1972-05-03

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning the Standing Committee on Regional Development. The facts are as follows: Last Thursday the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion was questioned in the standing committee on some very important matters concerning the estimates of his department. As the minister was unable to provide the answers, he undertook to give them at an early meeting of the committee. The chairman of the committee proposed May 5 as the date for the minister's appearance. Last Monday the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Regional Development was informed that the minister could not be available until May 18 and that his deputy would appear as a witness on May 4. Yesterday the members of the committee were informed in writing that the latter meeting had been cancelled because the deputy minister could not attend.
It is clear that under the circumstances the Standing Committee on Regional Development is prevented from dealing properly with the task assigned to it by the House, namely, to examine the proposed expenditures of almost half a billion dollars, because both the minister and his deputy have declared themselves unavailable as witnesses at a reasonably early time. The matter is extremely urgent as under Standing Order 58(14) the standing committee is required to consider and report these estimates back to the House not later than May 31.
My formal motion, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) will be:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections inquire forthwith and report upon the reluctance of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and his deputy to appear before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion and that the report of the committee with its recommendations thereon be made to the House within the next five days.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: On a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We can have only one question of privilege before the House at one time. The hon. member for St. Boniface will recognize that at the moment there is a matter that has been raised for the consideration of the House by way of a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, as required by the provisions of Standing Order 17, has given the Chair the required notice, which has given me an opportunity to
study, if only briefly, the precedents in relation to the applications of this Standing Order. The hon. member and the House will appreciate that the Chair is required to make a ruling on whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, at which point the motion could be put, and at which time there could be a debate based on the motion of which the hon. member has given notice.
I should like to refer the House and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville to a ruling by the Chair reported in the official report of debates of the House for Monday, March 15, 1971, when a question and a motion much similar to those now raised were then proposed for consideration by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. The ruling of the Chair at that time read in part as follows:
The hon. member has raised by way of a question of privilege the fact that a minister was not in attendance in a committee of the House to answer questions which the hon. member wanted to submit to him. The hon. member suggested that the difficulty he has encountered is the result of the changes in the rules of the House of Commons. I respectfully suggest to him that this is hardly a matter which can be raised by way of a question of privilege.
The hon. member may feel aggrieved in the sense that he did not have an opportunity to obtain the information he was seeking, but I would then think that the matter becomes a question of substance, and the only way in which a debate may be initiated in the House is by way of a substantive motion. In fact, the motion proposed by the hon. member is essentially a substantive motion and in the circumstances it should not be raised as a question of privilege.
I would also like to refer the hon. member to Standing Order 65(11) which indicates that the chairman of a standing or special committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all such questions subject to an appeal to the committee. That, of course, is not an appeal to the House but to the committee.
I think it is long-established practice that difficulties in discussions and debates in a committee should be settled by the committee itself, and that if there are difficulties which are to be considered by the House this should be done at the time the report of the committee is before the House for debate and consideration by the members of the House.
In addition to these points there is in my mind a question of the propriety and practicality of having the proceedings of one committee investigated by another committee of the House. I can foresee all sorts of difficulties if this were allowed and became a practice of the House.
In view of the precedents, the citation to which I have referred and the Standing Orders, I must come to the conclusion that the matter raised by the hon. member is essentially a substantive motion and that it should not be debated in the House by way of a question of privilege. My ruling is that there is no prima facie case of privilege and the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.
25104-58.)

May 3, 1972
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I listened to what you said very carefully, but an implication of neglect of duty on my part as chairman of the committee has been raised and in view of that I believe I have the right to say something.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member claims that he has a question of privilege. It cannot, of course, be the same question on which there has already been a ruling. If the hon. member claims he has been aggrieved he might indicate briefly what the question of privilege is and the Chair will make a ruling. The hon. member should indicate as succinctly as possible what the question of privilege might be.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Regional Development of which I am chairman is very progressive and has been doing a tremendous job-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: First of all, I should like to say that we had the minister there twice and we had the deputy minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should resume his seat. The hon. member is now debating the issue which perhaps shows the validity of my suggestion that this was a matter of debate. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville wanted to bring the matter before the House under the guise of a question of privilege. I thought that this was a substantive motion which would give rise to a debate of substance. The approach taken by the hon. member indicates that I was quite right. I have already ruled that this is not a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Turner (London East).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to ask for unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald MacInnis: -to move a motion under Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of great interest to all members of the House and especially to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) who raised the question yesterday. In view of the fact that many Canadians are being deprived of the opportunity of seeing the National Hockey League final series and since the CBC during the regular season switched to games from the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. C adieu):
That this House seek the co-operation of the CBC and responsible agencies in providing coverage in those areas presently denied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. This motion is proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and therefore requires unanimous consent. The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that there is not unanimous consent and so the motion cannot be put.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


An hon. Member:: Joe Guay said no.


An hon. Member:: He always says no.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


An hon. Member:: Joe said no.



DISPUTE WITH NABET-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing importance.
My motion is somewhat broader in scope than merely the inability of certain Canadian television viewers to see this year's Stanley Cup playoff series. It concerns the cost to the public purse of the prolonged labour difficulties between NABET and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, estimated now to be greater than the price tag of a settlement based on NABET's initial demands. I move,

seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert):
That the House call on the CBC to abandon its indifference and enter forthwith into genuine negotiations with NABET, so that the current dispute can be settled without further delay or cost to the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is also proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


An hon. Member:: You are just sore, Joe.


George Harris Hees: Watch your manners, Joe.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity which arises out of the unfair treatment of farmers in the purchase of fertilizer and the evidence of the existence of a combine among Canadian fertilizer companies. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That the question of the cost of fertilizer manufactured in Canada to farmers in the prairie region of Canada, more especially in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for the purpose of calling witnesses and investigating comparative prices of Canadian manufactured fertilizer in the states of Montana and North Dakota compared to Saskatchewan and Manitoba and to determine if unfair trade practices or price fixing are being practised by Canadian fertilizer companies.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the hon. member's motion cannot be submitted to the House at this time.
West Coast Oil Spill Pollution POLLUTION



POSSIBLE OIL SPILLS ON WEST COAST-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43.1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That the subject matter of the report made yesterday by a team of investigators to the Department of the Environment which states that major oil spills can be expected if giant tankers use the west coast route to carry Alaskan oil to Cherry Point refinery in Washington State, which is 12 miles from Surrey-White Rock, and which calls for international action to manage traffic in the hazardous waters near that point be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for the purpose of immediate review and definite action by Canada to end this threat to the ecology and well-being of our western shores.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion proposed by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. In the circumstances the hon. member's proposed motion cannot be put to the House.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister oi Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-200, to amend the National Parks Act.


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

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

Mr. Rynard: 1.	Are any steps being taken by the government to eliminate inflammable clothing from our markets?
2.	How many cases of burns, by degree, were there in Canada in 1971 directly attributable to the combustion of inflammable clothing?
3.	What was the total cost of hospitalization and other care of sufferers from such burns?
4.	What safety standards are being proposed to meet this problem and how will they be enforced?

May 3, 1972
Questions


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lengthy answer, I wonder if hon. members will agree to have it recorded in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The ahovementioned answer reads as follows:]
1.	The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has taken action under the Hazardous Products Act with respect to clothing flammability as follows: (a) Effective November 2, 1971, it became an offence to sell any consumer article of any kind containing a dangerously flammable textile. A burning test procedure is used to classify textiles of this category. Briefly, a 3.5 second burning time limit has been established for a 5-inch length of material under prescribed test conditions, (b) Effective November 2, 1971, a more severe regulation was established for children's nightwear. In this instance the burning time using the same test procedure is set at a minimum of seven seconds.
2.	Statistical information on the number of burn cases and their degrees attributable to specific causes such as textiles is not available in Canada at present. Accident statistics have in large measure been medically oriented. In order to make most effective use of the Hazardous Products Act, information on events leading to injuries is required along with details of offending agents. To correct this situation the Department has in recent months initiated discussions with provincial authorities and hospitals for the purpose of setting up a reporting system which will permit acquisition of such information.
3.	For reasons stated in the reply to part 2 of the question, it has not been possible to obtain this information.
4.	In addition to the regulations with respect to clothing listed under Part I of this question, regulations have been issued under the Hazardous Products Act which establish flammability limits for bedding and toys. Work is in progress to develop flammability regulations for a wider range of clothing, carpets and mattresses, and to continue study of the use of fire retardant treatment of textiles.


SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA-DUTIES OF MR. HUNKA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What are the duties of Mr. Hunka of the Science Council of Canada?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	Is he bilingual?
4.	Has the government received any written or verbal reports regarding the discriminatory attitude of that official with respect to certain French-speaking civil servants?
5.	What was Mr. Hunka's salary for each of the past five years and were his salary increases in accordance with those granted to equivalent positions?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Science Council is concerned, our replies are as follows: 1. Chief of Administration.
2. In the range $18,400-$22,100 per annum.

3.	No.
4.	None. On the contrary, he has paid special heed to the government's policy on bilingualism and has, in large part, been responsible for the fact that the Science Council has a higher than average percentage of bilingual persons on its staff.
5.	As there are no equivalent positions on the staff of the Science Council, this question is considered as 'not applicable'.


FUNDS FOR DRUG ABUSE CAMPAIGN AND ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Rynard: 1.	Was the drug abuse campaign fund reduced for the fiscal year 1972-73 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Were the Department of National Health and Welfare antismoking program funds doubled for the fiscal year 1972-73 and, if so, for what reason?
3.	What was the breakdown in spending for (a) the drug abuse program (b) the anti-smoking campaign for the fiscal year 1971-72?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No. Funds for 1971/72 totalled $4,843,000. (This includes $520,000 Summer Students Projects). Funds approved for the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Directorate for 1972/73 total $5,330,000. (This includes $632,000 Summer Students Projects).
2.	Yes. Funds for 1971/72 totalled $173,000. Funds approved for 1972/73 total $386,000. This increase of more than 100 per cent will allow for expanded research and education activities.
3.	Final expenditures are not yet available for 1971/72.


COST OF REFIT OF HMCS BONAVENTURE
Mr. MacRae: What was the estimated cost of the refit of HMCS Bonaventure before its disposal?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: This information may be found in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the First Session of the Twenty-eighth Parliament, including the Third Report of the said Committee which appeared in Votes and Proceedings No. 122, May 13, 1970.


CITIZENSHIP ASSISTANCE FOR PROSPECTIVE CITIZENS THROUGH POST OFFICES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Will the government consider supplying local post offices with applications for citizenship so that prospective citizens will not find it necessary to take a day off work to apply?
2.	Will the government consider providing staff assistance through the post office to help applicants for citizenship to complete their application forms?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. The government has now under consideration a plan to make citizenship information and application forms more readi-

ly available to those who require them. This will not however eliminate the requirement for an applicant to make a personal appearance, to attest the application, and to produce supporting documentation.
2. It is considered impractical on economic grounds to make Citizenship Registration staff available in post offices or to give post office staff the training necessary to qualify them for this task.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-ADVERTISING SERVICES
Mr. Godin: Has the Government retained the services of the Montreal actor, Jean-Pierre Masson, to record an advertisement intended to encourage citizens to use the services of the Department of Manpower and Immigration within the Local Initiatives Program and, if so (a) how many such recordings have been made by this actor and at what cost (b) for how many days and on how many radio stations have these advertisements been broadcast?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Les Productions Jean-Pierre Masson Inc. was retained to record an advertisement intended to encourage the citizens to use the services of the Department of Manpower and Immigration within the Local Initiatives Program, (a) to produce one message on tape at a total cost of $870.00 for professional fees and production costs, and (b) the tape was played on 32 Quebec radio stations for 9 days at a minimum four times per day.


ADMISSION OF MR. ERVIN EDMUND WATTS
Mr. Hales: 1.	Did Mr. Ervin Edmund Watts, a native of North Carolina, USA enter Canada and, if so, at what port of entry was he examined?
2.	Did Mr. Watts serve time in any American prison before his entry into Canada and, if so, for what crime was he convicted?
3.	Are people with criminal records allowed to enter Canada as landed immigrants?
4.	Was Mr. Watts convicted and sentenced in Canada and, if so (a) for what crime (b) where was his court case held?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1, 2 and 4. The Department of Manpower and Immigration has no record of a person by the name of Ervin Edmund Watts.
3. Section 5 of the Immigration Act prohibits the admission of an individual who has been convicted of or admits to having committed a crime involving moral turpitude. However, the Immigration Act further provides that relief from this prohibition may be granted by the Governor in Council under certain circumstances where an individual is considered to have become successfully rehabilitated.


TRANSPORTATION AND ASSISTANCE TO IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA
Mr. Robinson: Did Canada subsidize travel fares and other amenities to bring immigrants to Canada in the years 1960 to 1971 and, if so, by how much in each year?
Questions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Except in the case of special refugee movements, the Government does not subsidize the costs of transoceanic travel to Canada on behalf of immigrants. However, provision is made in the budget of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for funds to assist in immigrant establishment in Canada. This includes such items as emergency food and accommodation, hospital or medical care where the newcomer is indigent and not eligible under public or private insurance programs and in unusual circumstances inland transportation from port of arrival to final destination. The table below reflects the total annual expenditures for these items during the past twelve fiscal years. The decrease in expenditures in 196566 was occasioned by the assumption by the Department of National Health and Welfare of responsibility for family assistance payments to immigrants which are made in lieu of family allowances. The increase in the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 reflects the costs incurred by the government in the Czechoslovakian Refugee Movement to Canada.	Total
Fiscal Year	Expenditures
1959-60	1,673,639
1960-61	1,769,371
1961-62	1,180,790
1962-63	1,570,728
1963-64	1,878,723
1964-65	2,579,594
1965-66	672,747
1966-67	1,413,920
1967-68	2,863,530
1968-69	10,468,127
1969-70	4,009,581
1970-71	1,911,000


AGE REGULATIONS COVERING IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA
Mr. Robinson: Is there a difference, according to age, in the regulations for allowing immigrants to join their families already in Canada, such that the point system is not used for applicants over 60 years of age and, if so, for what reasons?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Parents and grandparents, 60 years of age and older, of citizens and permanent residents of Canada are not subject to the assessment criteria or point system set out in the Immigration Regulations. It is considered that the majority of such relatives are not likely to be intending to enter the permanent labour force and hence it is not necessary to assess them on their chances for successful establishment in this respect.


PEI-FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION 1967-71
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What were the amounts of the payments made by the federal government to Prince Edward Island for post-secondary education in the years 1967 to 1971?
2.	What are the estimated payments to Prince Edward Island for post-secondary education for the years 1972,1973 and 1974?

Questions


Gérard Pelletier: 1. 1967-68, $1,635,000; 1968-69, $2,063,000; 1969-70, $2,521,000; 1970-71, $2,995,000.
2. 1971-72, $3,408,000;	1972-73, $3,800,000;	1973-74,


$4,250,000.   ALLOCATION OF FUNDS UNDER CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING ON-THE-JOB PROGRAM
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How much of the new $20 million for on-the-job-training programs announced by the Minister of Finance in the House on October 14,1971, has been allocated?
2.	What is the allocation, by province, of money under this program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. The initial $20 million provided for the Canada Manpower Training on-the-Job Program has been increased to $50 million, all of which has been committed. Funds were initially allocated by region in accordance with the distribution of unemployment. Subsequent adjustments to the allocations were made to take account of varying employer response to the program.
2. Total amounts committed in approved proposals, by province and territory are as follows:
Millions
Province or Territory	$
Newfoundland	0.92
Nova Scotia	2.63
Prince Edward Island	1.36
New Brunswick	1.54
Quebec	16.85
Ontario	13.50
Manitoba	2.74
Saskatchewan	2.33
Alberta	3.06
Northwest Territories	0.31
British Columbia	4.72
Yukon Territory	0.04
Total	50.00


NEWFOUNDLAND-SPECIAL EMPLOYMENT PLAN
Mr. Peddle: 1.	How many man-months of work were provided in Newfoundland under the Special Employment Plan this winter?
2.	What amount of money was spent in Newfoundland in this program?
3.	What was the nature of the projects and where were they located?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 1. In view of the fact that the Special Employment Plan will not end until May 31, 1972 final and accurate figures will not be available until later. The estimated man-months employment figure from November 1, 1971 to May 31,1972 is 32,870.
[Mr. Macquarrie.J
2.	The estimated federal cost from November 1, 1971 to May 31, 1972 is $19,875,000. This figure does not include funds from non-government sources.
3.	Detailed data on the location of each project is not available. The greatest number of projects were in the nature of road repair; water, sewer, hydro services; forest inventory and thinning; construction of recreational facilities; improvements and renovations of various existing services; park conservation and development programs; beach protection work; pollution control; building of new community fish holding units; health services; first aid training; and various labour and support programs.



CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF EGGS TO CFB GAGETOWN, N.B.

['1.\tHas the Department of National Defence given any consideration in respect of cleaning up explosives on the Meaford Tank Range?\n2.\tIs the government aware of any significant trespassing taking place in what is alleged to be the most dangerous area on the Range and, if so, what steps are being taken to counteract this situation?\n3.\tHas the Government of the Province of Ontario signified any interest or made any representation to the federal government in respect of securing the Range property?\n4.\tHas the Department of National Defence offered the Meaford Tank Range to any other department or to the provincial government?\nHon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): 1. Yes. See Hansard dated 18 November, 1970, page 1278, and Hansard dated 13 December, 1971, pages 10392-3.\n2.\tNo. The Department of National Defence is not aware of any significant trespassing at Meaford Tank Range either in the heavily contaminated impact area or in the remainder of the training area. The training area will be more heavily utilized during the summer months and as a result, the military police patrols from CFB Borden will be increased in frequency. Consideration is being given to improving the current standard of boundary fence at the range.\n3.\tYes, as a possible site for a park.\n4.\tYes. See Hansard dated 30 June, 1971, page 7511. In addition the Department of Environment was requested to examine the possibility of using the Range property as a wild-life and bird sanctuary.']
Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to part one, a contract was placed with Swift Canadian Co. Ltd., of Moncton, for delivery of eggs to Canadian Forces Base, Gagetown, for the period April 1, 1972 to April 30, 1972. We understand that the supplier may not have complied with all of the regulations of the New Brunswick Egg Marketing Board.
In answer to part two, although we believe that all our suppliers should adhere to the regulations of provincial marketing boards, it is of course not the responsibility of a federal government department to administer the various rules and regulations of provincial marketing boards.



Mr. Godin: 1.	How many former members of the Canadian Armed Forces on pension reside in (a) Ireland (b) the United States of America (c) Australia (d) New Zealand (e) Findland (f) Sweden (g) Denmark (h) Germany (i) Netherlands (j) Trinidad-Tobago (k) the United Kingdom?
2.	Are these allowances taxable and, if so (a) what was the percentage of such taxes paid for the years 1970 and 1971 (b) what will be the percentage for 1972 to 1980?


Edgar John Benson: 1. (a)
19; (b) 846; (c) 27; (d) 23; (e) none; (f) none; (g) one; (h) 74; (i) 19; (j) one; (k) 462.
2. These allowances are subject to Canadian Income Tax if the pensioner is not a permanent resident of the country he is living in. (a) This information is not readily available as it would entail the perusal of each pensioner's file, and the necessary expert staff to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather this information is not available, (b) In respect to the new tax legislation effective January 1972, annuitants who reside outside Canada will be subject to a 15 per cent withholding tax after 1 January, 1972. At the end of 1975, this will
May 3, 1972

be increased to 25 per cent unless reduced by treaty. At the present time, Canada has Reciprocal Income Tax Agreements with the following countries where non-residents are not subject to Canadian withholding taxes on annuities-Ireland, United States of America, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Trinidad-Tobago, United Kingdom and Norway.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-MEAFORD TANK RANGE
Mr. Noble: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence given any consideration in respect of cleaning up explosives on the Meaford Tank Range?
2.	Is the government aware of any significant trespassing taking place in what is alleged to be the most dangerous area on the Range and, if so, what steps are being taken to counteract this situation?
3.	Has the Government of the Province of Ontario signified any interest or made any representation to the federal government in respect of securing the Range property?
4.	Has the Department of National Defence offered the Meaford Tank Range to any other department or to the provincial government?
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): 1. Yes. See Hansard dated 18 November, 1970, page 1278, and Hansard dated 13 December, 1971, pages 10392-3.
2.	No. The Department of National Defence is not aware of any significant trespassing at Meaford Tank Range either in the heavily contaminated impact area or in the remainder of the training area. The training area will be more heavily utilized during the summer months and as a result, the military police patrols from CFB Borden will be increased in frequency. Consideration is being given to improving the current standard of boundary fence at the range.
3.	Yes, as a possible site for a park.
4.	Yes. See Hansard dated 30 June, 1971, page 7511. In addition the Department of Environment was requested to examine the possibility of using the Range property as a wild-life and bird sanctuary.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Did the Department of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Department of the Secretary of State, or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development participate in any way in the organization or funding of the trip of the Sioux Valley Dancers of the Sioux Valley Reserve near Brandon to Yugoslavia last summer?
2.	Were any representations made by this group to the Department of External Affairs as to the financial arrangements provided by the Yougoslavian Government and if so, what action was taken by the Department of External Affairs?
3.	Were any representations made by the Department of External Affairs to the Yugoslavian Government regarding the finan-
Orders for Returns
cial arrangements made by the Yugoslavian Government and, if so, what was the response of the Yugoslavian Government?
Return tabled.


CLOSURE OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES BASES
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	Since 1965, how many Canadian Forces Bases have been closed and where was each located?
2.	In each case (a) how many Canadian Armed Forces personnel were transferred out of the area (b) what was the number of civilian personnel laid off for whom alternative satisfactory employment was not found (c) what is the present status of the land and buildings and how much money has been recovered by the federal government as a result of their disposal?
3.	Does the government consider that the base consolidation and closing program has caused economic and other hardships to the areas concerned and, if so, for what reason?
Return tabled.


LOCAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Under the Local Initiatives Program, what was the total amount granted to each province and how many jobs were to be created in each case?
2.	Under this program, what total amount was granted to each constituency in the Province of Quebec and how many jobs were to be created in each case?
3.	What are the names of the organizations that presented projects under this program in the constituency of Richmond?
4.	What was the title of each project from the constituency of Richmond?
5.	Were some projects rejected and, if so (a) which ones (b) how many jobs would have been created by each (c) what amount of money was requested in each case?
6.	What was the total amount granted under the Local Initiatives Program in the constituency of Richmond?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION-PUBLICITY CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Were any contracts awarded by the Department of Manpower and Immigration for publicity and/or information in the fiscal year 1970-71 and, if so (a) what were the names and addresses of firms which received such contracts (b) what was the amount of each such contract (c) what was the specific purpose of each such contract?
2.	Do the main and supplementary estimates of the Department for the fiscal year 1971-72 provide an amount to be spent on publicity and/or information and, if so (a) what amount is provided (b) what amounts have been encumbered or spent to date (c) what are the names and addresses of the private firms which have entered into such contracts (d) what is the amount of money involved in each such contract (e) what is the specific purpose of each such contract?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, starred questions are placed on the order paper so as to secure an early answer. On March 28 I asked the following starred question:
1. How many Red Ensigns were in the possession of the Department of Public Works on the date the present flag came into existence?

Transport of B.C. Coal
2.	How many since have been disposed of to organizations or private individuals?
3.	How many are still on hand?
There can be no excuse for the government not to answer that question except that the government would be embarrassed by the answer. That is the only reason. I raise the strongest objection to this kind of treatment of the House whereby starred questions are relegated to a secondary position and members are unable to get answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, I have a note of the number. I can say to the House that at this point in time we are ahead of last year's schedule as far as answering questions of this kind is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that just shows how inefficient this government is and how it covers up by endeavouring to say it is better this year than it was last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 TRANSPORT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT ENABLING CARRIAGE OF COAL BY RAIL FROM EAST KOOTENAY REGION TO ROBERTS BANK, B.C., BY UNITED STATES ROUTE

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, by five to four, that the Canadian Transport Commission erred in its judgment when considering the application of the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company and Burlington Northern Inc. to build a railway line from the province of British Columbia to the state of Montana to haul coal from the East Kootenays to Roberts Bank, B.C. via a United States route, which could result in the loss of hundreds of jobs in Canada both on the railway and in other related services, thus making necessary the introduction of amendments to the Railway Act so that the Canadian Transport Commission can make decisions based on public interest or any other adequate reasons.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the Chair the required notice. As the hon. member and all hon. members know, the Standing Order requires members to give notice, which is a statement of the matter about which adjournment of the House is sought, without argument and unaccompanied. I think these statements should be as short as possible. This statement is perhaps borderline, and certainly I do not object to it basically.

I have looked at the matter as closely as possible and with all the sympathy possible. However, I find it difficult to conceive that the Standing Order is given to the House for the purpose of adjournments to consider questions of this type. I really have to suggest to the hon. member that this is not the type of situation which is envisaged by the Standing Order. I would think it is the type of question about which a motion might be made under Standing Order 43, or about which questions might be asked which might be considered further during the adjournment proceedings, or about which bill might be introduced for debate when the appropriate time comes. But I respectfully suggest to the hon. member and to the House that the motion is not in order in that the situation referred to, which is, of course, important and of national interest, is not the kind of situation which is contemplated by the Standing Order. In the circumstances, I cannot see my way clear to make a ruling that the Standing Order applies so that a motion for the adjournment of the House could be put at this time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 43 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 43 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN JOHN LAMMERS AND MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between Mr. John Lammers of Yukon Wilderness Limited and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development andlor any officials in that Department.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Would Your Honour be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 9 and 45?



COPY OF STUDY BY REGINALD J. ROY, MONTREAL, REGARDING &quot;ANALYSIS OF OPERATIONAL REPORTS AND COURSES FOR THE OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING OF ADULTS PROGRAM&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Reginald J. Roy, Montreal, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of operational reports and courses for the Occupational Training of Adults Program".
May 3, 1972
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the report by Mr. Reginald Roy referred to in the motion was one of a series of ongoing studies concerning the contractual arrangements between the provinces and the department under the occupational training of adults program. It was actually one of several inputs related to the ongoing activities of the department rather than a formal document which could be tabled. Since there is no report to table, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



LETTERS RECEIVED BY POSTMASTER GENERAL REGARDING POSTAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 45-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all letters received by the Postmaster General or any other member of the government since January 1, 1971, complaining about postal service and the replies thereto.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, it is physically impossible to gather all this correspondence in one central location as the correspondence is spread throughout the country. The cost would be enormous. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I can appreciate the number of complaints made against the Post Office Department. Perhaps we could be given a sample so that we might know what the problem is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, there are outstanding in my name five motions for papers, all relating to the same subject matter. It is true they were only submitted on April 21 but there was a delay in presenting them because of the desire of the Pacific North Coast Co-operative Association whose members were awaiting a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries, a meeting which has not been held yet though he promised it would take place. The information is desired by the Pacific North Coast Cooperative Association in order that the association might prepare itself for the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry before the end of May prior to the conclusion of the committee's examination of the estimates. In view of the urgency attached to this matter I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would look at these motions in an attempt to have this information provided on the next day they come up for consideration.
Motions for Papers


James Alexander Jerome: I do not think the hon. member gave me the numbers of the notices of motions.


Frank Howard: They are Nos. 52, 53, 54, 55 and 56.


Mr. Douglas:: May I draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary motion No. 42 which was placed on the order paper on March 15? It calls for the tabling of only a single document, the agreement between Panarctic Oils Limited and a United States consortium. I see no reason why it has taken such a great length of time to produce it. I would be glad if the parliamentary secretary would undertake to look into this matter.


James Alexander Jerome: I shall do so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 14 was placed on the order paper as long ago as February 22. I wonder why we cannot be given the communications which passed between the government of Canada and the United Church of Canada concerning the takeover of Ryerson Press Limited.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State. In view of recent criticisms by the executive director of the Company of Young Canadians that the youth programs of the government "reach essentially those youth who already have access to resources and who are often skilled brief writers while the untouched and unorganized groups of youth remain in the main unreached," can the Secretary of State say when we may expect the long awaited policy statement on youth?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the right hon. Leader of the Opposition should expect a statement which has never been announced.
With regard to the comments of the executive director of the Company of Young Canadians, I am convinced he would be the first to recognize that his own efforts with the Company of Young Canadians were intended to expand the work of that organization especially towards the underprivileged youths.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of this criticism, and in view of similar criticisms which have been expressed by the task force that examined the Opportunities for Youth program, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he intends to make any policy announcement with regard

May 3, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
to reaching needy young Canadians who, the task force said, are not being served by that program?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the statements made about the high rate of unemployment among young people of 18 to 25. This matter concerns primarily the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understand-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You understand, but you are confused.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This government would confuse anybody.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not confused, Mr. Speaker. I am really intimidated today by the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Understanding full well that responsibility for employment is not his, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has any plans in his programs to reach the youths who, according to the task force, are not presently being reached. In particular, I would ask the Secretary of State whether he intends to build any criteria into the Opportunities for Youth program with a view to giving youths in this group some priority?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I believe I explained, in reply to other questions, our position, and the reasons why it had been adopted for the definition of criteria for the Opportunities for Youth program.
In order to reassure the Leader of the Opposition, I can tell him that, on a long-term basis, we are considering various ideas which will be brought forward in due course to reach those groups of young people who are not covered by the Opportunities for Youth program.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-SUGGESTED APPROVAL OF GREATER NUMBER OF PRACTICAL PROJECTS

David Orlikow: Bearing in mind the preliminary report on projects approved under this year's Opportunities for Youth program, which shows a very high percentage of projects consisting of surveys and undertakings such as videotaping, would the minister, when he looks at the criteria, give consideration to approving more useful and practical projects than the kind which have been authorized up till now?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it will soon be revealed, when the list is completed, that the hon. member's information is inaccurate. He will have to wait; projects of the type he has described represent quite a small percentage.

I have already stated, and the total list of projects selected will bear this out, that program analysts have selected more projects than ever which take place in rural areas and in the less prosperous districts of big cities.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST THAT REASONS FOR REFUSAL OF PROJECTS BE GIVEN

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like
to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell us for what motives those responsible for the Opportunities for Youth Program will not divulge in a frank and honest way to the promoters the reasons why their projects were rejected?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, it is simply because there are 16,000 notices of refusal to be sent out. These notices must be sent out as soon as possible to the interested parties so that they may look for work elsewhere instead of depending on the Opportunities for Youth program. Writing 16,000 individual letters, each one indicating the particular reasons for each project, would be an impossible task to accomplish in a reasonable period of time. We are now advising all those who are asking for details that, with a little patience, they will in time be informed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are five six, seven or more supplementaries sought on this subject. We will soon have to move on to the next subject, but for the moment we will have perhaps two or three further supplementaries.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, does the Secretary of State mean that in the case of the projects which are flatly rejected, the young people should give up all hope concerning the Opportunities for Youth program, because they will not know why their projects are rejected and will be unable to submit improved projects?


Gérard Pelletier: If the hon. member tried to understand, Mr. Speaker, he would have already realized that they will eventually be given, if they wish so, the detailed reasons. However, the young people let us know last year that it was useful if not essential for them to learn promptly of their rejection, in order not to entertain false hopes and to look for jobs elsewhere, when there are still some available.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind the hon. member for Lotbiniere that we must try to move a little faster. We have already spent more than ten minutes on this subject, and we should make some progress. I shall allow a last supplementary question by the hon. member for Lotbiniere, and then I shall recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix in order that he may put a question on the same subject.


André-Gilles Fortin: Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State assure us that, a little later, all the young people who have been turned down will receive a letter of explanation.
May 3, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: This question has already been asked and the minister has answered it.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, as the Opportunities for Youth program has created a great deal of hope among the young who have submitted projects and as one third only of the projects will be accepted owing to lack of funds, could the minister indicate to the House whether he intends to ask Treasury Board to increase the appropriations for this program so that the projects rejected can be reviewed and the minister can assure the young that when they submit serious projects under the Opportunities for Youth program the government will be able to grant them what they ask for?


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that this question was asked yesterday, but the minister may want to reply briefly.


Gérard Pelletier: I should only add, Mr. Speaker, that the objective suggested by the hon. member is impossible to attain as the total value of the projects submitted would require an appropriation of $238 million, which of course is beyond all reasonable limits.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In a short while I will return to the hon. member for Egmont and the hon. member for York-ton-Melville who have supplementaries on this subject. We might try to complete the first round of questioning and I will recognize for that purpose the hon. member for York South.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that neither the statement he made yesterday nor the draft bill which he tabled contained any reference to a policy respecting takeovers in the interim period, and in view of the fact that the confidential memorandum dated February 14, 1972, which the minister presented to the cabinet contained several suggestions as to how to deal with the problem of interim takeovers, may I ask the minister whether the government has arrived at any policy respecting takeovers by foreign interest of Canadian firms during the period between today and the time when the bill becomes the law of Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain how the hon. member is in a position to know what memoranda I may or may not have submitted to cabinet. Perhaps he would like to tell the House the source of his information. In any event, I would suggest he bring his question to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who I believe will be in the House tomorrow.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that the Minister of National Revenue would know the answer because this
Inquiries of the Ministry
undoubtedly must have been a cabinet decision. Therefore may I pose the question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the government considered the question and arrived at a policy respecting foreign takeovers of Canadian firms between yesterday and the date when the bill to be presented to the House becomes law?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if we had intended the legislation to be retroactive we would have said so and we have not said so.


David Lewis: Of course, that is what I meant when I said that the legislation contained no reference to the question; I knew it was not retroactive. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has considered some alternative mechanism, whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been asked to set up some agency to monitor takeovers between now and the date on which the bill becomes law, or are such takeovers to be permitted without any screening whatever?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have not done what the hon. member suggests in the first part of his question, but by making our policy known to Canadians and indeed to any possible investor we hope they will be guided by it generally. The question whether anything more precise in law is needed at this time really depends on the length of time it will take to pass the legislation. Of course, we are not completely in control of the situation; it will depend on how long the opposition wants to debate this matter.


David Lewis: In view of the fact that the announcement of the government's policy yesterday is likely to cause people who want to sell their firms and people who want to buy them to speed up the process rather than wait to be guided by the statement made by the minister, and in view of the fact that the bill will come into law by proclamation rather than by royal assent, do we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that the moment the bill has been passed by the two Houses of Parliament it will become law, or will there be a time delay before proclamation by the government is announced?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that if there is any delay it will not be substantial. It is our intention to bring the legislation into effect as soon as possible. Indeed, if we can get some co-operation from the opposition parties, we would like to pass it in one day.



STEPS TO PREVENT TAKEOVER OF CANADIAN FOOTBALL BY UNITED STATES INTERESTS

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the serious approach being taken by Montreal toward football with the building of a 70,000 seat stadium for the 1976 Olympics, what steps are being taken by the government to prevent a takeover of Canadian football by United States interests?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the government stated its legislative intentions in this general area yesterday.

May 3, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would football be included in the area to be protected from indiscriminate foreign takeover in line with the policy announced yesterday by the government, and are we going to buy back the NHL?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DISCLOSURE PROVISION OF CORPORATIONS ACT-SUGGESTED LOWERING OF ASSET VALUE TO FACILITATE ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED TAKEOVERS BY FOREIGN INTERESTS

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the importance of disclosure in terms of assessing takeovers, does the Prime Minister intend to change the section in the Corporations Act on disclosure, which now deals only with disclosure in relation to firms with assets of $3 million, so as to bring it into line with the proposal that firms with assets of $250,000 be examined?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the Prime Minister is considering that will he also consider looking at the Canada Development Corporation, which says it will not make acquisitions of firms with assets of less than $1 million, in the event it may have to be an alternative buyer and lower the level at which it is prepared to make acquisitions?



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-MEASURES TO ENCOURAGE GREATER INVESTMENT BY CANADIANS IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the government planning in the near future to introduce measures to encourage greater investment by Canadians in their country's industrial development as a means of reducing the need for foreign investment in this country? I ask this question because there was no mention of any such intention in the presentation made by the minister yesterday. If the answer is yes, will the Prime Minister briefly outline what those steps would be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether the outline or even the brief outline the hon. member refers to should be made during the question period, but the minister may attempt to reply briefly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the hon. member's attention to what I said in the House yesterday as part of my statement on this question:
As part of its response to this issue the government will continue to develop positive policies to encourage Canadians to participate more fully in the development of their country, and to encourage the growth of Canadian sources of capital, technology and management.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister not agree that his answer is the same meaningless gobbledygook the country has been fed for the last three years and that it means no more today than it did then, and it meant nothing then?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member must be referring to his own speeches.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we will now go on to what I am sure will be a less controversial matter. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we will now have something that is uncontroversial. My question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. He is now identified. On the pay cheques that are being issued now the Dominion coat of arms has been removed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Is this another example of the downgrading and chiselling away of our traditions?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the pay cheques have been modernized now for several months and they represent the new symbol of Canada, the maple leaf flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad Hansard does not record all the applause I get.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In the explanation that was sent out along with some of the pay cheques it was stated that these changes were introduced to make fraudulent misuse of government cheques increasingly difficult. Did the disappearance of the coat of arms comply with the reasons for the removal thereof? A little later on it is stated that the new design was prompted by a continuing concern for improved security. I ask the minister, has the removal of the coat of arms in any way added to the security of the cheques?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That obviously is debate. If the minister can reply briefly he will be allowed to do so, but I do not think we should become involved in a debate on this matter.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, security was a second objective oi the change in the cheques, and it was done on the recommendation of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The mounted police made that recommendation? Is that as true as the statement made by the Prime Minister concerning the RCMP when he had to make a retreat? He made a public statement and had to back down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My attempts at finding a matter that is not too controversial have not been successful. I will therefore try the hon. member for Compton.



INQUIRY RESPECTING IMPORTATION OF AUTOMOBILES FROM SOVIET UNION

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member ask his question?


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would he tell us if the government has concluded agreements with the USSR in order to import more products from that country, cars especially?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has a trade agreement with the Soviet Union which is exactly the same as the trade agreements providing most-favoured-nation treatment to other countries. There is nothing specific about automobiles in it. We are trying to encourage trade in both directions.



AGREEMENT RESPECTING IMPORTATION OF HEAVY WATER FROM SOVIET UNION

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
In connection with the question just put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, could he tell us if there is any commercial agreement regarding the importation of heavy water on behalf of certain Canadian industries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Soviet Union has sold to us because of the failure of a certain heavy water plant in Canada.	,


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: It has agreed to sell heavy water to Canada to meet our pressing needs which I am afraid could not be supplied otherwise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary but after the supplementary I shall try to recognize hon. members who were not seen yesterday including the hon. member for Vegreville,
Inquiries of the Ministry
the hon. member for Moncton and others in the back row. For the moment the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a supplementary.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State for External Affairs has made a statement with reference to heavy water, I wonder whether the minister would mind giving the House a report on the atomic reactor program, a $2 billion fiasco under his government?


Mr. Speaker:: This, I assume, would have to be given on motions. The hon. member for Vegreville.



OATS-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1970-71 CROP YEAR

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board advise the House whether a final payment will be made on deliveries of oats for the crop year 1970-71 having regard to the fact that the prices paid to producers were the lowest in more than 20 years for that period?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary course, announcements about final payments are made after the Wheat Board has closed the pool, and I do not have a report in my hands from them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could the minister advise the House why there is a credit balance of more than $4.5 million, as indicated in the report of the Canadian Wheat Board and effective as of July 31, 1971, nine months ago?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the overlapping of the pools is a rather complicated business. It may be that there will be an early opportunity for hon. members to discuss this matter with the Canadian Wheat Board.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister give the House any information on when we may expect a final payment on deliveries of oats or whether, indeed, there will be a final payment?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated in answer to the first question, I cannot do that at this time.



WHEAT-NUMBER OF SHIPS WAITING TO BE LOADED AT VANCOUVER

Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, thank you. My question is of national importance, particularly to the Prairies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the min-

May 3, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
ister tell the House how many ships are currently waiting to be loaded with wheat in Vancouver harbour?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has reported that for the month of April the industry has managed record loadings of vessels and record unloadings of boxcars at the west coast. As a result, on May 1 the only ship waiting in port was a vessel that had just arrived.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Yes, pat yourself on the back.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Mackenzie please resume his seat. Several hon. members now wish to ask supplementary questions. They will be recognized in just a moment. I would hope that the supplementaries would be as brief as possible and also the answers. For the moment, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the use which is being made of the question period by planting questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: We never used to plant them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that if we are going to proceed and have a question period we should try to be a little more orderly than we have been in the last few minutes. The hon. member should be given an opportunity to put his point of order, on which there will be a ruling and following which we might continue with the question period.


Donald MacInnis: While I recognize the fact that the question asked by the hon. member of St. Boniface is urgent and of national importance-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: -the answer given by the minister goes beyond what is permitted under the rules. All that was required was an ability to count.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that at this point we should try to go on with the very important matter which is being discussed at the moment by hon. members. If the hon. member for St. Boniface has a supplementary question he will be recognized.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot rise on the same point of order.

I do not think that the hon. member's point of order is acceptable. If the hon. member for St. Boniface wishes to put another point of order, I shall listen to him, but I suggest that the proceeding of the House will not be helped much by that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have been sitting here as a backbencher for the last four years.


Some hon. Members:: Too long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege, and he should be allowed to state it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, since it has been brought to your attention lately that some of us on this side have been asking questions, I asked the research people to give me an outline of the number of questions that were asked from this side of the House. I find that there have been 169 questions asked from last September to March 1 of this year by our side, including the independent members, as against 2,400-odd by the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are not doing your job, just sitting there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF SHIPS FROM VANCOUVER BECAUSE OF BACKLOG

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to the one asked by the hon. member for St. Boniface. Have ships been diverted from Vancouver because of the fact there has been a backlog there and they were not to be kept waiting?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board did direct some shipments which might have been loaded in Vancouver to Thunder Bay at an earlier stage, but of course the fact that speaks for itself is that loadings at Vancouver in the month of April reached an all-time record and we are now completely and currently up to date.


John George Diefenbaker: And $10 million in demurrage.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca on a supplementary question, and then the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on a different question.
May 3, 1972



WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY-ACTION TO INCREASE PRICES TO FARMERS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Vegreville. In view of the statement in the annual report of the Wheat Board which was recently released that the final payments to farmers for wheat, oats and barley have been the lowest in the past 10 to 20 years when averaged out, would the minister indicate briefly now or in a statement on motions what action he intends to take to increase the payments to the farmers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the final payment for wheat was by no means the lowest in the period of time to which the hon. member refers. However, I would like to draw his attention to the fact that cheques for two-price wheat have gone out to the farmers.


John George Diefenbaker: How much is it?


Mr. Horner:: Eighty-four cents an acre.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware of reports that dealers in Canadian-made fertilizer in North Dakota and Montana have been told that they will not be supplied if they continue to sell fertilizer to Canadian farmers at the prices prevailing in those two states?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such reports, and if the hon. member has some information that is more than hearsay I would be very interested to learn of it.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It follows representations made in the House over the past few months regarding the deterioration of Air Canada passenger services. Since urgency has been emphasized in the statement of the president of the Canadian Airline Employees Association, in which he made specific charges, perhaps the parliamentary secretary to the minister could tell the House whether anyone in the department has discussed with Air Canada the adequacy or the inadequacy of its passenger services?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister being still in
Inquiries of the Ministry
Montreal with railway officials, I shall take the question as notice.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada made any representations to the Soviet Union regarding the possibility of applying pressure on North Viet Nam to end the war in Viet Nam?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


INFORMATION CANADA
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour who reports for Information Canada. Having in mind the recent departure from the top position in that organization of its Director General, was that departure related in any way to the report recently made by another high official of Information Canada indicating an unsatisfactory situation in Information Canada? Second, is the minister giving consideration to making changes directed toward improving Information Canada and reducing its cost?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the new role that the Director General of Information Canada is expected to play in the foreign service has no relationship at all to the document referred to by the hon. gentleman. I want to state that very emphatically.
As to his second question, together with senior officers of Information Canada, I have been conducting a rather intensive review of its operations, objectives and goals, and we have produced a number of working papers that we are examining. We have engaged at least two expert persons, one from inside the public service and one a senior executive officer of a major Canadian publishing firm. We are going through the various operations to enable those very dedicated persons working in Information Canada to provide an even better service at reduced cost.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

May 3, 1972


DENMARK-ACTION BY CANADA IN VIEW OF DANISH POSITION ON ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has reference to the unique and unusual situation in which one government minister advises the citizens of Canada to do what he believes the government and Canada itself cannot do, namely, boycott Danish goods. I would like to ask what the government is doing in reference to the government of Denmark to press this matter forward? Are we recalling our ambassador from Copenhagen for consultation? In short, when are we ending our mealy-mouthed diplomacy on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the representations that Canada has made to Denmark in this matter are, in my time, quite unprecedented. These are the strongest representations that have ever been made by Canada on a commercial matter to any government in the world. The evidence of this is the reaction in Denmark.
So far as the Minister of Fisheries is concerned, he said he would not advocate any change in government policy. When he was pressed on the matter he said, as a personal view, that he thought shoppers might show their displeasure with the Danish government's decision. That is his privilege as a person, and perhaps the hon. gentleman has the same view, Mr. Speaker.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Do I take it that the minister would agree that these representations have been quite unsuccessful?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if they have not been successful I do not think that is a reason to stop making them.


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does he intend to consult with the Danish ambassador to Canada to determine the exact position taken by the Danish government on the eve of the ICNAF conference in Washington inasmuch as press reports indicate that the Danish government intends to persist in its course to the detriment of Canada by continuing salmon fishing on the high seas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this seems to be the position of the Danish government. Indeed, some misleading information appeared in the Danish press, which the Danish government has corrected, that we had agreed to the agreement which the Danes and the Americans had worked out. As my hon. friend knows, Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to salmon fishing on the high seas by any country in the world. We believe this is a right and privilege of the countries in whose rivers the salmon spawn.


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Has any direction been given to the chairman of the conciliation board that the government has a firm policy that there shall be regional rates of pay negotiated so far as the firefighters group in the Public Service Alliance is concerned?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman is aware that directions are not given by the government to the chairmen of conciliation boards. Representations are made to the conciliator by both parties, of which the government is one.


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY ON PAYMENT OF REGIONAL RATES IN ALL SECTORS
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of remarks made previously by the President of the Treasury Board that he is in favour of regional rates of pay, would the Prime Minister say whether it is government policy to implement regional rates of pay in all of the public service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question relating to the policy on foreign investments in Canada.
Would the Prime Minister tell this House if negotiations or consultations have taken place with the provinces in connection with this policy which will be introduced soon and, if not, whether he intends to convince the provinces of the objectives of this policy before this legislation is implemented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have written to all the provincial premiers to inform them of this legislation when we introduced it and also of the statement we made. Even though the consultations have not yet begun they will start soon.
As for the first part of the question I would reply that this will of course depend on how fast the provinces will let us know their point of view. Even now their response seems favorable but when the discussions will go into detail we will perhaps obtain some clarification as to the legislation itself.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On April 26 the minister indicated he would consider making a statement in the House on the position of government policy regarding certain coal mining operations in Nova Scotia. Has the minister had a chance to consider the matter further, will he in fact be making a statement on the subject and, if so, when?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I have considered it, Mr. Speaker. Without renewal of the inquiry I thought that perhaps interest had abated. However, I am prepared to give the suggestion further consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before calling orders of the day, perhaps I might revert to the first subject raised during the question period. I indicated to the hon. member for Egmont and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville that they would be recognized later for the purpose of asking supplementary questions. They are now recognized at this point for that purpose.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FORMATION OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COUNCIL
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since the Secretary of State pointed out earlier today, and at other times, that there is overlapping or divided responsibility regarding the employment of youth, and in view of the increasing problem in this regard and the recommendations of the task force report last year, and recently of the Wright Commission, with respect to a federal-provincial human resources council, are plans going ahead for the formation of such a human resources council, and when might we expect to have some word on it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would be pleased to take note of the question, Mr. Speaker.


EMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS POLICY
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of representations made last week and questions to the Secretary of State regarding this and other matters concerning youth policy, and his agreeing to a committee of the House discussing these matters, would the government House leader consult with the Secretary of State and with the Prime Minister to see if arrangements could be made for an appropriate committee of the House to discuss these important matters?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall be pleased to discuss this with the House leader, Mr. Speaker.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-POSSIBLE EXTENSION TO NON-STUDENTS-OTHER MEASURES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State or to the Prime Minister. In view of the heavy emphasis of summer youth employment programs on students, can the minister say whether or not he is planning any specific programs for non-student youth, or will he expand the Opportunities for Youth program to include those who are not students?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there are already some programs for the young who are not necessarily students. There is one, which is surely known to the hon. member, or about which he can be informed, if he is not already. As for future plans, I have already stated clearly that the main concern with regard to such projects at the present time is precisely to reach the young who are not students nor members of organized groups, that is those whose needs are the greatest.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege at this time for the purpose of apologizing to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I never intended to reflect on his ability to count at any time and, as he indicated, he was almost accurate when he said he had been here for four years. However, I am surprised that he should confess to the need for a research staff to count the number of questions, 400-odd, that have been asked from this side of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a point of order?


Mr. Nielsen:: No, Mr. Speaker.


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in response to a question posed by the hon. member for Athabasca, I believe the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board left the House with the impression that the total realized price to producers of wheat was not the lowest in ten years. I should like to draw to his attention through you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that in the annual Wheat Board report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is merely debate. If the hon. member can show me a Standing Order under which that kind of question qualifies as a point of order, I would be pleased to see it. This is debate. The hon. member disagrees with an answer given by a minister. If the hon. member's supplementary question is permitted by way of a point of order, we could have points of order for the rest

May 3, 1972
Farm Credit Act
of the day. I assume many hon. members are dissatisfied with the answers given to their questions, and possibly members of the government are dissatisfied with the questions asked of them. I suggest very earnestly to hon. members that points of debate should not be raised by way of points of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Wheat Board annual report is published under the auspices of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, it is my firm opinion that the statements in the Wheat Board report should be factual, and the statement the minister made to the House today is not in accordance with the facts contained in the report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may be right. I cannot judge, of course; the only thing I can judge is that this is not a point of order. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when it was time for adjournment last night I was dealing with the considerations that entered into the adjustment of interest rates on farm improvement loans to a higher rate than the current rate being charged. I want to pursue that argument briefly in the few minutes left to me. There was another major purpose of the amendments contained in Bill C-5 with which I did not deal in my remarks yesterday and I should like to comment on that now.
The amount which the corporation may lend to an individual farmer in the form of a supervised loan and that is, under Part III of the act, with land and chattel security, is substantially greater than it can lend on a standard mortgage loan under Part II, with a land mortgage only. As hon. members are well aware, the difference is from $40,000 to $55,000 at the present time and, of course, this is going to be changed. At the present time, the farm mortgaged to the corporation must be an economic unit. Some farmers may have economic units with part of the land being subject to a mortgage to some other party on reasonably favourable terms and it should not be disturbed. The lands may also be leased on a relatively long term basis from a province, for example, where there are Crown lands, or other owner. Bill C-5 proposes to authorize the corporation to lend under Part III in these circumstances, on the remainder of the farm, which can be put up as security. As I said, this is an improvement which we would like to make as a result of the practice in the field. We think it is not necessary to restrict Part III lands to a loan on the total of what may be involved in an

economic unit or indeed on the total land area that the farmer may farm.
I should like, now, Mr. Speaker, to return to the comments I was making at the hour of adjournment last night with regard to interest rates. As hon. members know, the interest rates that have been charged by the Farm Credit Corporation are really quite modest in relation to the long-term mortgage rates available for the same length of time from any other source. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that when the Farm Credit Corporation rates hit their peak, that is 81 per cent and some of those for terms as long as 29 years, no one, no matter how good their credit rating, could borrow money for that long period of time from any commercial enterprise at anywhere near those rates, let alone money strictly for agricultural credit purposes. Although the loans are made on a long-term basis, generally from 20 to 29 years, the rates that are charged to farmers are based on the yield on intermediate term government bonds, that is on bonds maturing in five to ten years. This is substantially lower than the longer-term rate. If the rates were set on the basis of long-term bonds then, of course, they would be significantly higher than they are at the present time.
Ordinarily, on long-term mortgages, the borrower cannot repay or prepay the loan during the first five years; he is locked into an agreement on most of these long-term mortgages for at least the first five years. Farmers who borrow under the Farm Credit Act may repay or prepay without notice and without bonus at any time.
As I said earlier, we have looked at the possibility of arrangements whereby mortgages would be or could be reviewed every five years, with the rate moving up or down in accordance with the interest rate at the time of review. This arrangement might seem desirable in that it would prevent borrowers from being locked-in with a relatively higher rate throughout the lifetime of their loan. It has a disadvantage, however, in that it would add an element of uncertainty to farmers' future costs, and if increasing interest rates happened to coincide with a period when farmers' incomes were relatively low, an increase in the interest rate would add to their financial difficulties. This accentuates the danger of endeavouring to change the basis upon which interest rates are charged, based on a particular situation at any point in time. It is important, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that if at any time in the future a change is made on the basis of changing interest rates on loans to farmers, it must be made on the basis of long-term prospects and be such that it will continue to be equitable during periods of fluctuation in interest rates and in farm income.
Interest charges are clearly visible costs to farmers and it is a natural desire that they want these to be as low as possible, or at least relatively low. However, I think we have a responsibility to look beyond these highly visible costs of interest payments, to the long-term effect of reduced or subsidized rates. I say that because the availability of long-term credit to farmers at rates which are low and not subject to market influences will, and experience has shown this, be reflected very quickly in the price which farmers are called upon, and in some cases are willing, to pay for capital investment. This is particularly true of land. I have satisfied myself by looking at the
May 3, 1972

figures that when we had interest rates which were subsidized, and that is of course what happened for many years when there was a statutory limit of 5 per cent, that the borrower, the actual farmer who was going to operate that land, really did not benefit as much as the seller because there was an inflation in the price of land when that was happening. Thus the advantage of low interest rates on loans from the Farm Credit Corporation would be quickly dissipated through rising costs of capital expansion and the borrower would be saddled with the continuing high capital cost which would have to be serviced through future farm income. In other words, any attempt to adjust or control interest rates through mechanisms which do not reflect the realities of the market for credit or for farm land, in my view would adversely affect the costs of capital investments for all farmers.
This has to be taken into account, because I think all members of the House agree that the terms and conditions of credit, and the mechanisms by which that credit is utilized in the farming sector, must be such as to be of advantage to the ongoing farm operator. He is the one who has assumed the obligation of servicing the debt from the income of his farm, in many cases for as long as 29 years. Certainly, it would not be in his interest if we were to take action that would result in undue inflation of land prices, for the advantage accrues not to the buyer but to the seller.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The government is giving the seller quite a bonus under this scheme.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I see the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is trying to enter into a controversy with me. Last night I said that many farmers are anxiously waiting for this bill to pass quickly. I also said that I will not be party to any discussion that will delay for even one hour passage of the bill and the beneficial results this bill will bring to farmers in Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That's pretty weak, Bud.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member can judge how weak it is when I tell him that members of his party have gone around the country saying the bill is a good one. They also say, and they are wrong in this, that the government has merely brought the bill forward but does not intend to press ahead with it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister said that last night. He is merely repeating himself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I see two or three members on the other side who were not here last night and may not have read the excellent speech that was made. Probably, they do not know what I said.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We know, Bud. Come over here and we will pat you on the back.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I know the farmers of this country support the bill. We are obligated to make its benefits available to them as quickly as possible.
Farm Credit Act
In conclusion, and in summary, may I say that the amendments to the act as proposed in this bill will, first, improve the position of farmers across Canada through the removal from the act of certain restraints on the Farm Credit Corporation, these being statutory limitations, with respect to loan limits and age limits. This, I suggest, will permit loans to be made on a more useful basis in the light of modern farm practice and organization. Second, the amendments will provide authority for the Farm Credit Corporation to carry out other governmental activities and programs. The presence of the corporation in the farming communities across Canada, and there are highly respected government officers in those communities, would mean that it is a highly suitable organization to carry out a program such as the small farm development program, either alone or in co-operation with provincial authorities in such provinces as have entered into agreement for the joint administration of such a program.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And which provinces are those?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The bill has not been passed yet. We are referring to the time when it has been passed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And when will that be?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, farmers in all parts of Canada know that the agricultural economy is improving rapidly.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Really?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There is ground for optimism. Farmers feel that they can expand their operations, confident that difficulties of the sort experienced in the last two or three years will not recur. Let me point, for example, to the dairy industry, to the grain industry, to the beef industry, and to the hog raising industry. Indeed, conditions in every major commodity producing part of the agricultural industry have improved substantially in the last year or year and a half. In the light of this atmosphere, in the light of this optimism and confidence in the agricultural community, we must make changes in the act to enable the Farm Credit Corporation, which has performed a useful, indeed, essential service for agriculture, to meet the more modern requirements of the 1970's and fulfil its responsibilities as well as it fulfilled them in the past.


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


Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Mackenzie. I am not sure if the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley rose for the purpose of asking a question of the minister and if the minister was prepared to reply to that question before resuming his seat.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I was willing to reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member may ask his question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister? He did not go into details to explain how the

May 3, 1972
Farm Credit Act
small farms development policy would work under this bill. Could he be more specific? Could he, perhaps, send me some written material showing how this policy will work under the bill? I want that information before speaking on this legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-5 relates to the small farms development program only in that it asks for statutory authority for the organization referred to previously to administer the small farms development program. We already have authority from this House for expenditures to be made. I have already sent the hon. member a complete explanation of the features of that program. Until the provinces agree to the division of administrative responsibility, I cannot, of course announce that division. There may be slight variations as between one province and another. We are rapidly approaching the point at which we simply will not be able to wait much longer for the provinces to reach these agreements. The farmers of this country want these programs to be established, and hope that this will happen quickly. All the information has been provided to the hon. member that is available in specific terms.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Will the minister not ascertain whether the provinces agree to this.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) last night and again today, in the vain hope of hearing him say something about amendments which would be relevant to conditions today. I hoped to see evidence of a little foresight which would take us forward into the 1970's with a new approach. I did not want to see evidence of the approach that served in the 1960's and that is rapidly not fulfilling the requirements of today. Listening to the minister, I was under the impression, and I could not help it, that he was like a man blowing up a balloon. Having exhausted himself, he puffed but the air kept coming back from the balloon. That was my impression of the minister's comments. To me it seemed that the air was coming out of the balloon, and that the balloon was exerting more pressure than the minister.
I do not subscribe to the minister's position. I do not think all farmers are breathlessly waiting for this legislation to pass. Most of the proposed amendments will ease administrative problems. They are necessary if administration is to be made easier for those charged with that responsibility. To be fair, I suppose sometimes farmers have been denied loans because lenders have interpreted the law too narrowly. All the same, I do not think the minister has a grasp of what is needed today, as was evident from the answer he gave to the question raised by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson).
The mystery that surrounds the small farms program is still with us, even though the minister has spoken. I suppose because his conscience is bothering him, he threw in the suggestion that this measure may be election bait. I do not see how he can bait anyone in an election on the basis of the amendments he is making to the Farm Credit Act at this time. There is nothing original or revolutionary in
|Mr. SkelUM.)
his ideas. They are simply ideas that came forward from the office. He was informed that in order to correct a series of problems and get around the fine print in the bill, these changes were necessary.
I wish to deal with some of the changes that are being introduced. For example, the suggestion has been made that a farmer can now borrow up to $100,000. Previously, the act stated that a combination of three farmers could borrow up to $100,000. According to the annual report, the average loan has been in the order of $28,000. If that is so, why would anyone suddenly require an additional $72,000? What the minister has done has been to make it appear as though it is a lot easier for farmers to get more money. However, many farmers do not want that kind of money. In the past, they have found that the interest they must pay has been a great burden. They will not be quick to pick up this $100,000 because they will be burdened for perhaps 30 years.
If individual farmers can borrow the $100,000, this will hasten the day when the large farms will be owned by one individual. It will certainly hasten the day when the small farmer will move off the land. In the past, the individual farmer could borrow up to $40,000. He can now borrow two and a half times that much. All the government hopes to achieve by this provision is to hasten the day when the small farmer will move off the land.
In another area, we are told that the reason for the amendment is that there are some administrative problems. It was not known in the offices how much equity a son should have or when a father and son could borrow more than $40,000. It is interesting to read the reply of Mr. Owen to a question that was raised in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. This is recorded in the seventh issue of the agriculture committee reports. He stated:
You will appreciate that one of the problems in these levels I have given you is the question of deciding when there are two farmers and when there are not. How much equity or interest in the farm should the farmer's son have in order to be, in fact, an owner-operator, or to be participating in the business?
This is one of the reasons the changes were necessary. There again it was a question of helping the administration. I stated at one time that in some cases loans had been denied because of the difficulty, in ascertaining the equity of a farmer, but I do not believe $100,000 is the magic figure to correct that situation. The same end might have been accomplished by establishing a level of $50,000 or $60,000.
Another amendment was introduced concerning the approval requirement for a farm improvement loan. That is not a difficult problem to overcome. By answering a letter by return mail or making a phone call to the office, authorization could be granted to allow the farmer to obtain a loan. This could be done very easily. I cannot see any dealer telling a farmer that if he does not get approval today, he will not sell him a machine tomorrow. I am sure any dealer would be glad to wait for a month until authorization is received. It does not create a real problem. I suppose a lot of unnecessary work will now be eliminated, but this, in itself, is not earthshaking. This, again, is a question of administration.
I now come to the additional amount of money that is being made available. Last night the minister stated that
May 3, 1972

approximately $245 million had not been lent. Last year the amount of loans was something in the order of $115 million. If loans are made at the same rate as last year, the funds available now could last for another two years. On that score, the minister did not really come forward with anything earthshaking. Under the present circumstances, we could have carried on for another couple of years.
The amendment just allows the farm credit corporation to administer the small farms development program, whatever it may be. A mystery still surrounds this particular program. I have received inquiries which I directed to the minister in the hope that I would be able to obtain some information as to how this program would work. I have not received any information and, therefore, I have not been able to provide other people with information. The minister might better serve the farmers if he introduced a piece of legislation to cover the small farm development program, set out the purpose of the bill and by what method he proposed to operate the whole scheme. Under the circumstances, there will be an item in the estimates which will allow approximately $30 million per year for the administration of this plan, whatever it may be.
This minister used the Farm Credit Act in order to throw in a few bits and pieces of administrative authorization so that he could say "Oh, yes, we have the authority. We have the farm credit corporation, and we have passed an item in the estimates." Nobody knows what this is all about. There is an item of expenditure that can be made by the government, but we do not even know whether or not the farm credit corporation is to be credited with that $30 million for this year.
The amount of money borrowed last year for the purpose of purchasing small farms was in the order of $37 million. That is all that was required. Is this $30 million to replace the $37 million that was used last year or will there be an additional $30 million? If there is to be an additional $30 million, what will be the purpose of it? In other words, we have been told very little about the way the scheme will operate; I hope that before long we shall be provided with far more detail. It is, really, improper for the minister to suggest he is about to introduce a program when, in fact, there is no program ready. We are told the program will begin as soon as the provinces agree. Will it be necessary, then, to wait until all the provinces are in agreement? The minister told us, almost in the same breath, that he could not wait very long, that he wanted to proceed. If he is at liberty to act, why did he not take action long ago? Does he intend to work out a scheme which would fit in with certain provincial schemes? Some of those schemes, I might say, are pretty hairy-I am not exactly in agreement with them, if the reports reaching me are correct.
The minister implies that we should move along as rapidly as possible, as if the whole world were waiting to see what will happen. Well, farmers may be waiting, but they are not waiting for these amendments, or for the type of legislation proposed by the minister. I do not think anything in this bill will improve the situation on the farms. We can, of course, readily agree with some of these amendments, because they are of a housekeeping charac-
Farm Credit Act
ter, but there is nothing which is forward-looking in the bill as a whole.
Last night the minister informed us he already has authority to refinance loans which were taken out at high rates of interest, some at a rate of 81 per cent. So, what has prevented him from acting earlier? If his intentions were good, he should have proceeded without waiting for these amendments to be approved.
Let us take a look at the overall loan picture. At the present time, the total of loans taken out by farmers amounts to about $1,200,000,000. This is a terrific amount for farmers to have borrowed. As of the latest report available, the report for 1970-71, more than 70,000 farmers had taken out loans. This represents almost the total number of farmers in Saskatchewan; it equals the combined totals of all the farms in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba and British Columbia. Looked at in another way, it means that a number equivalent to all the farmers of Manitoba and half the farmers of Alberta have taken out loans. This does not necessarily mean that farmers share the optimism which the minister has expressed.
Four or five years ago there was, perhaps, greater optimism; farmers took out some 12,000 loans. Last year, only about 4,100 loans were taken out, about one-third of the number taken out five years ago. Whatever the minister may say, farmers are not rushing to take out loans. They no longer see a great future before them and this is proof of the lack of optimism felt in the industry. Last year the amount advanced by way of loans declined by 28 per cent compared with the previous year. The minister told us only a few minutes ago that there had been a great upturn in farm fortunes. The facts are these: in 1969-70, 87 per cent of the farmers were in arrears. Last year, in 1970-71, 83.9 per cent were in arrears. Obviously, optimism is not reflected in a comparable amount of money in farmers' pockets, and that is the kind of optimism they understand.
The annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation from which I took these figures has further information. Perhaps I should read it for the benefit of the minister, since apparently he did not find the time to read it himself and learn what is happening. He indicated there was great optimism in the industry. At page six, the report has this to say:
The decline in the purchase of land to enlarge farms reflects in part the unwillingness of many farmers to expand their businesses during a period of uncertainty in the agricultural industry.
I am sure that if the minister took time to read the reports which are published by his own department he would find in them an entirely different story from the one he tells the House. Further, on page eight of the report, we find:
Younger farmers accounted for a somewhat smaller proportion of loans than in preceding years.
If young farmers in Canada do not share the minister's optimism there is certainly not much future in agriculture. I am sure this report has been honestly compiled. If the minister would only listen to the advice given to him by his senior officials, he might make some progress. Unless he does so, he will not succeed in producing amendments which meet the requirements of the seventies.

May 3, 1972
Farm. Credit Act
We find that in 1971, there are 15 per cent fewer farmers than in 1966. We have failed to reverse this trend. In the last 20 years, the number of farmers has declined by half. Worst of all, the average age of farmers has risen and is continuing to rise. At the present rate, it will not be long before the average age of farmers is around 60 years.
I am somewhat concerned about recent legislation which the Province of Saskatchewan has enacted and about legislation which it proposes to enact. In my view it will hinder the operation of the Farm Credit Corporation. It may be that because of the lack of optimism in the rural areas, farmers have lost their spirit and are willing to accept next to nothing, or something which in the long run will not be in their interest, and this disturbs me. I am always mindful of the Regina manifesto.
If the Minister of Agriculture signs an agreement with the province, the agreement should take into account the fact that we should try by every means possible to retain possession of the land in the hands of the farmers. They should be given every opportunity to own the land. In this respect, I am concerned at the attitude of the New Democratic Party in the province of Saskatchewan which has been amply demonstrated, and I presume that, being blood brothers, the federal NDP subscribe to a similar line of thinking. I am concerned about several developments in the last couple of years having to do with legislation dealing with estate taxes, capital gains, the land bank proposal and the foreign ownership proposals for land advocated by the government of Saskatchewan. This last matter is a real mystery. There is no bill; it is simply a proposal put forward by the government and which I presume is subscribed to by the federal NDP. The proposal is that no "foreigner" may own land in the province of Saskatchewan. Within one year he has to dispose of any property he owns. Foreigner, in their interpretation of the word, means anyone who is not a resident of Saskatchewan.
I am wondering how the Farm Credit Corporation is going to operate with this type of restriction, one that I believe is unconstitutional. Surely to goodness, we are not Balkanizing Canada yet. Surely, we have not reached the point where every province is a country within its own boundaries. To suggest that a foreigner is someone who lives in another province and that he should not own land in the province of Saskatchewan is, to my way of thinking, not going to be conducive to improving the farm economy. In addition, it will depress land prices.
Many farmers have had land given to them, or have bought land after working elsewhere for many years. A farmer who did not have sufficient capital to start with went to work. Then, when he had saved enough he bought a quarter section, and then he bought another quarter section and started a farming operation. Since he became sick and tired to carrying a lunch pail, he took up residence in the province of Saskatchewan. How is the Farm Credit Corporation going to get around that situation? I am wondering whether the minister is aware of the developments taking place in the province and whether, if the proposed legislation becomes law, he will be the first to take it to the Supreme Court of Canada to test its constitutionality.

I believe we must not allow such developments to take place. We have not had a statement from the minister or from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on the matter. We should not even entertain such an idea in this country. I do not know what the motivation for the proposal is, other than the Regina manifesto. I do not know whether the province is concerned about estate tax, but we have to pay estate tax whether we reside in Saskatchewan or not. Anyone wishing to buy land in Saskatchewan from a non-resident will sit around for a whole year. Every day that goes by, the seller will become more and more desperate to dispose of it for next to nothing. That sort of thing is not going to be healthy for the economy. I think the minister should investigate this situation, if not the Minister of Agriculture, certainly the Minister of Justice.
I see nothing in this bill which indicates the federal government has taken into account the existence of the land bank in the province of Saskatchewan. I should like to know how this is going to jibe with his small farm development program. I am just wondering whether the minister is going to be prepared to sign an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan. I think we should know what is the position of the federal government if this type of legislation is enacted.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure I understand the hon. member, but is he suggesting that we should review provincial legislation and pass opinions on whether the province can or cannot pass legislation of this nature?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As a former Social Crediter you should know that it has been done before. Remember the Bank Act of 1937?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is a little bit of ancient history.


Stanley James Korchinski: Knowing that this legislation is proposed, I think the minister should indicate to the House how it conflicts with his small farm development program. We have not had any details of this particular program, so I do not know what is the position. But I do know what is the position of the NDP in the province of Saskatchewan.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have already stated that we are not participating in the Saskatchewan land bank scheme.


Stanley James Korchinski: Then, at least we have that from the minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said that months ago.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I turn now to what I believe the amendments should include at this time. The minister has not recognized the need for the next 10 years or so, despite what he said in his remarks.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I said for four or five years.


Stanley James Korchinski: I would point out to him that present interest rates are a burden on the farmers. There is no incentive to stay on the farm. Interest rates have always
May 3, 1972

been a concern to farmers. My recollection of the thirties is somewhat dim, but I do recall that the prime concern of the farmers at that time was the discharge of any debts they had. It was not so much the debt that they could not manage but rather the interest rate; that was what finally broke the backs of many farmers. They could not burn the mortgage. As a matter of fact, they used up the best years of their lives in trying to pay off the interest. Many farmers had such a fear of the "banks that they preferred to leave their money at home. We have all read stories in the newspapers time and again about someone dying and money being found under a mattress or in a secluded place. This is the result of the fear these people have of banks. It is not a fear that the money will not be safe, but rather is a distrust which has developed because they have had to pay interest over the years and could not remove the yoke with which they had been saddled. I believe this is one thing the minister ought to consider at this time.
There is no incentive to any young farmer. Gradually, we find that the average age of farmers' keeps increasing. There is no incentive for a young farmer to remain on the farm. We must take this into account in this day and age. No consideration is being given to the people involved in farming, such as is given to those involved in industry and in labour, for example. The Opportunities for Youth Program, for example, is an incentive given by the government in order to provide work and accomplish something in that way. The LIP program, surely, is a program designed to provide jobs. Obviously, this also is an incentive for labour. Then, there are the DREE programs we hear about, involving incentives for industry to move into certain areas. We are living in the age of incentives. Everybody, except the people engaged in farming, shares in these incentives. The depressed areas we hear about receive special consideration. I am informed that when one totals the amount involved in these incentives it comes to about one-half billion dollars. I believe there should also be an incentive to remain on the farm.
I believe the farmers of our country deserve the same consideration that is given to other segments of our society. I do not believe the present situation will help preserve the family farm. I believe there was a period, when the Farm Credit Corporation was first initiated, in which this need was fulfilled, but at that time we had a pegged interest rate. Now, thanks to this government, the bottle has been uncorked and the interest rate has gone higher and higher. We find ourselves now with a rate as high as 85 per cent. The minister says he has the authority to refinance these loans at a lower rate, but he is not doing anything about it. Even though this authority exists, it has not been used to provide an incentive.
In respect of the land bank established by the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan, it would seem to me that the farmer would have to pay the interest and taxes and the government would own the land. In effect the farmers would be told, "you pay the taxes and the interest and the government will end up owning the land". After making payments for years and years, the farmers would end up having nothing to show for their efforts.
Farm Credit Act
I am very concerned about the Regina manifesto. I believe the government should pay the interest and let the farmer own the land. This is part of our belief. We believe in the right of ownership. We do not believe it is the state which is the ultimate, but rather that the individual is more important than the state. One way in which this principle can be maintained is by reversing the method the NDP are following in Saskatchewan. The government should pay the interest. The farmers should pay the taxes on the land and make the capital payments, but the government should pay the interest. I say this is our answer to this type of program. We believe in individual ownership. The government does not have any position because it does not know where it is. I have indicated to the minister and to the House that we should use this approach in order to keep people on the farm.
We believe that any young man who starts farming needs incentives, just as incentives are necessary in any other part of the economy. I think the time has come when a similar approach should be taken with regard to the young farmers. I wish to make several suggestions. I have several proposals about how to achieve this. We believe that up to a certain age level, the interest on the borrowing should be forgiven. This type of assistance is similar to that given other industries. If any payments are made, they should be applied to the principal. In this way, when any payment is made on the principal, the principal would be reduced so the interest would also be reduced in succeeding years. This would provide an incentive to the young farmer to pay off the principal as quickly as possible. In that way he would be in a position to own the land. At the present time, there is no such incentive. I believe this is an approach we should take. After a certain age level, the interest would be paid by the borrower but prior to that time it would be deferred. If any payments are made they would be applied to the principal, again reducing the principal and thereby reducing the interest.
Here again, the quicker the principal is paid off the lower the interest payment becomes. There is another reason for this suggestion. I think the proper approach would be to assist the young farmer to become established. Once he is established it is easier for him to pay interest. After having had the interest forgiven or deferred, he would be able to make the payments since he would have become established. This is only fair. I remember the situation when I started my own farming operation. It was easier to make payments as the years went by, after the machinery was collected and there was an equity in the farm. I also believe several other approaches should be taken.


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


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley James Korchinski: Perhaps I might be permitted to outline these proposals, and then the hon. member might wish to ask his question later.
I believe there should be an adjustment of interest rates on which loans were taken out at higher rates. The minister has authority to do this. If the loan could be refi-

May 3, 1972
Farm Credit Act
nanced, the farmer would have an opportunity to save a few dollars. There might be a situation in which the farmer would wish to add to his loan in order to make improvements to his farm. In this case, I do not believe it should be necessary for him to refinance his loan, especially at a time when the interest rate may have increased. He could avoid legal fees.
It is quite strange that under Part III any farmer at age 45 can get a loan of $100,000, while no one at age 46 would be allowed to receive $90,000 and no one at age 47 would be allowed to receive $80,000. What is so magic about the age 45? If we drew up a schedule, I believe this problem could be relieved. It is essential to try to keep these people on the farm, not only to show our faith in the young farmers but also to reverse the existing trend in many communities. Often services are no longer provided in these communities and the older people no longer want to spend much money on the farm because they have not decided how much longer they wish to stay on the farm. Consequently, the whole community dies. We believe that it is time to give the young farmers an incentive, some reason to stay on the farm and some reason to take out a loan at an earlier stage.
I believe that some of the proposals which I have put forward would go a long way toward accomplishing this goal. Accordingly, I move:
That Bill C-5 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the introduction of legislation to amend the Farm Credit Act by incorporating the incentive principle-already approved by this House in other legislation-to provide for partial non repayment of interest where young farmers meet performance standards, for deferred interest payments on all loans during an initial period, for equitable adjustment of interest rates for the benefit of borrowers; and, as well, to provide for open-end loans which will allow additional borrowing without refinancing costs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair is ready to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member although I might have reservations regarding its form, its wording and its length. However, precedents in the House would make it acceptable, unless hon. members have a different opinion.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I know that amendments of this nature have been moved on second reading, and I will not raise any procedural objection to this one, but I think hon. members should be well aware of the fact that their support of the amendment would do nothing but kill the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Danforth:: That is a political speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski).


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the effect of the amendment would be to set aside any discussion of the bill, and any action that might be taken now, I can hardly go along with the amendment. It may be that after a full discussion of this amendment

hon. members may be able to convince me that they have a case, and I may be able to consider it.
What we are considering in this bill is a proposal to increase the amount of money that can be borrowed. However, some other important programs are involved which will have to be examined as part of the bill. I hope that when and if this bill goes to committee it will receive a thorough examination. I hope, too, that we will call before the committee representatives of farm organizations, as well as the Farm Credit Corporation. Indeed, we should call before the committee officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, officials in charge of manpower training, and officials of ARDA or whatever organization has succeeded it. Judging from the statements which the minister has made and some of the provisions in the bill, manpower retraining forms an integral part of the proposals which the government has laid before the House last night and today. Those proposals need to be examined very carefully.
The previous speaker was greatly exercised about some legislation that is proposed in the province of Saskatchewan. But, Mr. Speaker, the proposals in this bill are very far reaching with respect to the future development of farms and farming communities. If we examine a proposal which deals with the consolidation of farms, the other side of the proposal must deal with the elimination of some farms. If we pass legislation dealing with the consolidation of farms and the lending of larger amounts of money, we must attempt to see what the results will be in the future.
Clause 1 of this bill will amend section 11 of the Farm Credit Act so that it will read in part:
The Corporation has all the powers necessary to carry out such duties or functions as may be assigned to it by the Governor in Council in relation to the administration of any agricultural program or as are assigned to it pursuant to any other Act of the Parliament of Canada.
Once this legislation is passed, the government can take action through orders in council. It can make very important decisions regarding complete phases of agriculture in some parts of the country, without having to lay its program before this House and defend what it proposes to do to people and for people. I am sure that the minister can advance logical arguments in support of the proposal in this bill to increase the amount of money which can be lent. Even on a compact family farm, the investment in land, cattle and machinery can be very substantial.
Every once in a while I read articles in newspapers which say how wonderful it is to have a one-man dairy farm, a one-man grain farm, or a one-man hog farm. But, Mr. Speaker, the individual concerned will be working 12 to 16 hours a day, and must have a very substantial capital investment. I am concerned with how this bill will affect the farmer and the communities in the farming regions of the country. What is needed here is companion action to increase farm income.
This afternoon questions were asked about the final pool payment on oats. Questions were asked yesterday about the price of rapeseed. Questions were also asked yesterday about the initial price of barley. In each case,
May 3, 1972

those questions were not answered except by the minister saying, "We are going to continue to do what we are doing in respect of the pricing structure."
With respect to the hog subsidy which the government recently paid out, I ask was the amount of the subsidy related to the cost of production on farms in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Manitoba? The answer is no. The record shows that the payments were related to the ratio between the price which existed in central markets in the United States and the price in the Toronto market. On that basis, it was decided to pay $5 a hog.
According to a term which has become popular amongst economists, the cost of money enters into the costs of production of every commercial farm in Canada. What we are talking about here is the cost of money and the use of money. The other day in committee we had a look at what is happening to Farm Credit Corporation loans in western Canada. Here, I quote an answer given by the Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, Mr. Owen:
-we had in Alberta $6,106,000 of arrears, which amounted to about 25.5 per cent of the amount due during the previous 12 months; in Saskatchewan, $6,411,000, representing 23.8 per cent; in Manitoba, $2,580,000, representing 28.2 per cent.
This is the picture of a depressed industry, Mr. Speaker. Our party met with representatives of farm organizations not more than two weeks ago, and one of those representatives said to me, "When you look at figures like that, you are getting pretty close to a debt adjustment program." The Conservatives can cry if they like about the legislation which is being proposed in Saskatchewan. I suggest they could better spend their time crying about the situation in which western farmers find themselves, rather than lambasting a provincial government which is doing its best to remedy a situation which is totally unacceptable to our citizens.


Mr. Southam:: We are not crying; we are just giving you some good advice.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Any advice we get from that corner we could do without. The previous speaker was talking about legislation that will not even be dealt with at this session of that legislature. It will be studied by a committee to see how best to deal with the foreign ownership problem which is developing in our province. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that you will not find us trying to deal with foreign ownership the way the government is trying to deal with it in Canada, with a lame brain policy.


An hon. Member:: Is that what Schreyer said?


Mr. McBride:: Check with an NDP government.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Not really.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Murray Arndell McBride: You know what he is going to ask.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If it were really urgent, I could accept it but I would rather carry on.
Farm Credit Act


Murray Arndell McBride: I would not accept it either.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should be permitted to continue his remarks.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, this debate will last for some time, and I have no doubt that the hon. member who wishes to ask a question will have an opportunity to say something about the government policy as I am now saying what I have to say.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It was only in reference to your aside.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the main part of my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You want to get away from what Schreyer said.


John Leroy Skoberg: What would you know about what Schreyer said?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: We will not worry about what Schreyer said or what Blakeley said.


Murray Arndell McBride: Lewis doesn't either.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell those people who insist on discussing provincial politics that once again, as we did in 1944, we will pioneer some of the solutions that have to be found for the farmers of this country. I am not here this afternoon to apologize for provincial NDP governments. I do not have to, because they initiated policies which are now being followed all over Canada, as for example, Medicare, with regard to car insurance and a number of other things. If hon. members opposite and to my right have nothing better to do than pick on those two provincial governments in the provinces which have suffered the most severe blast from the agricultural policies followed by this government, I am sorry for them. They will have their turn. The members from Manitoba should take note of the tax arrears in that province and the shape the farmers there are in because, Mr. Speaker, this is the road to bankruptcy. What I am saying-


Edmund Boyd Osler: Did it happen recently, in the last three years?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is roaming Saskatchewan saying that this year they are going to sell $1.1 billion worth of grain.


Murray Arndell McBride: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, that is where we were in 1967, before this government took office. All they are doing is getting back to where we were. The best thing that these gentlemen can do is be quiet because, then they do not attract so much trouble to themselves. I do not mind. I am quite willing to set the record straight as the opportunity offers.


Murray Arndell McBride: You look great.


Mr. Cullen:: You look better sitting down.

May 3, 1972
Farm Credit Act


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I want this government to do something about the income factor. I have mentioned that there has been a severe drop in the acreage of rapeseed this year. This is a major concern, and if something was being done about it we might have a little more confidence in the credit policy. If something was being done to stabilize prices, we might have a little more confidence and if something was being done about the cost we might have a little more confidence.
The fertilizer companies have been holding the farmers of western Canada to ransom for two years, and we cannot get the responsible department to do anything about it. I was amazed this afternoon, when the minister was asked about fertilizer prices, and he replied "If you will send me something other than rumours, I will be glad to look at it." Mr. Speaker, it is blazoned all over the front page of the "Union Farmer". A letter came into my hands almost a week ago which shows that fertilizer costs $19 or $20 a ton more in Manitoba and Saskatchewan than on the other side of the border. Some of that fertilizer comes from the minister's own riding of Medicine Hat, and some of it comes from Kimberley in the mountains, so I cannot understand why the minister is not aware of this.
Another thing that I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, is why the government allows a cartel to rook the farmers of western Canada when they are trying to reach some efficiency of production, nor can I understand why the government allowed a cartel to rook the farmers of Ontario last year. Last year fertilizer cost $97 a ton in Biggar, but this year the same thing will cost at least $15 a ton more. I cannot understand the government's indifference to the real plight of the farmer.
We had a voluminous report on farm machinery and spent a lot of money on it but with what result? Some hon. members jest about Roumanian tractors. That may be a joke for some people.


An hon. Member:: They will hear from their friends in Massey-Ferguson.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not think this is going to turn the picture upside down. What assistance is the ordinary farmer getting who is trying to improve his efficiency and productivity in order to survive? This question cannot be ignored, because this is the man who pays the taxes and keeps the whole rural infrastructure going as do the people in the small towns. The only reason for the existence of these communities is to see that the farmer is well served and able to operate. What are we doing to help them? To say that the answer is to bring in a manpower program to get these people out of these communities begs the question. With the rate of unemployment we have, where do they go? This is the relevant question, and the Farm Credit Corporation recognizes it in a statement on the first page of its report to the effect that the lack of opportunity for employment off the farm is one of the important factors keeping people on the farm. Of course it is; they have no place else to go.
When this bill goes to committee let us not ignore this fact. Lest us not go to the farmer weeks from now and say that we have solved his problem, that we have a program. Let us not say that to the farmer unless we really have a program to which he can look forward with some hope

and confidence for the future. That is the nub of the question.
You know, I could go on talking about the policies which have been mentioned, policies involving agricultural adjustment or development programs for Canadian agriculture. These policies are something like the grain stabilization bill which was conceived by and first saw the light of day in the Task Force on Agriculture. That is the source of these ideas. I will not spend time berating the Task Force on Agriculture. I only regret that it was not made up of men of imagination who could chart new frontiers for agriculture, instead of gathering up the old shibboleths and putting them in a bag. Now, one by one, they are emerging, and we are looking at them. As Canadians, we can do better than that. In examining this bill, let us try to do better.
One cannot quarrel too much with the criteria used for this program. The availability of non-farm employment is a criterion. According to the document in my hand, Agricultural Adjustment or Development Policy, that is to be one criterion. In other words, when the department talks about the rate of adjustment from agriculture, it means that the criterion under which farmers will get another kind of job is the availability of non-farm employment. That is elementary, my dear Watson, elementary. The key phrase should not be the availability of non-farm employment, but the availability of opportunity. Other criteria listed are, the availability of training, the difference in skills required, the age and education of the operator, the availability of capital to finance relocation, the ability to liquidate farm assets, and so on. All the same, the most important criterion is the very first listed, the availability of non-farm employment. That is the first one listed and the most important.
Let me go on for a moment. Somebody slipped, I see, and on page 6 of this document we find the statement that the policies depend for their operational efficiency on the effectiveness of the first set of programs-those designed to increase the mobility of resources and to grease the wheels of the adjustment process. As I said, someone slipped and used basic English. May I refer to other aspects mentioned in this document. On page 9, I see reference to a rural counselling service required to assist the farmer and his family make the basic decision to continue in agriculture, and so on. The document also mentions farm management services-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret interrupting the hon. member who has the floor. The hon. member would be in order if he were relating his remarks to the question of farm credit, which, as the hon. member knows, is the subject now before the House. I suggest that his remarks should not range too widely from that subject.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill deals with the subjects I have mentioned. The bill indicates that provision shall be made, after land has been sold, for an individual to remain on that land if he does not want to move away. The bill looks at that situation. May I point out, with all respect, that it looks at the situation in which
May 3, 1972

the farm operator is of advanced age and chooses to remain on the farm. In that case, he may retain some buildings and a small plot of land, and let somebody else work the farm.
If I understand the bill correctly, it also provides that the farmer may operate another enterprise on the farm in addition to what is regarded as a legitimate farm enterprise. I think I am right in saying that, and all these matters are part and parcel of the bill. The minister or the department, as the case may be, were quite right in producing the document I hold in my hand. I fully expect that it will be discussed in the House and in committee. If I am wrong, I hope the minister will tell me. May I go on record as saying that I believe it will be discussed. The matters mentioned in this document are well within the scope of this bill. There is a nice chart on page 10 which shows the direction one can go if one chooses either the course of farm development or the course of non-farm employment. This document suggests the amounts of money that will become available from the Farm Credit Corporation to help to make this sort of program possible. For instance, it will help to make farm counselling possible; the corporation will help to make farm management programs possible. That, I understand, will be part of the program.
It is envisaged that programs will be developed in cooperation with the provinces if possible or, if that is not possible, at the federal level entirely; these are to be farm management or farm advisory programs and their purpose is to assist the borrower obtain a better income pattern than he achieved in previous times. That sort of thing happened immediately after the second world war under the Veterans' Land Act or the veterans land credit program. I cannot remember the right name of the act. In those cases, management and advisory programs were tied in with the lending function so that assistance could be given to the borrower. At that time, the plan worked reasonably well.
Anyone aware of what happened in economics immediately after the war knows that between 1946 and 1956, roughly, a combination of circumstances arose such as the farmers of this country have rarely enjoyed. Prices for farm products rose steadily. The price of the farmer's produce was going up, while the price of those things the farmer had to buy was stable or increasing very gradually. Those conditions, combined with a good credit program, enabled farmers to make progress. Those who returned from overseas and decided to take up farming as an occupation were able to make real progress.
This afternoon I am trying to emphasize this: if this credit program is to be effective, the circumstances which existed in the postwar years must be recreated. Prices must increase enough to enable the farmer to keep up with the cost of production. Also, the government must act with regard to the cost of production and control within reasonable or practical limits, or even workable limits, the increases in the cost of the farmer's operation. Unless that is done, I suggest that the result in X number of years will be unfortunate. That is what I have tried to emphasize this afternoon, and it is most important for us to remember that. Conditions such as I have described are more important than mere quantities of money. The effect of those conditions may or may not be more impor-
Farm Credit Act
tant than the effect of the document in my hand. I agree that this document will have very, very important effects. I am sure that the minister and others who worked on it within the department also regard it as an important step forward in policy. I am sure they knew what they were doing and what they were proposing. I therefore hope that we give this measure and the policies involved the thorough examination and thought which they require.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) made a very clever presentation of Bill C-5.
This legislation purports to bring major amendments to the Farm Credit Act and I would like to thank the minister for his very appropriate explanations on the principles which have led to the drafting of this measure. If we consider but one of the provisions of this bill, I can say that although we are going backwards, we are, at the same time, "progressing". I say "progressing" because we seem to realize that the family farm should be encouraged and preserved if Canadian agriculture is to improve.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is the duty of every government to take all necessary steps to ensure that the most important industry of the country, namely agriculture, enjoys excellent health. All classes of society are interested in the well-being of agriculture and in farmers earning enough to live, not necessarily like millionaires, but at least decently in a country where this objective is attainable.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the clauses of Bill C-5 proposes to increase the Corporation's capital from $56 million to $66 million. I think that this is an unquestionable necessity. The questionable point on which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture is that if we recognize that farmers need credit to develop their operations and modernize their machinery, we should also recognize that they are entitled to an income such as would enable them to repay both principal and interests.
If we refer to the brief presented in April to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the cabinet by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-it should not be lies, as those people come from all parts of Canada and have met with party representatives to read this brief to them after presenting it to the cabinet-we can read, at the first paragraph-I quote:
The present meeting comes after a year during which farmers have seen their profits go down to a disastrously low level-lower, in terms of dollars, than during any comparable year, and, in real terms, 73 per cent lower than it was 10 years ago. The forecast for 1972-let us hope that it will not come true-is for an even worse situation. The pressure due to the cost-price squeeze is becoming alarming and overwhelming to a degree never experienced before.
Authorized representatives of the farm industry throughout Canada are keeping a close check on markets and on the economic situation of agriculture, and take the trouble to come to Ottawa in order to make the government aware of a situation which could become worse unless steps are taken to correct it.
Hon. members will remember-as the minister referred to it in his comments yesterday-a highly disastrous situa-

May 3, 1972
Farm Credit Act
tion which occurred in the dairy industry a few years ago. I remember being part of the group of industrial milk producers which came to Ottawa on May 15, 1967, to protest excessively low prices and to ask the government to improve its dairy policy. At that time, we had made representations, and the government had promised to introduce a long-term policy designed to improve the situation. To be quite honest, I must recognize that improvements did take place and that the situation of industrial dairy producers was much better in 1971 than in 1970. But it should not stop there.
When, in a field like the dairy industry, there is a trend toward improvement it should continue. Even yesterday I received a representation from a producer. It is all very well for the government to do its utmost to maintain prices, but the co-operation of the industry is also a requisite.
On March 29, I believe, the minister announced the new dairy policy for the year 1972-73 and, quoting from memory, I believe he mentioned that industrial milk would increase by 20 cents or more. I have here a notice sent to a producer, who forwarded it to me, which reads as follows:
On March 30 last, the federal government announced its dairy policy for the year 1972-73. The only change is an increase in the support price of powdered skim milk by 0.03 cents a pound.
In keeping with this policy and pending completion of negotiations for a new agreement now taking place with the Federalism of Industrial Milk Producers, we are increasing our basic price for BULK MILK, Grade A from $4.25 to $4.40 and Grade B from $4.12 to $4.27 per cwt.
The increase is of 15 cents only. I will be told that this is just pending completion of negotiations between producers and the Federation. However, knowing the facts I remember only too well-unfortunately-that in the past increases granted by the federal government did not always fully benefit the producers of industrial milk.
So, if you take the basic price of $4.25 and add the subsidy, you only get $5.50. This is what we were asking for when we made representations to the government in 1967. We got it, but production costs have gone up since then. The producers now get a better price but production costs have also increased to such an extent that the situation tends to deteriorate. I commend the members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for bringing this matter to the attention of the government.
In another agricultural field, we witnessed the disastrous situation faced by hog producers. I have called the attention of the Minister of Agriculture on this matter on many occasions and I admit that something has been done. But the fact remains that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is asking the government to improve the lot of hog producers. Their resolution reads as follows:
(a)	That the federal government in 1971 raise the level of support prices for hogs by 80 to 90 per cent of the five-year average and that payments be made twice a year and for all graded hogs; and
(b)	That the Canadian Federation of Agriculture urge the Agricultural Stabilization Board to implement a stabilization program with holdbacks.
(c)	In order to maintain a balanced supply and some stability in the hog industry, that the federal government make an extra

payment of $20 per sow up to a maximum of 50 sows per producer to cover the period from July to December 1971.
Having received many briefs and letters concerning this matter from producers in my constituency, I have promised them that I would avail myself of the first opportunity and bring their just claims to the attention of the government. I have here a petition requesting all their representatives to convey the mesasage to the government.
All of this to say that some sectors of agriculture were hit by a recession in 1971, and that a worse situation may be in the making for 1972. It is very nice indeed to consider increasing the borrowing ability of farmers up to $100,000, which, in some cases, may prove useful. But I think that we must take right now the necessary steps-and, if at all possible, imagine new ones-to ensure that the borrowers of today are the owners of tomorrow, and to provide them with the income which will permit them to reimburse their debt, both principal and interests.
To achieve this, half of their income should not be used to reimburse the interests on their loan. In its brief, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has included a relevant proposal. As a member of this House, I have promised them to serve as their spokesman and, with the gist of their brief in mind, to invite the government to improve the situation in this area as well as in all the others.
In fact, the resolution reads as follows:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture recommends the implementation of a comprehensive credit program at the federal and provincial levels in order to make available to farm operators short, middle and long term credit. This aim could be reached through a national credit co-operative system with two services: (a) a farm co-operative credit organization to help viable farm operations; (b) a credit service for rural development to help farmers who are trying to make a success of their business.
With regard to the interest rate, the Federation recommends the following, and I quote:
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is trying to obtain an interest rate, in respect of all loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation or under the Veteran's Land Act, that will be established on a more stable principle and should not exceed 5 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, those are worthwhile recommendation that should be acted upon with a view to achieving the desired result, which is to enable farmers as well as egg, hog, poultry and beef producers, to meet their obligations, so as to maintain a constant balance between income possibilities and what is required of producers and distributors.
Mr. Speaker, the speech delivered last night by the Minister of Agriculture, there was something that pleased me and which will please, I think, a great number of people, because this problem is a recurring one. We had stressed it, I believe, when the Farm Credit Act was amended in 1968 or 1969. At any rate, I remember that we had drawn the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to this inadequacy in the act.
The minister said yesterday as reported on page 1843 of Hansard, and I quote:
-The amendment in this bill provides for a maximum of $100,000 to any farmer alone or jointly with others or in respect of a single farming enterprise. The size of individual farm units is increasing steadily-
May 3, 1972

I have some doubts about this, according to statistics. However, I would not give too much importance to this statement because, to be fair, one has to look fully into the situation and check whether such a statement is true or not or whether it is an actual fact.
I quote further:
-labour is being replaced in many cases by capital and the purchasing power of the dollar has decreased a little during recent years-
That merely confirms what I said a while ago, that the cost of production has increased alarmingly and that even though prices may have increased in the dairy industry, they have not done so at the same rate as production costs; this explains why many farmers cannot expand normally to achieve the level of production that would correspond to the equipment they must acquire to make up for the lack of farm labour.
We noticed that in many parts of the country when we visited it. We asked the farmers this "Why do you have so much equipment on your farm"? The answer was always the same "We cannot get enough help and must therefore use the most modern equipment to do the work at the right time of the season.
That is how farmers all across Canada ran into debt and why many of them had to give up farming because they were not getting the income needed to meet their commitments.
In another part of his speech, the hon. Minister of Agriculture said, and I quote:
The principle of relating loan ceilings to the number of farm operators rather than to the size of the business has proven in practice to be inequitable for individual farmers employing hired labour or people other than those with an equity in the farm unit. The principle has also proved inequitable, I suggest, in situations where the farmer operating his farm is assisted by sons or daughters of minor age, compared to two or more owner operators in a farming operation or a form of partnership. We want to correct that situation.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this statement and if we can really reach the goal mentioned in the statement I just read, I believe we really will have been most helpful to many farmers throughout Canada.
At any rate, I should like to say in concluding that as recently as this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture in his answer to a question stated that a small farm policy had been established for buying back and ensuring the maintenance of small farms.
Since we are often asked questions on this matter, I should like to know the full particulars of such a policy. I support the member who asked the question because it is very important for a member representing a rural constituency to be able to provide the required information that will help people find a solution to their problems as quickly as possible.
Thus the need to preserve the family farm, or the small enterprise is being recognized and even if it is not always possible to come to an agreement with departments of other governments, something will indeed have to be done. I do not like idleness. Give me action and give me progress.
Farm Credit Act
Today, Wednesday, May 3, there is a news item in the newspaper Le Devoir which somehow amazes me and I quote:
Farming in Quebec is ill mainly on account of conflicts between Ottawa and Quebec
Indeed, there have been quite a number of those conflicts between Ottawa and Quebec!


An hon. Member:: -those damned conflicts-


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I nearly said it myself- those conflicts have always been fought at the expense of the taxpayers, of the small farmers, of the small businesses.
I wish we would meet the challenge and stop creating fake conflicts. Instead, we should earnestly try and sit around a table and ask ourselves whether it is possible to initiate projects that could strengthen our agricultural industry in Quebec, in Ontario and indeed, in all the provinces and thereby bring happiness and prosperity to the farming community.
There is an excerpt from the article I started quoting and which cannot fail to disturb me:
The authors of this white paper, on the other hand, point out that almost 25,008 of the 70,000 Quebec farmers, that is 36 per cent, get permanent or temporary assistance from the Department of Social Affairs.
That is not very encouraging, and is evidence of a situation of which we cannot be proud.
I think that if we want to act positively, we must adopt legislation allowing those small enterprises to be self-sufficient. We must stop, at last, taxing citizens who are working day and night to accommodate some of our people who would rather remain idle and unproductive.
Those citizens will not accept it. They are proud people who rightfully expect their work to bring them the income they need to live decently, without having to rely on others.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the time has come for the government to establish a workable policy likely to assure the farming population of that which everybody wishes them for that matter, specifically, the possibility of living decently in Canada.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the House continues to study Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, I am pleased to rise to take part in the debate with the hon. members who have already stated their views.
First of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) for a fine speech. Actually, I find myself in agreement with many of the views he expressed during the few minutes his speech lasted.
Since he referred to a matter of very great concern to me, specifically, the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec, Mr. Toupin, I should like to say to this hon. minister that a lot remains for him to do in his province and that, for instance, he should see to it that his credits-some $84 million-are

May 3, 1972
Farm Credit Act
wisely spent, instead of minding the business of other levels of government.
I for one believe that when a minister is making such out of place and preposterous statements-as said my neighbor-as did the Quebec minister of Agriculture yesterday, those statements are quite offending. This simply reveals a certain weakness and the fact that he is using excuses to justify it.
I would like now to compare-although any comparison is unsatisfactory-the Quebec and Ontario agriculture budget. The Ontario agriculture budget is $20 million lower with twice as many farmers and a production twice as high as that of Quebec and yet the Ontario Department of Agriculture employs 6,000 fewer people than the Quebec Department of Agriculture.
So if we Quebeckers want to find the reason for the difficulties faced by Quebec farmers, we should not blame only Ottawa or the farmers of other provinces. We should begin by looking around us in Quebec, find out our weaknesses and correct them.
The hon. Mr. Toupin should first improve the laws of his province instead of commenting on what is done elsewhere. He is wondering whether the overlapping jurisdictions of both governments, provided for in the constitution, is wrong. If he says it is wrong, maybe it is. Perhaps the solution would be to have only one jurisdiction. If we should have only one jurisdiction it should be at the federal level as requested by many farmers I have met.
Having said this, I should like to refer to another comment the hon. member for Bellechasse made about the dairy policy. I know I am straging somewhat from the subject but since farm credit affects the production of various farm products I believe farm loan policy can certainly be related to production, and particularly to dairy production in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada.
The hon. member referred to the increase in income of Quebec dairy producers. In fact, they were much higher than in previous years. I quite agree that there should be further improvement.
However, the hon. member, when he indicated 1971 and 1972 incomes for the dairy industry a few minutes ago, omitted to mention a factor which I consider to be quite important: the extra bonus dairy producers receive over and above the set base price. Besides the $4.25, plus the $1.25 grant, the bonus received by producers should also be taken into account.
I personally read the report and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) will be able to bear me out, since the Normandin Co-operative in his district paid out a bonus of $1.50 per hundredweight for the last three months of the year, over and above the base price. That is a fantastic achievement, for which full credit must be given to the Normandin Co-operative in the riding of Roberval and in the Saguenay area.
The present situation has also prevailed in other regions of Quebec where producers have actually received from their plants much more than the basic price, not taking into account the year-end refunds and the value increases also distributed by their firms.
(Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).]
I come back, Mr. Speaker, to Bill C-5 in order to determine more or less the objectives we are trying to pursue. This is a new step on the road of general improvement of our agricultural policy.
Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive aim of the amendments is to increase the Farm Credit Corporation's ability to meet the need for long-term credits towards the establishment of profitable agricultural enterprises and to give the corporation the necessary powers to perform such tasks or functions it might be entrusted with for the implementation of other programs.
The powers now vested in the corporation enable it to reach its aims and objectives, that is to make agricultural loans, to see to it that the law is implemented and to control agricultural credit transactions. The corporation employs a staff specializing in farm appraisal and evaluation of business transactions related to farm lands in any agricultural region of Canada.
The present amendment will enable the minister to draw upon such expert staff for the administration of whole or part of other programs such as the program of land transfers which is part of the small farms development and improvement program.
In accordance with the legislation now in force, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is authorized to pay to the corporation an amount of $56 million which when multiplied 25 times as provided in the legislation, will enable it to obtain enough capital to make loans to farmers.
But it so happens that at the end of 1972, the funds available under this act will be reduced to $245 million, so that the present proposal to increase the operating fund of the Corporation by $10 million, that is from $56 to $66 million, will allow, through the multiplication factor of 25, for an additional amount of $250 million. We believe that through this change, there will be sufficient funds available to cover demand for the next few years.
Anyway, this House sits regularly, and if additional funds came to be required I do not think we would hesitate to increase available funds then, for the farm industry has to pursue its objectives.
The amendment to section 16, Mr. Speaker, limits the granting of loans to Canadians or landed immigrants under the Immigration Act who own farm land, and the purpose of the proposed amendment is to allow the granting of loans only to assist people who are Canadian citizens or who intend to settle permanently in Canada.
The important point, Mr. Speaker, is that of the total amounts which can be loaned to farmers.
Under the existing act, there are, in fact, three classes of farmers, to whom different maximum amounts can be loaned. Those three classes are now going to be eliminated, as far as maximum amounts are concerned, and from now on all farmers will be able to borrow up to $100,000, depending on the security they can put and on the assessment which will be made of their property and of its potential productivity.
There is also another interesting point to consider, Mr. Speaker. Although the Corporation is allowed under the
May 3, 1972

Act to grant credits for the development of mortgaged lands owned by a secondary non-farming enterprise, the Corporation is not authorized to take into consideration any possible non-farming income derived from the farm in assessing the value of the land for the purpose of calculating the amount of the loans.
Therefore, an amendment will make it possible to take such factors into consideration in future, which means that we shall be able to increase the basis for the calculation of the amount of a loan, which is assessed at 75 per cent of the land yield. But in restricting the items which could be included in the cost benefit analysis, you obviously reduce loan possibilities and limit the maximum loans to be granted to farmers. By including other forms of income under this amendment, we shall enable farmers to qualify for larger amounts even on the basis of as restricted a unit.
There is another very important point, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, it may be the most important of all. It is the removal of the age limit. Under the present act, one must be 21 years of age to apply to the Farm Credit Corporation for a loan. From now on, this age limit will be eliminated, and the age of majority prevailing in each province will apply. In some provinces, majority is at the age of 18, in others you reach majority at 19. In those provinces where the coming of age has not changed yet, the age limit will necessarily remain the same as is now prevailing in those provinces, that is, 21 years.
This will enable young farmers to obtain loans and to go into farming with their fathers or other people, or to invest and start in that field. This of course will not solve the problem which the young people are facing at the present time when they want to start farming. If they have no capital, it remains difficult, but through that amendment, we will surely make it easier for them and the number of young farmers who will definitely choose that calling and who will become owners will certainly increase. I am convinced of that, having met young farmers. Incidentally I would like to say to those who take a gloomy view of agriculture that after having heard all those criticisms, it is not surprising that they take such gloomy views. Recently, I attended a meeting where a group of farmers of my constituency were discussing farming problems. Unfortunately, I must admit it, the 50 or 60-year olds were rather pessimistic. However, four young men had remained silent throughout the evening. At the end of the evening, I asked them if they had no views to express, which they did. To my great surprise and satisfaction, of the four young men, aged 22 to 26, three were owners of their farms, and the fourth one worked on his father's farm. They all told me that they were very hopeful and happy to be engaged in agriculture, and that they would not change for another trade. They said "We see our relatives, our friends, who went to school and who today are stuck in the industrial society. We much prefer our trade of farmer, and we entertain great hopes for the future because we have a future to build, whereas our parents, who lived through difficult periods, recall the past and their difficulties instead, and have not, of course, many years ahead of them to build. They are rather pessimistic."
That pleased me and I can assure hon. members that they are not the only ones to see farming as a promising
Farm Credit Act
career in the future. Agriculture does have a future, and more and more young people will join the ranks of farmers and follow those who now live off the farm.
Here, I should warn those who take as sole basis the average age of active farmers. It is said that the average age of farm workers and farm owners in Canada is around 55 years. Obviously, such a situation is alarming, and justly so, but one forgets that, in this very special industry, often the son succeeds to the father or is presently employed by the father. The latter is the owner and he is the one who is considered when establishing the average age of the active farmer. But if we consider that his son, aged 22, 23 or 27 years, works with him in most cases and if we figure out the average age of the two persons occupied in agriculture, we soon realize that the average age is, in fact, much closer to 35 than to 55. That gives us greater confidence and allows us to consider the situation in a much more objective way.
Mr. Speaker, we hear criticisms of all kinds. Opposition members were saying earlier that the agricultural situation was disastrous. When considering statistics and various reports we can no doubt draw many conclusions. I can come to one, for instance, in reading the 1970-71 report of the Canadian Wheat Board. In Table No. 3, on page 3, dealing with the volume of grain products in the Prairies over the years, it is sure that I can come to a strange conclusion, for what it is worth, but one may that conclusion. Our colleagues opposite are drawing the very same kind of conclusion. According to a table, at the time the Conservatives were in power from 1957 to 1961 here is what happened. In 1956, the total grain production reached 1,202 million bushels. But, unfortunately, it happened that the Conservatives were in office during the seven lean years and here is what happened between 1957 and 1962: the production dropped from 1,202 million bushels to 784 million in 1957, then it went up to 824 million bushels in 1958, to 854 million bushels in 1959, to 970 million bushels in 1960, and dropped to 524 million bushels in 1961. A real record! This includes all grains. It is to be noted that there were only 260 million bushels of wheat. That happened at the time when the "Prairie experts", those who are in the opposition, who criticize the government, were in office for some time. If we consider their record, Mr. Speaker, we find it far from good!
In 1971, we have the highest figures ever reached in the last 25 years: 1,563 million bushels of grain were produced. Those are official figures.
Are conditions so bad in the Prairie provinces? Not as bad as that, but, of course, not as good as we would like them to be. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture is the first to wish the situation would be much better, and I am sure all members of the Liberal party as well as those of the opposition agree with him. Let us be realistic. To paint the situation in black as is now being done does not serve the profession in which they are engaged. Mr. Speaker, I blame them because their attitude, their constant criticisms about the agricultural situation tends to downgrade the profession in which they are engaged, as well as the people they claim to represent. As for me, I say the opposite: The situation is not perfect, but it is definitely better than the one depicted by members of the opposition.
Mr. Speaker, through the bill that we shall pass in a few days with the co-operation of all members, we shall cer-
1880

May 3, 1972
Farm Credit Act
tainly succeed in further improving the situation somewhat. It will gradually improve. We cannot expect drastic changes because too many production units are involved in farming. Various attempts were made to further help agriculture, for instance, through the Farm Products Marketing Council, and we know how difficult it was to have this legislation passed and put into our statute books. We are slowly building something and within a few years, our agriculture will be greatly improved, and we shall certainly be in a position to say that the Canadian government has introduced a long term agricultural policy, and that our farmers are considered as full-fledged citizens.
Several problems may give rise to some criticisms voiced by our friends of the opposition.
Last week Farm Credit Corporation chairman Owen appeared before the agriculture committee. Our friends opposite questioned him at length and one of our colleagues tried to emphasize the fact that farming conditions in Quebec were much better than elsewhere in Canada, quoting the fact that only 6 per cent of loans granted by the Farm Credit Corporation were in arrears, that is only 6 per cent of Quebec borrowers were behind with their reimbursement in comparison with 21, 24 and 25 per cent in the three Prairie provinces. They then drew the following conclusion: farming conditions in Quebec are clearly better than in the Prairies.
Mr. Speaker, it is a rather hasty analysis of the statistics, since in Quebec the circumstances are different; there is a Farm Credit Bureau which enables farmers to obtain credit at better terms. That is why very few Quebec farmers borrow under the terms of that federal act. Only big farmers do so in Quebec because they can then get additional amounts, greater than those granted by the province.
Quebec farmers do not have to borrow large amounts at the provincial level. Those who have large farms-and they are growing in number-borrow at the federal level. According to the statistics, $18 million were loaned last year to Quebec farmers, because there too farms are being regrouped. People need larger amounts of money and therefore turn in increasing numbers to federal sources of credit. That, in spite of our good friend, the hon. Mr. Toupin of Quebec, who would have us hand over all those amounts of money, that he might manage it and be sole judge in the matter.
Is the situation of the western farmer as critical as some would claim? I should like to quote a table published on page 37 of the report of the Farm Credit Corporation which gives the index of Canadian farm land values per acre, by province, during the last 20 years.
I shall not read the whole table, Mr. Speaker, but I shall give an idea of the increase in the value of agricultural properties.
In British Columbia, for instance, in 1951, one acre of land was worth an average of $110. In 1970, or 20 years later, it was worth $286.
In Alberta, for the same years, the figures were $112 then and $288 now.
In Saskatchewan, $117 in 1951 and $292 now.
[Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean) .1
In Manitoba, $117 also, and $233 now.
In Ontario, where a truly specific problem exists, land was worth $127 an acre in 1951 and after a fantastic leap it was worth $435 an acre in 1970.
In Quebec, from $125 there has been an increase to $249.
In New Brunswick, from $116 to $222.
In Nova Scotia, from $112 to $214.
In Prince Edward Island, from $115 to $196.
So, one can see that there is an increase in the value of the acre of land. One can see that Western farmers of course are sitting on a larger fortune than farmers in Ontario, the Maritime provinces and Quebec because their lands are much smaller which brings from our honorable colleague for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) the comment that Western farmers live in poverty and die rich. It may be true that they live in poverty,-I am not in a position to judge-but I doubt if all of them live like the poor. When considering reports and the standard of living of Westerners, one realizes that some of them are drawing very good incomes.
So I am not prepared to say that they all live in poverty. But, Mr. Speaker, one thing is certain: they die a lot richer than farmers in the Maritimes and Quebec because of a considerably higher appreciation.
Only yesterday, I read in a newspaper that Americans are presently buying land in southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta for twice the price normally asked on the local market. Therefore, the reason why land out West is worth that much, is because it can be put into production. Besides, it is said that it has value as an investment. If such is the case, the land situation in the Prairies is not as bad as we are led to believe.
Farmers are doing a disservice to agriculture in painting everything in such dark colours, in Canada, agriculture is rather healthy and it will become healthier in as much as we work together toward its improvement. I think this is the purpose of this bill and we will certainly achieve it with the co-operation of all members.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, one finds oneself a little bit amused by the two tables which the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (M. Lessard) used in defence of his argument. One of them had a great deal to do with production. He stressed that in such and such a period of time production was so much, but that under the Liberals in recent years production was so much more. He fails to take into consideration that weather has a lot to do with production. Further, in recent years farmers have been quick to use all the advanced technology to increase production, such as more efficient use of fertilizer, better seeding methods, and better farming methods in general. This all would tend to show that in latter years production has increased.
The hon. member then quoted from another table taken from the document on farm credit and related statistics put out by the DBS. It is to be found at page 37 of that document, and deals with the value of land. But he fails to realize that inflation plays a great part in the value of
May 3, 1972

land. He never took that into consideration. He suggested that land values had increased over 20 years. Shouldn't the value of land increase? Mr. Speaker, that was the only table in that book that he could have used to accurately illustrate conditions today. The hon. member was quite right when he said that all members of parliament should do what they can to aid agriculture, to help the farmers, and not just paint a black picture. I am attempting to do just that. I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) is a direct aid.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean also suggested that the average age of farmers today is over 53 years. I think I read somewhere that it is 58 years. It is high, Mr. Speaker. We must encourage more young farmers to enter the business. The hon. member went to a meeting and, in his own words, he said he was surprised to find that three or four young people at that meeting were in farming. I contend that this bill should be designed to encourage young people to go into farming, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie would do that.
The young farmer has a great deal to contribute. He has youth, energy, and the willingness to accept new ideas and changes that can help agriculture. We should make an all-out effort to encourage young farmers to stay on the land. The amendment proposes that where a young farmer under a certain age meets certain performance standards with regard to the repayment of a loan, a certain percentage of the interest would be forgiven. I think this would encourage young people to get back to the land. Under the terms of the bill a young farmer can borrow up to $100,000, but in the first year he would have to pay $8,000 interest. The amendment suggests that in certain cases payment of the interest could be deferred.
For a long time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was a Social Crediter. Since becoming a minister, he has forgotten about the evils of high interest rates. That is one of the things you have to forget. I point out that, under his jurisdiction, for two years the Farm Credit Corporation charged an interest rate of 8 per cent, or above that. The minister used to oppose high interest rates when he was a Social Crediter.


Mr. McKinley:: But anything for power.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, anything for power, as my hon. friend from Huron suggests. It is amazing what men will do for power. They forget all the concepts and ideas that they believed in for years.
This bill will do two things. It will allow the Farm Credit Corporation to make larger loans to individuals, in fact
Farm Credit Act
loans up to $100,000, and it will allow it to make loans to non-farmers and to farmers whose principal occupation is not farming. The minister shakes his head to indicate disagreement. I do not know who else is going to carry out this small farms program. Certainly, that is one of the criteria in the small farms program. I read that in the fancy document which was put out by the minister on March 8, 1971. Mr. Speaker, a full year has gone by since then, and he has not sold this idea to any province. But he says that even if no province accepts it, he is going to proceed with it.
I wonder what is wrong with this idea. Apparently he has permission to implement it. His estimates are passed. He has already spent money under this program. We are told that it will cost $150 million in five years.


Marcel Lessard: Seven years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In seven years, then. The minister cannot blame the hon. member for Crowfoot for holding up this legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I never tried to.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The program has been established for over a year, and no province has accepted it. What is wrong with it? I see that it is nearly six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps on another occasion when this legislation is before us he will be able to explain why he has not been able to sell it to the provinces.
There are many things that could be changed in the Farm Credit Corporation management that would alleviate a lot of the difficulties affecting farmers across Canada. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean suggests that there are too many production units in agriculture, and he says that is why there has not been any success. He agrees with the Minister of Agriculture. The minister makes a bold statement that small farmers have got to go. I have a newspaper clipping here somewhere.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I never said that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is the Calgary Herald of Saturday, May 8, 1971. It says, "Olson seeks to reduce number of small farms."


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I never wrote the headline.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
25104-so;

Thursday. May 4, 1972