question in the House I was merely seeking clarification in asking the minister to comment on these various outstanding contracts. I did not use the word "default"; I used the word "outstanding", and I covered the majority of them.
I ask the minister this question: If these various countries have lived up to the terms of their agreement, why then in the case of the U.S.S.R. did we have to go through a renegotiation of the contract? Why was it, with respect to the People's Republic of China, that amendments were made to the long-term agreement? Why was it, with respect to Bulgaria, that the entire quantity contracted for remained outstanding and a new contract was written up? Why was it that a three-year agreement with Poland for 33.1 million bushels, which was due to expire on November 4, 1969, was extended to July 31, 1971? Why is a long-term agreement with the Democratic Republic of Germany still outstanding? Why was the contract with the Philippines, which was due to expire on August 30, 1969, extended to September 30, 1971? Why was it that the contract with the United Arab Republic was not entirely filled?
If it is true that these countries lived up to the terms of their agreements, one then must ask the minister to tell us whether it is because Canada has not been able to deliver in sufficient quantities the kind of grain that was bargained for. I am not playing politics; I am merely seeking clarification.


Otto Emil Lang: Read on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I have been quoting. These are some of the things we want the government to deal with. I see the minister shaking his head. I am merely quoting from the Canadian Wheat Board report. I hope it is clarified without any fanfare. We have a situation which I believe warrants clarification. The Canadian Wheat Board certainly is not to be treated as a sacred cow. I believe it has some blemishes and I think this is the place to air them.
Now I should like to turn to the question of rapeseed. The rapeseed industry in Canada has been one of the most successful and has contributed to the survival of the grains industry in western Canada. I believe its success is owed in great part to the ingenuity and talent of Mr. Jim McAnsh who is the executive director of the Rapeseed Association of Canada. I am sure the minister will be consulting this gentleman and the association because they have some very explicit fears about the inclusion of these grains under the jurisdiction of the Canadian
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Wheat Board. I should like to quote from the Free Press Weekly of May 15 which quotes Mr. McAnsh as follows:
He fears that the threat alone may have curtailed interest in the rapeseed market and could have contributed to recent depression of prices in Winnipeg futures.
"We will not be assured that the spectacular growth and development of the rapeseed industry in Canada will continue until we are able to fully determine the scope and intent of the proposed changes," said Mr. McAnsh.
The article continues:
"The Rapeseed Association of Canada, which was brought into existence four years ago to promote and expand markets for Canadian rapeseed, while comprising all segments of the industry, includes in its membership roster a preponderance of rape-seed producers.
I reiterate that there are a large number of rapeseed producers included in this association. I believe it has become abundantly clear that the Canadian Wheat Board is too far removed from the producers' interest at the present time. There is no direct producer representation other than though the advisory board. I think it is very important that the producers themselves become closer to the marketing facilities. The article reads further:
By working shoulder to shoulder with the grain trade, processors, and grain handling companies, including the producer-owned companies, what was so recently a struggling industry has exploded into one of the most promising enterprises in western Canada," said Mr. McAnsh.
It continues:
A number of Canada's overseas customers have registered their protests regarding the proposed changes and do not appear to be completely reassured by the repeated statements by the minister that no change in the marketing system for rapeseed is contemplated at this time. Some importers of Canadian rapeseed who have been making forward contracts into the first quarter of 1972, are believed to have withdrawn from the market," concluded Mr. McAnsh.
Then we find these words:
As a cash crop that could be marketed and sold, rapeseed has been a lifesaver when other grain crops (primarily wheat) filled the producers' bins to the bursting point and apparently couldn't be marketed.
When asked whether governments should become involved in commodity promotion, Mr. McAnsh, the rape-seed executive, replied in a very definite and categorical way, "No". I believe we have been very successful in penetrating the market. Certainly I do not see any reason for trying to disrupt it at the present time. A number of producer groups feel very much the same way. I do not believe we should provoke any further apprehension. I think that before the legislation is proceeded with something firm must be stated by the minister concerning the manner in which he proposes to determine whether this measure has the support of the producers. We could then deal with the legislation in a much more expeditious manner.
I should like to quote a comment made by Mr. C. P. Kokott, secretary of the UGG local board in Lavoy, Alberta, which happens to be in my constituency. He refers to an annual meeting held on April 22 at which a

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
resolution was passed demanding action and requesting that the information be forwarded to the attention of the minister. The quotation is as follows:
I was directed to .. . present our local's strongest protest against the machinery that is in motion for the absorption of rape and flax to come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board-
Our local feels that the board has made a mess of the wheat situation in the last number of years and we would sooner gamble with rape on the open market, than let them gum up the works-
I would appreciate your passing our feelings to ... the powers in Ottawa who seem determined to bury us in our summer-fallow.
Mr. Speaker, these are some of the fears the producers and producer groups have in my part of the country. Alberta is a significant producer of rapeseed. I would hope, as the hon. member for Mackenzie suggested, this portion of the bill would be withdrawn or amended in such a way that the producers, either through a plebiscite or some other form of referendum, could indicate their desire one way or the other.
The members of the New Democratic Party want this measure adopted. It meets with their approval. However, I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that the group lost its credibility long ago. We have only to look at the side they were on in the recent rail strike threat. In the course of the debate the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) suggested that the members of the Conservative party would have to make up their minds because they could not have it both ways. I say to those hon. members who allegedly support the western farm interest that it is they who will have to make up their minds, because they will have to establish themselves as either coming out on the side of the farnv ers or on the side of the unions. They cannot serve both; they cannot have it both ways.
I believe therein lies a conflict of interest. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre referred to parasites living oil the backs of farmers. I would sooner have live parasites serving a useful purpose than half-dead ones living off the western farmer. The members of the New Democratic Party are in a position in which they are waffling in respect of where they stand with regard to Bill C-176. The basic philosophy is agreeable to them but they know the majority of producers are not with them.
It is interesting to note that the Barber commission also has a very interesting section on the matter of unions in respect of the difficulties many farmers have experienced in obtaining repair parts, particularly during the busy season and at weekends. A press release of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery points out that farmers have encountered difficulties because of weekend interruption of parts supply and delivery services. Because of union agreements affecting assignment of staff duties and overtime pay the companies are sometimes unwilling to supply weekend service. The cost may run up to $45 to meet a single emergency. Union regulations of this kind appear to show an almost callous disregard on the part of the union for the welfare of farmer customers. So here again we have a very significant development. We know
that the members of the New Democratic Party are largely supported by the labour unions...


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: The labour unions certainly did not elect me.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If that is so, then I suggest to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) that he had better start looking after the farmers rather than the labour unions, or he will not be here the next time. It is only fair to say that you cannot serve two masters. I am sure the minister knows that these birds only speak for a few.
Having said that, I hope the minister in his wisdom- and I respect his intelligence-will see fit to withdraw that provision or will accept an amendment which I believe will be proposed, so that we have at least one segment of the grain trade free of the shackles of government impairment.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Boulanger:: Here is another filibuster.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I do not know what the comments coming from the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) have to do with the subject at hand, but after all it is his side of the House that is proposing this legislation which even the minister who is proposing it says will probably not be used. The trouble is that the minister will not be around forever; somebody else might be slipped into his slot and might use the legislation. That is why we are taking this opportunity to oppose the legislation. I think the time of this House should be used for things that are necessary, and even the minister who is proposing the legislation says it is not necessary at this time. Therefore there is plenty of time to talk about it if the government insists upon calling it.
This bill, like its comrade Bills C-244, C-239 and C-176, is designed to make agriculture the most closely regulated segment of our economy. These four bills subject the producers of agricultural products to totalitarian control. The various agenices of government will be able to monitor the producer's every move. This legislation falls particularly heavily on western farmers. Perhaps the government is not aware of the feelings of western producers, which might be understandable because they do not have many members from that part of the country.
There used to be a time when there were no Liberal members from the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Of course, the cry at that time during an election was, "Give us some members so that we will know what you want". Well, that is not the case now. There is representation on the government side from every western province. However, we do not find that that representation is doing much to protect the interests of western Canadians, so I do not think that argument can be used any more.

May 20, 1971

We on this side of the House have to pay attention to what is happening because our electors recognize the forerunners of tyranny, especially when they take such blatant form. Western producers have no great desire to become indebted to the federal government nor to have their every move subjected to intense scrutiny by the deputies who will be set up following the passage of these four bills which constitute the government's answer to the agricultural problems of Canada.
I think it is quite clear that this approach is not working. We find that the electorate of Assiniboia have been unrepresented since the month of January. The government did not take the opportunity of calling a by-election in that constituency when it called by-elections in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. I understand there is a possibility that it may even be having difficulty in locating a candidate to bear the government's colours in that contest. I think this should be a hint to the government that its policies are not particularly pleasing to western electors.
The government does not seem prepared to back down in any way. I suggest that it takes courage to admit that a mistake has been made, but this government does not appear willing to display any such courage. It seems the government lacks courage in that respect. Rather, they seem intent on forcing a policy down the throats of those affected by the legislation and at the same time they have the gall to insist that it is good for them.
It is true that western farmers would like the aid of the government because as a result of old policies they find themselves in a state where aid is really necessary. They would like some assistance in marketing their produce but they do not want to be helped to death, because the type of help which the government is proposing will not improve the health of their economy. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said it was this government's policy to reduce the number of small farms. I agree that the type of legislation proposed under the four bills that I have mentioned, of which this is the principal bill, would have that result.
I ask whether it is sensible to include flax, rye and rapeseed under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. It certainly does not seem so. If these commodities are doing well

and I do not think there is any dispute in that regard-this does not seem necessary. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) have mentioned figures which show that this is a very successful crop.
When I spoke in the debate on the amendment to the cash advances legislation I referred to the rapeseed crop as being the Cinderella crop of western Canada. I think that it bears repeating that this crop has reached that stage with a minimum of regulation. I cannot say it is absolutely without regulation because as a result of amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1962 it is considered a grain, and the Wheat Board interprets that as a mandate to regulate deliveries of the crop even though they have no control over its marketing. As I said previously, the government prohibits farmers from sell-
Canadian Wheat Board Act
ing rapeseed in markets to which it could be delivered but for the regulations made by the Wheat Board.
Sometimes I wonder why they need this further amendment when they can control the movement of that grain, or would appear to be able to control it, under the existing legislation. It seems to me that the only logical explanation for the government's presentation of the bill at this time is the desire to have more power. I ask why it wishes this extra control. It can scarcely be because of need to improve the situation with respect to rapeseed, flaxseed and rye because that situation is fairly satisfactory at present.
The usual reason given for government intervention in the economy is that it is to correct some fault. But what are we to think if certain things are included in legislation which do not need correction or guidance? It is becoming increasingly apparent that the government seeks power for its own sake. Indeed, in the four bills that I have mentioned it has laid a plan to seize what amounts to absolute control over agriculture. Lord Acton said that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. We expect those who have the responsibility of power in the government to behave responsibly and to be true to their oftenstated principles.
Daily my colleagues and I on this side of the House receive letters of bitter complaint from our constituents, protesting in the strongest possible terms the government's mismanagement of their economy and of the economy in general. Lately I have received more letters relating to the government's misrepresentation and mismanagement of the Lift program than I have received about anything else. Many of my constituents are beginning to feel they were sold a bill of goods with respect to the Lift program. During the period leading up to the closing date, two or three pamphlets were issued by the department, but they did not say the same thing and some farmers had already made a decision on the basis of an earlier pamphlet. Later the rules were changed, but they were not informed of the change.
Some members of the New Democratic Party, in particular the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), have said that this legislation would be good for the grain industry. That hon. member said there was a demand for it, and when questioned he said the demand came from the producers' organizations. I suggest he is a little naive if he thinks the producer organizations actually speak for their members. He would be well advised to consult his constituents instead of depending on the so-called farm leaders.
In February I sent a questionnaire to every farm home in my constituency and I received a 25 per cent response. Question No. 5 asked: Do you feel the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a satisfactory job? I think that is a fairly straightforward question, not loaded in any way. In response, 37 per cent thought it was, 55 per cent thought it was not and 8 per cent were undecided. As a result, I do not think anybody could say that the farmers in my

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
constituency have a great deal of confidence in the Wheat Board.
Question No. 6 asked: Do you feel rye, flax and rape-seed should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board? In response, 32 per cent said yes, 57 per cent said no and 11 per cent were undecided. I feel that questionnaire has given me a certain amount of guidance. Even if those who replied thought that rapeseed and the other grains should be brought under the Wheat Board, in view of their replies to question No. 5 I could not go along with the proposal because they did not think the Wheat Board was doing a good job.
I would be interested to know if the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville made a similar inquiry of the people he represents, because he might find them holding an opinion different from his. He shakes his head. I gather he has not made such a study.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, I have.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: He says he has.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: And found very strong support for the Wheat Board.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: During his remarks he did not make any reference to what that study revealed. This evening the hon. member for Vegreville referred to the performance of the Wheat Board in selling wheat. I suggest that until that board can produce some evidence that it is effective in marketing our major crop, there is little reason why we should give it more responsibility.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the hon. member be willing to accept a question?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Yes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the survey the hon. member has conducted in his constituency, can he say whether or not he is in favour of abolishing the Wheat Board, since in his opinion it is obviously doing such a bad job?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I do not think we should abolish the Wheat Board, but serious consideration could be given to reforming it. This kind of question strikes me as the type the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is so fond of asking people who are supposed to be asking him questions. I do not think it is useful in getting at the facts of the matter. I certainly would not be opposed to abolishing the Wheat Board, but I think there are certain positive steps that could be taken to make it an effective body. However, until those things are done no consideration should be given to increasing its jurisdiction.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I ask the hon. member if I heard him correctly when he said he would not be opposed to abolishing the Wheat Board?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: I think you did. I was attempting to say that I felt the Wheat Board should be retained, but that it should be reformed so that it could do the job it is supposed to do; and until it is reformed, rapeseed has no place under its jurisdiction. To use one of the govern-

ment's favourite words, would it not be more reasonable to leave the Wheat Board to concentrate on selling wheat, hopefully with renewed vigour, rather than encumbering it with commodities that private individuals can handle to their own satisfaction, and here I mean the producers?
I am at a loss to discover what valid explanation the government can give to justify this intrusion. The government itself says that this legislation is not necessary and probably will not be used. It is this "probably" business that bothers me. The government has not found one yet and I am not sure it is even trying to find a bona fide reason to explain why we need to bring rapeseed under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.
On Friday, May 7, the minister told the House that he was trying to maintain farming as a viable and effective way of life. If this is so-and I must take the minister's word that this is the government's intention although it is rather difficult at times to see concrete evidence of it, then they are certainly going about it in the wrong way. As reported at page 5603 of Hansard, the minister had this to say:
It is very true that it is our belief that we should try to assure that the total system, where the government has any control, should be made as effective as possible to maximize returns to those involved in farming. I want to state, as a fundamental matter of our philosophy, that we do not in any way have the view that anyone should be made to move off a farm if he chooses to live on it.
Perhaps this is an admirable philosophy but I can only remark again that the government is not going about it in the right way. If people are making a success of growing rapeseed, why not leave them alone? They have entered a profitable market on their own initiative. What could be more discouraging and calculated to drive people off the farm than this unwarranted intrusion which is fated to reduce their freedom and to impose quotas on their crops? If they can now sell all they can grow, then I say all power to them-the economy needs more success stories like this. But this government cannot seem to leave well enough alone.
I note with interest that the minister said "where the government has any control". It would seem that the government does not want "any" power; it wants "all" the power. It seems that the government is intent on giving assistance to the farming community. The catch is, it does not matter whether they want it or not. The government wants to standardize and stabilize. Do they want to standardize our freedoms so that the farming community is completely under their thumb?
It must be obvious what they want to do. While the minister said that he did not want to see farmers leaving the land unless they wanted to, the government's program seemed to state that while people may be able to stay on the land, it will be at a very reduced standard of living. Offering support to those who have not made a success of farming, on condition that after they have gone the farm will be forced to become part of a larger unit or to become Crown land again, does not seem to
May 20, 1971

give people a choice. Unless the government can establish policies that would make their stay on the farm economically worth while, then the government has failed in its job.
Mr. Speaker, this bill leads to uncertainty because it gives a discretion to the government. I would suggest that uncertainty and ambiguity are the hallmark of all four of these bills dealing with the subjugation of agriculture to the whims of the Liberal cabinet. Powers are handed out with wild abandon; powers which are poorly defined and with no check on their use. This hardly seems to be a step to promote democracy-but has the government ever been concerned with the system on which our government is based?
Contempt is piled on this chamber in many different ways. I would say the simple reason for this is that we sometimes impede the progress of some people who think they belong to the elite and who happen to have progressed to the treasury benches. Apparently when they sit there they think they should be making the decisions for everybody in this country. Our system of government is representative and this government will not last much longer if it continues on its course.
I noticed an item in today's news to the effect that one of the government's former supporters-I guess he is a former supporter since he took the liberty of resigning his seat-a member from that great metropolitan area of Toronto, has decided that he cannot with any enthusiasm continue to sit here. I think this is symptomatic of what the government is doing. It is not able to keep up the morale of its own people.
The government accuses the opposition of being obstructionist. I do not accept that charge, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think it is our duty to follow what the government in its wisdom thinks are the best solutions to our problems without indicating that they may have made a mistake. This bill is a classic example of where the government has made a mistake. The minister had to issue a press release to reassure the industry that the Wheat Board probably will not be taking it over immediately. We are still forced, however, to spend time debating a matter that the government itself says is unnecessary. This makes one very suspicious, because the government says it has many other things to do. If that is the case, why are they taking time to more or less push this bill and its companion pieces of legislation through the House?
I think the accusation of obstructionism is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. We base our opposition on the strongest possible foundation-the desires of our constituents. They are united in repulsion from this plot of the government's to seize what freedoms are left in our agricultural economy. Our opposition is the expression of the disgust of our electors, and we dare not ignore them. We are not so arrogant as to place ourselves above the interest and demands of those who entrusted us to speak for them in this chamber. To suggest for one moment that the opposition has no basis of support for its position on this and the other three bills is, in my submission, an insult. I
Canadian Wheat Board Act
believe that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has received some 47,000 communications relating to another part of the package with which we are dealing tonight. We would be very remiss in our duty if we did not continue discussion of this matter. After all, the government has come to think of itself as infallible.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the minister piloting this bill through the House says it is not necessary legislation. Since the sponsor of the bill says it is not necessary, we feel that the government is imposing on this chamber by proceeding with the bill. The supporters of the bill, according to their statements, are clearly at odds with one another. For example, in his statement of October 29, 1970, the minister said that policies and programs to assist the farming industry must strengthen rather than blunt the commercial aggressiveness of each part of the industry. My constituents believe that the bill will have the opposite effect. The minister also suggested that the quantity of rapeseed that can be successfully marketed has not yet been determined. Will not the legislation do just that: will it not bring in the Wheat Board as the regulatory body to regulate the quantities to be sold before sufficient time has elapsed to permit us to determine just how big that market is?
I think this legislation overlooks the need in western Canada for the maintenance of cash crops. As is well known, rapeseed, flax and rye are probably the major cash crops. Other crops are being developed all the time, crops such as buckwheat, sunflower seeds and other commodities. Because of the government's failure in marketing wheat, a major crop, the western agricultural community is faced with the need for raising what are known as cash crops which can be marketed outside the control of the Canadian Wheat Board at market prices. As the hon. member for Mackenzie pointed out, rapeseed, a cash crop, saved the economic viability of his farm. He sold the crop and was able to obtain cash when he needed it most. If that grain is subject to control by the Canadian Wheat Board, it will no longer remain a cash crop in the sense that we understand that term and one of our largest cash crops will be removed from the western grain economy.
I also think it is improper to proceed with the legislation at this time because it will further weaken the existing futures market for grain. That market has grown up primarily because of the existence of rapeseed. Obviously, such a market is necessary. Last fall we encountered serious difficulty with barley because we did not have a futures market in that commodity, and the Wheat Board was unable to keep in touch with the actual value of barley. I think we lost the sale of a great many million bushels of barley last fall because our price was too high and because the government could not properly estimate what the price should have been. It could not do so because no futures market had been established.
Again, because the Wheat Board had jurisdiction over that commodity and did not know what its price ought to be, the price per bushel was cut by 20 cents in one

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
fell swoop. It has been revealed that this was too large a reduction. The result was lost income that will never be recovered by the producers of barley.
In its four-pronged attack on western Canadian agriculture, one prong being the stabilization bill, C-244, we find that the government is withdrawing financial support for western agriculture and, as in this bill, substituting straight control of the industry. I suggest, Mr. Speaker that this is not the right way to approach the problems of western agriculture. Since the minister has said that this legislation is not urgent and he does not know when, if ever, rapeseed will be brought under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board even if the bill is passed, I think the producers of rapeseed ought to be consulted.
The hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Vegreville also support this view. I agree that not all permit holders under the Canadian Wheat Board should take part in that consultation. Only those who, as the hon. member for Mackenzie suggested, have taken an interest in the crop by growing it should be consulted. I feel that everybody who has taken the trouble to grow this crop ought to be consulted. A plebiscite should be held in that way.
Since the legislation is not urgent at this time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack):
That all the words after "That" he deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Bill C-238 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Canadian Wheat Board to determine by way of producer plebiscite whether the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act that may by regulation apply to oats or barley should be extended to include rye, flax seed or rapeseed or any or all of them.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair must consider the procedural acceptability of the motion moved by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack). I must say to hon. members that I have some doubt as to whether the Chair can accept the amendment from a procedural standpoint. I have two preliminary doubts. The hon. member wishes to refer the matter to an outside agency. I think there is probably some jurisprudence to indicate that he cannot do that. He can refer the subject matter to a standing committee, but whether he can refer it to an agency that is outside Parliament is a matter, I think, that must be considered. I am aware that there is a precedent with respect to the transport commission. Hon. members may wish to assist the Chair on that point.
The other point that occurs to the Chair initially-and I invite the assistance of hon. members in this respect-is that the motion does not seem to oppose the principle of the bill. It refers to an outside agency, without opposing the principle of the bill. The Chair's mind is open to argument on the matter. If hon. members wish to assist the Chair, I will be pleased to hear them.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was the thought of the mover and seconder of this motion that they were assisting the
minister in his endeavour to get the bill through the House. I am sure that we want to accommodate the assistant whip of the government party rather than be accused of filibustering. We felt that this was a reasoned amendment which would help the minister to give the people of this country what he has been promising. We accept the bill. Every speaker on this side of the House has said that, with one exception.
We do not think this amendment takes anything away from the bill. It does not in any way deter the minister from getting the bill through. The minister said that the subject of including rapeseed, flax and rye under the Wheat Board will not be used immediately-in fact, not as long as he is minister.
The minister seemed to accept the principle that a referendum should be called. We made suggestions with regard to a referendum. We suggested that only those who produced rapeseed be asked whether they are in favour of having rapeseed included in the bill. Therefore, we say it is a reasoned amendment. As the assistant whip has suggested time and again, the purpose is to get this legislation through the House as fast as possible for the benefit of the farmers. The minister is very anxious to get the grading part of the bill passed. We approve of that; every speaker has said so.
To cite a precedent I wish to refer to page 400 of Beauchesne's. This refers to a similar amendment. I will only read part of it:
"That all the words after the word 'That' in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
'the further consideration of this bill be referred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada'."
In the case of this amendment, rather than the electors of Canada it is the people who are concerned with this particular grain. I do not want to go into the arguments why it should or should not be placed under the control of the Wheat Board. The minister said it is not immediately necessary to have this provision, and we agree.
If the referendum indicates that the rapeseed producers want this grain under the control of the Wheat Board, as the Socialists to my left would like it, we will agree to it. We know that they do not all want this because we have had communications from a large number of rapeseed producers indicating that they do not want to be included in the legislation. It is the only cash crop they have at the present time. This is what we in western Canada are concerned about, a cash crop at the present time.
I could state what we think about the efforts of the Wheat Board in selling wheat at this time. The minister said there is a record movement of grain under the Canadian Wheat Board. In spite of that, the economy of western Canada is at its lowest ebb ever. There is something wrong. This is what we are concerned about. Rapeseed is the biggest cash crop they have. It is the only thing that is keeping them going. That is why I say this is a reasoned amendment. There should be no hesitation

May 20, 1971

on the part of the minister to accept the amendment. I hope the assistant whip of the government will vote for this amendment so that we will not have to talk any more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the amendment, and even more so from the words we have just heard, that hon. members do not oppose the principle of the bill. Indeed, their remarks have been related to one small section of it, something which could be dealt with in committee. The amendment falls on that ground alone. It also falls on the second ground to which I have referred that the matter can be adequately dealt with in committee.
On a number of occasions I have indicated the need to consult with producers. I hinted in my opening remarks and stated on a number of occasions that a plebiscite might be the appropriate technique. An amendment in that regard could certainly be made in committee. If we can work out the right terms for a plebiscite at this stage, I will welcome them. In other words, we would be anticipating here what could be done in committee. Certainly the amendment is not opposed to the principle of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I did not rise earlier because I thought the minister would spring to his feet and indicate with alacrity his desire to accept the amendment offered, in view of his alleged fondness for participatory democracy. However, that probably does not apply to the farmers of the west.
There are a number of reasons for approving this amendment. The first is that it was moved by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). I am sure the hon. member would not move an amendment that was not in order. Second, it comes from this party. As Your Honour knows, we attempt to comply with the rules. Sometimes there are differences of opinion between the Chair and this party with regard to our amendments, but the fact that we move an amendment indicates that it should be considered to be in order.
The terms of the amendment indicate that members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have dash and verve. We attempt to not be bound by the ironclad traditions of the past. We are prepared to move into new fields while at the same time clinging to the sound principles of previous decisions of this House. The hon. member has been successful in combining in one motion two principles which have been accepted in the past. That should be a tribute to this ingenuity and his amendment should be accepted by the Chair.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) quoted Beauchesne. He indicated that in the past the House accepted an amendment moved by the very great and distinguished Canadian, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was a liberal when it meant something to be a Liberal.
Canadian Wheat Board Act


Mr. Francis:: It always does.


Prosper Boulanger: It always does; don't forget that.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member quoted Beauchesne as follows:
-'the further consideration of this bill be referred until the principle thereof has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada'.
That was accepted as a valid amendment. In other words, that "further consideration of the bill be left until the principle has, by means of a referendum, been submitted to and approved of by the electors of Canada." That is acceptable as a reasoned amendment. The wording here is not quite the same but there is the clear intent that there not be further consideration of Bill C-238 and that it not now be read the second time. That is an indication of disapproval of the principle of the bill.
To indicate how unprepared I am, I only have a copy of Beauchesne's third edition with me. I wish to quote from page 499. This amendment was offered on April 17, 1934:
Amendment that bill be not now read a second time but that the subject-matter thereof be referred to a Board of Commissioners is in order.
The amendment was moved by Mr. Barber, seconded by Mr. Plunkett. Mr. Mackenzie raised a question as to whether the amendment was in order. Argument proceeded at that time. Mr. Gray quoted rule 755. Mr. Speaker stated:
I am of the opinion that the amendment referring the subject matter of the bill to the Board of Commissioners is in order.
The ruling was challenged but the House sustained Mr. Speaker. This was in the bad days when Speakers' rulings could be appealed. We have progressed beyond that now. What my learned friend from Palliser has done is to put the two principles into one motion-that the bill not be read the second time until a referendum has been conducted among those directly affected. I believe his ingenuity should be rewarded by Your Honour ruling that the proposed amendment is in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If no other hon. members wish to address the Chair I think I can give a ruling on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher). I wish to thank hon. members who have assisted the Chair by arguing the procedural points at issue, I indicated initially that there was some doubt in my mind whether it would be in order to refer the subject matter, as the amendment purports to do, to an outside agency. Hon. members know, of course, that the subject matter of a bill may be referred to a committee of this House, but there is some doubt whether it is an order for an amendment purporting to be a reasoned amendment to seek to refer the subject matter to an agency outside the confines or jurisdicion of Parliament.
The hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) argued very persuasively and fluently in favour of the

May 20, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
proposed amendment being accepted, using the precedent of the reference to the Board of Transport Commissioners. I appreciate the argument he advanced; I think it is a good and valid one. However, in reaching a decision I believe a distinction must be made, because in the particular case cited the amendment was a declaratory one adverse to the principles of the bill. Reading the amendment moved by the hon. member for Palliser, I find some difficulty in bringing myself to believe that the amendment is declaratory in opposition to the principle of the bill. It might be helpful if at this juncture I were to read the proposed amendment. It is as follows:
That all the words after "That'' be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Bill C-238 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Canadian Wheat Board to determine by way of producer plebiscite whether the provisions of the Canada Wheat Board Act which may by regulation apply to oats or barley should be extended to include rye, flaxseed or rapeseed or any or all of them.
The Chair has this reservation in mind and it is an important one. The factor which seems to me to be the determining factor, and the one upon which the Chair would like to base its ruling, is the well established principle that a reasoned amendment is not in order if it purports to do something which could be done by the committee considering the bill after it had passed second reading.
Clause 5 of the bill deals with the authority of the Governor in Council to bring flax, rapeseed and rye under the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. Since authority to legislate is vested in members of this chamber and not in the Canadian Wheat Board or other agencies, it seems to me the hon. member could, if he wished, ask his fellow members on the committee, by moving an amendment, to make the decisions called for in his amendment: this could be done by moving Em amendment to delete or amend clause 5 of Bill C-238 which is before us.
For these two reasons, and particularly for the second reason that the bill could be amended in committee along the lines suggested, the Chair regretfully cannot accept the proposed amendment from the procedural standpoint.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few observations I should like to make with reference to Bill C-238. First, I should like to make it clear that I agree heartily with what has been said by some of my hon. friends, particularly by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) who have drawn attention to the satisfaction felt by rapeseed growers over the past few years in being able to produce a cash crop. I can say from experience that the growers I represent feel the same way.
We heard the minister say a few moments ago that during the committee stage an amendment could be moved which, if approved, would allow a plebiscite to be taken. But we cannot always take messages of this sort at their face value. Not long ago we heard a report that wheat exports from Canada would be in the neighbourhood of 500 million bushels during the 1970-71 crop year, compared with 347 million bushels last year.


An hon. Member:: With 374 million bushels.


Robert Simpson: Since then we have heard the minister say that wheat exports may amount to 400 million bushels. So it is a little difficult to accept statements coming from the minister. I am interested in one or two aspects of this bill particularly as they pertain to exports from the port of Churchill. I should like to draw attention to the fact that up to the present the Wheat Board has not seen fit to indicate what quantity of wheat is to be exported from Churchill in the year ahead. Each year we experience difficulty in getting the board to make an announcement. I asked the Wheat Board to make an announcement that some 30 million bushels would be shipped out of the port for sale abroad; however, the Board has not seen fit to do this.
The bill before us seeks authority to enable the Wheat Board to assume responsibility for the msuketing of rye, flaxseed and rapeseed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to ajourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded at this time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the consent of the House to revert to motions to put forward an order which I have discussed with my colleagues on all sides of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has asked for consent to revert to motions. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have held discussions with respect to the further progress of Bill C-207 and we have reached certain conclusions. After I have read the order they will be revealed as being the result of painstaking discussions over a period of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Results painfully reached.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They involved change in positions by all persons concerned in the discussions. However, I hope the order will be acceptable to members of the House generally. It reads as follows:
That the order for resuming consideration of Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, shall be the first order of government business called on Tuesday, May 25, 1971, and on Wednesday, May 26, 1971, and that the consideration of private members' business on Tuesday, May 25, 1971, shall be sus-

May 20, 1971

pended so that consideration of Bill C-207 may be continued between 5 o'clock p.m. and 6 o'clock p.m. that day, and that not later than 5 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, May 26, 1971, every question necessary to dispose of the bill in Committee of the Whole shall be forthwith and successively put without further debate or amendment, and that the House shall immediately thereafter proceed to its consideration of all remaining stages of the bill, and that the House shall not adjourn that day at 6 o'clock p.m. and that, not later than 7 o'clock p.m. in the sitting, every question necessary to dispose of all remaining stages of the bill shall be forthwith and successively put without further debate or amendment;
That, in Committee of the Whole on the said bill, a minister shall propose amendments to provide
(a)	that the Minister of the Environment is also the Minister of Fisheries;
(b)	that clause 17 be deleted; and
(c)	that the establishment of a Ministry of State shall be subject to the adoption of a resolution of the House, which shall be decided upon after not more than a specific period of debate;
And that, in relation to the proposed establishment of Ministries of State for Urban Affairs and Housing and for Science and Technology, no more than one spokesman from each party shall participate in the deabte on each of the said proposed resolutions notwithstanding general provisions relating to the approval of such ministries in Bill C-207.


An hon. Member:: What a retreat!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I may say I have never enjoyed any retreat so much.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this was not a retreat but a great victory for Parliament. I am glad to say that we are agreeable to the general principles. As far as paragraph (c) is concerned, I will not ask the minister to indicate the terms of the various amendments that will be moved, but there has been an understanding between all the parties involved as to what the purport of the amendment in question will be. We are all agreed on what the amendment will be. Apart from that, may I say we are very pleased to resolve this problem. I think it shows that Prime Ministers may come and Prime Ministers may go, but Parliament goes on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, rather than use such words as "retreat" or "victory", may I say this is another demonstration of the value of collective bargaining. We have had some lengthy sessions at the bargaining table and there has been give and take on all sides. The document that the minister has just read represents the position at which we arrived, and we agree with it.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has just announced, we held discussions in order to come to an agreement to resume consideration of Bill C-207. Our party therefore supports the motion to resume consideration of this bill, so that it can be put through the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and I
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion think there would be unanimous agreement that the House would not want the Chair to repeat the terms of the suggestion proposed by the minister and agreed to by the House leaders. Subject to the small reservation of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), is it agreed that a special order shall be made in the terms of the order read by the President of the Privy Council?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 I directed two questions to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). First of all, I asked whether he would look into the charge made at a meeting of the Northwest Territories Council that the minister's department was hiring supervisors who were bigots and ill-disposed to the Eskimo people of the Northwest Territories. I must say that the charge was actually levelled against supervisors working for the Department of Transport.
Then I asked a supplementary question of the minister, whether he would investigate the claim that a very high percentage of those employed on drilling crews, for which not much skill is required, are being recruited in southern Canada instead of from the native people in the territory. The minister replied simply that a trade school was established at Edmonton several years ago and that as more people are trained they would be hired.
My questions arose from a report which appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 9 which referred to a speech made by Weldy Phipps, a member of the Northwest Territories Council, in which Mr. Phipps asked the council to support a brief which he proposed to submit to the federal Advisory Committee on Northern Development "detailing the lack of employment of local labor". The report says that the motion was passed unanimously. What Mr. Phipps said is a pretty damning piece of information. The article reads:
The department often hired supervisors who were "thinly disguised bigots who scorn the Eskimo," said Mr. Phipps, elected member of the council for the High Arctic.
The article points out that Mr. Phipps told the council that the federal government, and to some extent the territorial government, contribute to high unemployment in the High Arctic. Mr. Phipps stated:
Its deficiencies in hiring Eskimos, Indians and Metis are not ones of a few unrelated incidents, but almost seem to be the government's practice.

May 20. 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Phipps said, further, that blame for unemployment and hiring practices should not be directed chiefly at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but at other departments. He said other federal departments obviously had not thought about their responsibility to hire local labour. He told the council that unemployment ran as high as 90 per cent in some areas of the High Arctic. He went on to give illustrations. He said he has seen survey crews come through Resolute with every man on the team from southern Canada.
He claimed that the only person who needed special training was the kind of person the minister referred to in his reply to me; this was the instrument man. The others were hired to carry surveyor's rods and pound stakes. Mr. Phipps points out that these people draw big salaries for three or four months and then return to the south. He states that if the money were paid to the Eskimos they would probably earn enough that they would not require support through the provision of welfare. He claims that the territorial government continues to import people from southern Canada for administrative and technical jobs in the settlements when these jobs could be handled by the local population.
Mr. Phipps said that the base at Resolute has a staff of about 60 people, and that of these 60 jobs only four or five are held by Eskimos. These include such positions as janitor, kitchen worker, bartender, clerk, heavy equipment operator and carpenter. Surely these positions are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. One could blame that department, but I hope and expect that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would take its responsibility for trying to improve conditions for Eskimo and Indian peoples and keep the pressure on employers, whether they be other government departments or private employers, to fill as many of these positions as possible now, and as quickly as possible in the future, with native people.
I believe Mr. Phipps, a person who lives in the north, who represents a northern area on the Northwest Territories Council, when he berates all government departments for failure to do what I have suggested should be done. I urge the government and the department to redouble and quadruple its efforts to ensure that the native people are given every opportunity to fill the jobs they can handle, so that their lives can be brought up to something like the standard which we are fortunate enough to enjoy in southern Canada.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as has been suggested, my minister was asked to investigate a charge contained in a resolution passed by the Northwest Territories Council to the effect that the department is hiring as supervisors bigots who are doing little to ensure that native people are hired for anything but unskilled positions.
The facts have been investigated and it has been found that no such resolution was passed by the Northwest Territories Council. A motion was introduced in the
council that a brief be prepared and submitted to the Advisory Committee on Northern Development detailing a lack of employment of local labour by federal departments and agencies and recommending steps by which the situation could be improved. An additional motion was to the effect that the possibility of establishing a program to appoint officers to act as liaison between local labour and private business be studied.
I wish to state that it is already the policy of our department to employ northern residents in all northern positions for which they can qualify. In the wider context, an interdepartmental committee is now studying ways of speeding up this process for the employment of northern people in all the other government departments.
Also, the department already has an employment liaison program in operation and is currently recruiting additional staff who will be stationed in the north to act as liaison between local labour and employers with main responsibility for employment of northern residents. This staff will be responsible for ensuring that resource development firms and other companies contemplating activities in the north are aware of the available labour force, their skills and the training programs that exist.
A committee composed of representatives of the federal and territorial governments and the petroleum and related industries has been established to bring about an increase in the training and employment of local workers in the northern operations of the oil and gas industry.
In addition, last August, in a joint statement by the minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) guidelines were set out for the construction and operation of northern oil and gas pipelines. It was noted that many benefits would accrue to northern residents because one condition of approval for a pipeline project is that industry would be required to ensure appropriate training and employment programs for Indian, Eskimo and Metis people in the north. Agreements have been made with some of the major mining companies operating in the north. These agreements guarantee the same rights and privileges to northerners as are enjoyed by the companies' employees elsewhere.
I might mention that last week when I was up in Old Crow we were told, when we were querying the residents on how the muskrat catch was going this year, that virtually none of the Ind ans in Old Crow were out catching muskrats but in fact all of those who so desired were working on the various seismic crews for the oil companies operating in the Old Crow area.
I can assure the hon. member that we are continuing to seek and to expand employment for northern residents through a continuing review of our existing programs.



AGRICULTURE-FARM MACHINERY-IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING MANUFACTURE IN CANADA-CLARIFICATION OF STATEMENTS ON COMPANY PROFITS

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) whether

May 20, 1971

any steps were being taken to clarify the conflicting statements emanating from the Barber commission investigating prices of farm machinery respecting profits achieved by the manufacturing companies. In its interim report it says that the farm machinery companies were making "handsome profits". In the final report it has watered this statement down to read "moderate profits". It seems to me incredible that the commission would entirely reverse its stand on such an important issue as profits in the farm machinery industry. The assumption, rightly or wrongly, has bothered the consumers who in this case are mainly farmers. So far as I am concerned, the credibility of the commission has been entirely destroyed.
During the controversy which developed after the commission released its interim report, Massey-Ferguson and other manufacturers operating in Canada were accused of making handsome profits and words such as "conspiracy" and "confiscation" were freely used. Massey-Ferguson elected to challenge this statement and in press releases and in direct submissions to the royal commission the company denied it was making the handsome profits alleged by the commission chairman.
The company challenged the commission to take another responsible look at the figures which it had shown to the commission when it first appeared before it. Clearly, from that point onward the battle-lines were drawn and it was a royal commission against one of the giant conglomerates. It now appears from the final report that the victor has been Massey-Ferguson. If this is not the case, then I suggest that the government owes an immediate and direct apology and retraction to Massey-Ferguson and to all other producers of farm machinery in Canada-certainly, if not from the government at least from the chairman of the commission.
The royal commission, and by inference the government, are not strengthening the investor's or the public's faith in the Canadian economy by making suggestions of this nature. The Credibility of the commission has been badly damaged. The situation must receive clarification if the government expects the people of this country to have any faith in the policy proposals which will flow from the contents of this report.
If this matter is not cleared up, the people of Canada have produced and paid for a stale, outdated $1.5 million whitewash job which they can sorely afford at this time. I am using the figure $1.5 million because that was the cost of the commission inquiry as of last December. It is probably reasonable to assume that the cost has been increased since the writing of the final report, so probably we are dealing with a figure in the order of $2 million.
If the government is going to appoint a body to prepare a report for the country, particularly the farmers, to digest and consider it has a responsibility both to the commission and, in this particular case, to the farm machinery interests to clarify the statements that have been made. If the first assertion was hastily conceived, the report should say so. If the strength of the Massey-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Ferguson case has caused a rearrangement of the figures, then the whole report is worthless.
The government is charged with the grave and weighty responsibility of running the affairs of the country. If it fails to set the record straight and establish some facts, it is derelict, perhaps even negligent in its duty to the country's corporate and private citizens. During these times of economic and social strife it would behoove the government to set a pattern which the country can effectively follow. The whole country has been cast adrift by statements and misinformation of this nature. The government has left it to wallow in a sea of mud mixed by confused chefs across the way. Hopefully, when the maitre d' returns the people of Canada will be able to get answers to some of these problems.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) asked a two-part question today, the first part directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the second part to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). I came prepared to discuss it this evening on the basis of the part directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I was rather surprised at the strong words used in the member's statement this evening, condemning the government on its stand on a report when the report has only just come out: it just arrived on my desk yesterday. It is a very thick volume and I must confess that I have not yet had time to read it from cover to cover. I am a little surprised that the hon. member has had time to read and digest it thoroughly. There is a brief summary of the report-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is no provision for a point of order at this time.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Before the hon. member seeks the headlines, I think he would want to study the matter thoroughly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Read the press release.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a brief summary is not the same as the whole report.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is pretty concise.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I have read some parts of the chapter on pricing and I find it most interesting that the report does not say that the farm machinery companies make excessive profits, but it does say that perhaps the market strategy used in placing the machinery on sales floors for periods of a year and a half to two years was an expensive one. It points out very clearly,
6026

May 20, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
however, that their net profit at the end of the year does not appear to be excessive. I think these factors have to be examined.
The preliminary report indicated some opinions on the subject and the final report indicates some further opinions. I think it would be reasonable to examine all these opinions very carefully before seeking to blacken the reputation of the farm machinery industry.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is exactly what the commission tried to do.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: The commission was selected as an independent body to make a report to the government, Mr. Speaker. It is not a report made by government; it is a report for government. There is a vast difference. No one in the government has made these statements. This is an independent body and I think we have to respect the opinions of these people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary's time has expired.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-USE OF RADIO BANDS FOR TRANSMISSION OF LISTENING DEVICE SIGNALS

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days I have raised questions, first with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and later with the Minister of Communications concerning the alleged use of electronic eavesdropping devices for the purpose of obtaining information about certain groups and individuals in our society.
Concern for individual privacy and the implications of electronic spying are neither new nor are they limited to Canada. In the United States it was reported that a sixth circuit court judge ruled the FBI must first obtain a warrant to tap phones of domestic groups suspected of subversion. The FBI, of course, was somewhat less than enchanted with this ruling. Much controversy, too, has surrounded the U.S. army's snooping on civilians and a U.S. Court of Appeal has ordered a full-dress hearing by a federal court into the constitutionality of the army's spying on civilians.
In our own country, too, there is widespread concern. In tonight's Ottawa Citizen under the headline "Bugging ban bill due before summer" there is the report that the great defender of civil liberties, our own Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) emotes equal concern and plans to make electronic invasion of privacy a criminal offence.
So much for the background. What prompted my question was the allegation of the movement for the defence of political prisoners that their meeting May 15 in Montreal had been subjected to furtive electronic scrutiny. This is the very thing that the Minister of Justice's proposed bill is supposed to guard against. If this surveillance were conducted by the RCMP, the Montreal police or any other body there is nothing in present law which forbids it except-and this is a big exception-that under section 3 of the Radio Act any radio transmission requires a licence to operate on a designated frequency

except under certain exceptions granted under part 2 of the same section. Under section 11 of the Radio Act it is illegal for any person to establish or instal a radio station contrary to the act, and if one does he is liable to a fine of $25 or a 12-month prison term.
Mr. Speaker, this raises some interesting questions. The Department of Communications issue licences to operate radio transmitters on prescribed frequencies. Therefore I asked in the House, have certain frequencies been assigned to the police and, if so, what are they? If the answer is that police have not been assigned frequencies, and if they have been using them as is alleged in the Montreal case, then the police are acting illegally. That raises some interesting questions about the admissability of any evidence gained thereby-or do the police, like the FBI, feel they can do as they please?
A second point is that the frequency used by the bugging device was very close to that assigned-I have learned this from the Department of Communications-to aeronautical radio navigation signals. Yet no one in the Ottawa communications headquarters would answer whether or not the police had applied to use this band. The whole thing is extremely woolly, Mr. Speaker. As you can see, there was a noticeable lack of candour in respect of my efforts to gain information.
I am moved, in conclusion, to ask some questions. First, do commercial bands for taxis, businesses, the police, etc., include implicit permission to employ electronic eavesdropping devices? Second, what effort is the Department of Communications making to effectively administer assigned frequencies so that invasions of privacy are not encouraged.
We are told that there are 5,000 radio transmitters in Ottawa and 25,000 in both Montreal and Toronto. So this is a serious matter. It seems to me, from my brief immersion into the Radio Act, that if the act and its regulations were enforced to the fullest extent there would be little need for the Minister of Justice-Mr. Clean himself-to move for more legislation in this very personal area.


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that the allocation of radio frequencies is no longer the responsibility of the Department of Transport. It was transferred some time ago to the Department of Communications. I have been provided with the following information which may shed some light on the subject.
One of the important responsibilities of the Minister of Communications is the management of a public resource, the radio frequency spectrum. To do this the minister has the authority to assign frequencies in the spectrum and to issue licences or technical certificates to persons or organizations wishing to use radio. The purpose of the minister's management function in the use of the spectrum is to ensure the most effective development and use of this resource. To do this the government of Canada not only enters into agreements with foreign countries on the allocation of frequencies, but maintains monitoring services throughout the country whose main task is to make certain that there is not unauthorized interference with the licensed users either inadvertently or by design.
May 20, 1971

There are some 260,000 authorized stations operating in Canada. A number of these operate on the general broadcast bands used by radio and television, out the vast majority are used for private communications systems serving more than 300 industries, and operate on frequencies not used by broadcasting. To assure that equipment operates on assigned frequencies and that the spectrum is not polluted by stray signals, either from radio equipment or a wide variety of electrical equipment, the department maintains over 250 radio inspectors across the country.
Consequently, the role of the department in this area is largely a technical one. The policing services that the department maintains are analogous to those of a traffic
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
control department in a police force. The department is not primarily concerned with the content of information transmitted through the electromagnetic spectrum. It is concerned that signals are transmitted on assigned frequencies.
In relation to the particular case of electronic surveillance, or what is more commonly called electronic eavesdropping, it is a fact that the department has not assigned any specific frequency for this sort of use of the spectrum. Furthermore, the department has not issued any licences or certificates for equipment designed specifically for this purpose.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
24107-31J

May 20, 1971



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Inspired by a desire to develop and strengthen relations of friendship, good neighbourliness and mutual confidence between the two countries.
Expressing a desire for co-operation in the interests of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations, and
Conscious of the responsibilities of the Soviet Union and Canada as members of the United Nations to promote the preservation of peace,
Believing that the Soviet Union and Canada can contribute toward the above goals by acting in a spirit of co-operation, mutual respect and reciprocal benefit,
Endeavouring to improve and further develop relations between the two countries by means of high-level contacts, expanding ties and exchanges in the fields of economy, trade, science, technology, culture and northern development,
Noting with satisfaction the conclusion of the Soviet-Canadian agreement on Co-operation in the Industrial Application of Science and Technology, and the development of trade on the basis of the 1956 Trade Agreement,
Conscious of the responsibility of the two sides to preserve and protect the environment of the Arctic and the sub-Arctic areas,
Fully determined to go on developing political and economic co-operation,
The Chairman of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister of Canada have agreed on the following:
1.	The Soviet Union and Canada shall enlarge and deepen consultations on important international problems of mutual interest and on questions of bilateral relations by means of periodic meetings. Such consultations will embrace:
-questions of a political, economic and cultural nature, environmental questions and other subjects concerning relations between the two countries;
-international questions, including situations causing tension in various parts of the world, with a view to promoting detente, furthering co-operation and strengthening security;
-problems which are the subjects of multilateral talks, including those considered at the United Nations;
-any other subjects in respect of which the parties may find it useful to have an exchange of views.
2.	In the event of the a situation arising which, in the opinion of the two governments, endangers the maintenance of peace or involves a breach of the peace, the two governments will make contact without delay in order to exchange views on what might be done to improve the situation.
3.	The provisions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above do not affect obligations previously assumed by the parties in respect of third states and are not directed against any of them.
4.	The conduct of such consultations between the Soviet Union and Canada is designed not only to promote the welfare of their peoples and develop relations between them but also to contribute towards better relations among all countries.
5.	These consultations, at levels to be determined by mutual agreement, will have a regular character. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs or their representatives will meet whenever the need arises and, in principle, at least once a year. Either party is free to recommend the holding of such consultations, including the time and level at which they should be held.
Moscow, May 19, 1971
Chairman of the Council of	Prime Minister
Ministers of the U.S.S.R.	of Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 21, 1971