1972-06-28

PRIVILEGE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which has been given to Your Honour in accordance with the Standing Order. My question of privilege, in my view, affects the rights of all hon. members of the House.
Yesterday the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries released a statement to the Press Gallery in which the minister announced that a "stop-order" had been issued on the construction of the new oil refinery at Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland, in accordance with the provisions of sections 33(1) and 33(2) of the Fisheries Act. This is a very important statement and one that should have been made in the House in accordance with well-established practice. The minister does have the right to make a statement outside the House. My question of privilege, however, is based on the fact that the minister did not release copies of the statement to members of the House until this morning, thereby denying us the right to question the minister in the House yesterday. There is provision in the rules under Standing Order 41(2) to table statements in the House. The minister, in failing to do so and in failing to provide members of the House with copies of his statement at the time of its release to the press, in my opinion, is guilty of flagrantly violating the rules and practices of the House. If Your Honour rules that I have a prima facie question of privilege, I would move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East has given the Chair notice of his intention to raise this matter by way of an alleged or suggested breach of the privileges of the House. With respect, I must advise the hon. member and the House that, after having given the matter due consideration, because the hon. member had given the Chair notice of his intention to raise this matter, I find it difficult to agree with the contention of the hon. member that this matter should be considered by a committee of the House.
The hon. member claims that copies of the minister's statement should have been distributed to hon. members so that they could have been given an opportunity to ask questions in the House. It seems to me, without trying to pass judgment on whether or not the statement should have been made in the House, that the questions that could have been asked yesterday can be asked today. There will be a question period in a short while, and I
would think that the hon. member will have the same rights today as he had yesterday.
I recognize, as does the hon. member, that under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) a minister of the Crown is entitled to table certain documents. However, the Standing Order does not provide that the minister is obligated to table a statement and there is no provision in the Standing Orders to the effect that a statement should be made in the House rather than outside the House.
In view of all these considerations, I doubt very much that hon. members would expect the Chair to authorize the initiation of a debate on this matter which would eventually, perhaps, lead to the matter being sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I cannot see my way clear to ruling that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, and I would not think the hon. member's motion should be put to the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages two copies each of the expanded guidelines for northern pipe lines.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Based on the announcement of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries yesterday invoking section 33 of the Fisheries Act with respect to the Come-By-Chance oil refinery I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for examination of the contents and inquiry into the implications of the said ministerial statement.

June 28, 1972
Grain


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.



ALLEGED FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE GAINED BY FARMERS THROUGH WITHDRAWAL OF INCOME STABILIZATION BILL-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

['There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.']
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the fact revealed last night in the Standing Committee on Agriculture at which witnesses from the Canadian Wheat Board were present, namely, that western farmers gained approximately $100 million by virtue of the withdrawal of the grain income stabilization bill. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture investigate the revelation made yesterday at that committee to the effect that western farmers gained a considerable financial advantage by virtue of the withdrawal of the grain income stabilization bill, introduced in the House last year by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, a fact which is contrary to the statements made last fall in the House of Commons-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member going to indicate what the motion is? I think there might be something irregular in hon. members introducing motions that in themselves are so long that they are speeches. It is easy, I suggest, for hon. members to circumvent the rules which provide that there should be a brief explanation of the motion if the motion in fact is a speech in itself. Again I say that the hon. member should indicate what the motion is. I might say in passing that I have some doubts as to the regularity of this motion.


William George Knight: The motion is:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture investigate the revelation made yesterday at that committee to the effect that western farmers gained a considerable financial advantage by virtue of the withdrawal of the grain income stabilization bill, introduced in the House last year by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, a fact which is contrary to the statements made last fall in the House of Commons by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and that the standing committee report on its findings to the House as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated a moment ago, I have serious doubts about the regularity of the motion. It seems to me that the hon. member's motion refers to proceedings in a committee. I will take the matter under advisement and indicate to the House later whether I should ascertain if there is unanimous consent of the House to put the motion.


William George Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the motion is one of referral, based on the short experience I have had in terms of the House sending important questions to standing committees of the House. That is how the motion reads. If this was not clear, the motion is that the matter be sent to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: I might at this point refer to the motion proposed earlier by the hon. member for Assiniboia. I refer him to citation 324 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
Until the report and evidence have been laid upon the Table, it is irregular to refer to them in debate, or to put questions in reference to the proceedings of the committee.
The hon. member's motion makes reference to proceedings in a committee and because of this it cannot be put.



Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, not wishing to try your patience too much further, I have a regular and brief motion under Standing Order 43.
In view of President Pompidou's statement confirming France's determination to continue atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific, and in view of the fact that Australia, New Zealand and a number of Latin American states have expressed united opposition to these tests, even to the point of threatening to withdraw diplomatic relations, I seek unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 to move the following resolution, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
Whereas continued testing of nuclear warheads by any nation anticipates a threat to human life on this planet, and
Whereas a yet unconfirmed report emanating from Australia that the Green peace crew has been incarcerated in a military hospital in Tahiti;
Therefore this House of Commons calls upon the government of France to cease all further tests and urges the Prime Minister to request immediately of the Ambassador of France that he confirm or deny whether or not the integrity of a Canadian vessel has been violated on the high seas.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I have serious doubts as to the regularity of this motion. Hon. members will appreciate that even motions put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43 must follow the rules of the House. It is a long established rule that a motion should not include "whereas" clauses. This motion contains "whereas" clauses and I suggest to the hon. member that it is entirely out of order for that reason. But rather than rule the motion unacceptable on that ground it might be easier to ask whether there is unanimous consent. If there is unanimous agreement it will be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Carter.)
June 28, 1972


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. Therefore the hon. member's irregular motion cannot be put.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The subject matter has to do with facts which were revealed yesterday evening at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture at which officials of the Canadian Wheat Board were present. I move:
That the Standing Committee on Agriculture meet forthwith and examine the mailing of letters last July and August to western farmers, promising payments of $1.45 per eligible acre, and specifically, whether Statistics Canada, Winnipeg, or the Canadian Wheat Board were the originators of these letters; and that the Standing Committee on Agriculture report to this House by the end of this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-225, to amend the Criminal Code in respect of off-track betting.


[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. Marshall: In the development project carried out by the Department of Labour and the practices which were field-tested in various Canadian cities (a) how many widows approached the UIC for advice on pension matters (b) how many people with a mental condition approached the UIC office for guidance (c) what were the results of these cases?
Questions


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a), (b) and (c): The Commission does not keep statistics on this.


PARLIAMENT HILL-RECONSTRUCTION OF SCENIC WALK
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the re-opening of the scenic walk around Parliament Hill, formerly known as "Lovers' Lane"?
2.	Could such re-opening be partly a winter works project?
3.	What would be the estimated cost of such project?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: In so far as the National Capital Commission is concerned: 1. Reconstruction of the walk was considered but was ruled out because of erosion, scarring of Parliament Hill and other factors. Instead, the government has decided that a promenade will be built around the base of the Hill.
2.	N/A
3.	$750,000.


NUMBER OF WORKERS INVOLVED IN WORK STOPPAGES IN CANADA 1968-70
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	By province, how many members of (a) American controlled international unions (b) national and regional unions, went on strike during 1968, 1969 and 1970?
2.	For the period 1968 to November 30, 1971, how many manufacturing plants closed down?
3.	Were the workers employed in these plants members of (a) international unions (b) national and regional unions?
4.	What was the total amount of union fees paid by Canadians to international unions for the years 1969 and 1970?
5.	If this information is not available, does the government intend to look into this matter in 1972 or 1973 and, if not, for what reasons?
6.	Does the government plan to introduce legislation which would make Canadian trade unions independent of American unions and, if not, for what reasons?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Labour and by Statistics Canada as follows: 1. The number of workers involved in work stoppages in which the unions involved were (a) international and (b) national and regional, during 1968, 1969 and 1970 in each of the Canadian jurisdictions is given in the table. A third category "Others", includes cases where the work stoppages involved unorganized workers or where it was not possible to classify unions under (a) or (b) categories because of the involvement of several unions in the same work stoppage. The term jurisdiction corresponds to province except in the case of "Federal." Work stoppages in the federal jurisdiction may occur in one or more provinces, but the workers involved are not distributed geographically. Included under "Federal" are federal industries and the federal public service.
2.	Information not available.
3.	Information not available.
3592

June 28, 1972
Questions
4. The union fees paid to international unions by 5 and 6. Any government policy on this matter will be Canadian members were: 1968, $41,514,000; 1969, $41,377,- announced at the appropriate time.
000; 1970, not available.


NUMBER OF WOKK1CRS INVOLVED IN WORK STOPPAGES IN CANADA BY JURISDICTION AND BY INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL OR REGIONAL UNIONS, 1968, 1969, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Jurisdiction	19C8 Number of Workers	1909 Number of Workers	1970 Number of Workers	Inter- national Unions	National or Regional Unions	Others'	Inter- national Unions	National or Regional Unions	Others1	Inter- national Unions	National or Regional Unions	Others'Newfoundland	... 1,649	201	2,384	1,506	609	80	192... 9	-	-	-	851	-	125	-	... 2,418	589	1,595	8,967	1,943	9,540	11,930	2,086	12,742... 1,773	-	200	1,301	417	21,223	960	1,062... 11,580	13,853	1,119	24,506	78,635	94	13,188	59,834	167Ontario	... 129,380	5,384	1,643	84,120	9,982	36,797	63,646	2,311	15,035... 991	-	-	644	50	-	1,997	20	-... 2,054	7	575	929	515	928	1,170	481	300... 2,215	64	-	1,900	321	-	432	1,579	500British Columbia	... 12,562	2,224	1,737	13,511	3,025	1,581	10,923	6,479	15,970Federal2	... 3,653	26,087	-	13,161	9,191	-	8,295	26,770	Total	... 168,284	48,208	7,070	151,423	104,513	50,863	114,538	100,600	46,5681	Includes workers who nre unorganized, or those whom it was not possible to classify under (a) international or (fi) national or regional because of the involvement of a number of unions in the same work stoppage.2	Includes cases in federal industries and in the federal public service.

Mr. Robinson: Is a study being carried out of the Lorneville, New Brunswick Development and, if so (a) what is the estimated cost of the study (b) how much of the cost is to be paid by the federal government?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Yes. An ecological protection study is being carried out at Lorneville, (a) $23,000; (b) 80 per cent.


CANADIAN TRADE FAIR, PEKING-AGRICULTURAL EXHIBIT
Mr. Knight: What are the names of the 14 agricultural and livestock firms that have been accepted to show displays at the Canadian Trade Fair in Peking in August?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The names of the agricultural organizations* which will have displays in the agricultural exhibit at the Canadian trade exposition in Peking are as follows: The Canadian Wheat Board, The Canadian Grains Commission, The Canada Grains Council, The Rapeseed Association of Canada, The Canadian Renderers Association, The Canadian Seed Growers Association, The Ontario Fluecured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, The Canadian Pork Council, The Canadian Joint Beef Breeds Association, The Joint Dairy Breeds of Canada, The Canadian Committee of Animal Breeders, The Canadian Poultry Breeders Export Group,

The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
*The fourteenth firm, while not representative of the agricultural sector is the B.C. Fisheries Association.


EXPORT MARKETS FOR CANADIAN-MADE SHOES AND BOOTS
Mr. Yewchuk: To date, what action has been taken by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to secure markets for Canadian-made shoes and boots in (a) Africa (b) People's Republic of China (c) U.S.S.R. (d) US (e) Yugoslavia?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: (a) None. The bulk of the footwear used in Africa is manufactured locally. This market is supplied from "low-cost countries" in view of the fact that footwear demand is for a low-cost footwear not normally manufactured in Canada, (b) In discussions between Chinese officials and departmental representatives, including the arrangements for the Canadian Trade Exposition in Peking in August, it has been made clear that the Chinese authorities are unwilling to allocate their limited foreign exchange to pay for imports of consumer goods-particularly footwear which can be supplied locally. (c) and (e) No action has been taken by the Department to secure markets for Canadian-made shoes and boots in the USSR and Yugoslavia. Wage differentials and other costs between Canada and these two countries make it difficult to penetrate this market, (d) A cost benefit analysis of export opportunities has indicated that the best

June 28, 1972

results could be obtained on the U.S. footwear market and U.S. market penetration has been the Department's priority. The following activities have been undertaken by the Department to assist Canadian manufacturers in securing export markets in the U.S.
1.	The Department has sponsored incoming buyers' missions from the United States in 1969 and 1970.
2.	In 1971, financial support was given to the advertising campaign in selected trade media for the Canadian Shoe and Leather Fair. This support is again being given in 1972.
3.	Financial assistance was extended to footwear manufacturers taking sample rooms in regional shoe fairs in the United States in 1970.
4.	The regional offices of the Trade Commissioner Service offer direct assistance to Canadian exporters by directing them and arranging appointments with U.S. buyers and marketing agents. They also direct U.S. importers to Canadian manufacturers.
5.	The Department commissioned a comprehensive marketing study of the U.S. market by Canadian consultants. This report was distributed in February 1972 to all Canadian footwear manufacturers.
6.	Export encouragement and marketing advice is extended to all Canadian manufacturers by the Department.
Questions
cost of reaching Arctic Red River will be approximately $21,000,000 over and above the $7,650,000 already spent.


EXPORTS OF CANADIAN DAIRY PRODUCTS
Mr. Yewchuk: To date, what form of consultation and co-operation has taken place between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the specific purpose of increasing and improving the export trade of Canadian dairy products?


James Alexander Jerome: In so far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned: Officials of the Department and the Canadian Dairy Commission are in continuous consultation with their counterparts in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the purpose of maintaining and expanding access and sales for Canadian exports of dairy products. In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Officials of the Department consult and cooperate on a continuous basis with officials of the Canada Department of Agriculture and the Canadian Dairy Commission. Policies, programs and export marketing activities relating to the expansion of export trade for Canadian dairy products are discussed fully and implemented on a cooperative basis.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of recommending to provincial governments that welfare recipients be allowed to earn moneys to supplement their income up to the poverty level enunciated by the Economic Council of Canada without having welfare allotment reduced?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Department of National Health and Welfare, in discussions with provincial welfare departments, has made it clear that provincial social assistance programs which provide for recipients retaining specified amounts of earned income are eligible for sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan. In some provinces, an amount of up to $100 per month may be earned without effecting a reduction in the social assistance payment.


DEMPSTER HIGHWAY, YUKON
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	How many miles of the so-called Dempster Highway in the Yukon have been constructed and what has been the cost to date of building the said Highway?
2.	Is the construction of the said Highway to be continued and, if so, what is its ultimate destination and what is the estimated cost of reaching that destinatiori?


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. At
the end of 1971, 158 miles had been completed at a cost of $7,650,000
2. Yes. The Dempster Highway will ultimately join the Mackenzie Highway at Arctic Red River. The estimated


EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT BILL
Mr. Burton: 1.	What are the estimated total expenditures that the government will incur as a result of the passage of the Employment Support Bill?
2.	What expenditures have been made and what are the total expenditures estimated to be incurred as a result of the following commitments made by the Agricultural Stabilization Board to offset difficulties during the period when the United States 10 per cent surtax was in effect (a) offer of a special subsidy of 50 cents per bird for fowl slaughtered during an eight-week period providing the number slaughtered exceeded the normal kill in the period; the subsidy to be pro-rated among all producers (b) offer to purchase and can up to four million pounds of eviscerated turkeys (c) offer to purchase Canada No. 1 potatoes at $1.50 per hundredweight (d) an offer to the Canadian Horticultural Council for market promotion of fresh apples (e) offer of a supplementary subsidy of 1S cents per pound to blueberry producers on products delivered in the period August 16 to October 15,1971?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Agriculture as follows: 1. $11,200,000.
2.
(a)	Fowl slaughter
(b)	Turkey (APB)
(c)	Potatoes
(d)	Fresh apples
(e)	Blueberries
Expenditures
to
May 26/72 $ nil
1,411,576
1,315,893
105,904
225,842
Total
Estimated
Expenditures

nil
1,800,000
2,225,000
105,904
250,000
3594

June 28, 1972
Questions


CANADIAN POLICY TOWARD GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Mr. Macquaxrie: 1.	Is the government considering granting MFN (most favoured nation) tariff treatment to the German Democratic Republic?
2.	Is the government considering the admission into Canada of trade commissioners from the German Democratic Republic?
3.	Is the government considering changing its policy of refusing to grant visas to journalists from the German Democratic Republic?
4.	Has the government been in negotiation with the German Democratic Republic regarding the above three matters?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the departments of External Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce and Manpower and Immigration, as follows: 1. For the past two years, the Government has sought through unofficial means to put our trade with the GDR on a MFN (most favoured nation) basis.
2.	An unofficial arrangement providing mutual MFN treatment would facilitate consideration of any proposal for the establishment of an unofficial East German trade office in Canada.
3.	The Government has no policy of refusing visas to East German journalists. They come under the same regulations as any other visitor from the German Democratic Republic.
4.	Since Canada does not recognize the German Democratic Republic, there can be no contact at the governmental level. The Government of the German Democratic Republic is, however, aware of our position on these three questions.


RAILWAY ACT-PROVISION OF FUNDS FOR BETTER FENCING OF RIGHTS OF WAY
Mr. Ryan: Is the Minister of Transport considering amending the Railway Act to provide funds for better fencing of rights of way in urban areas for protection of the public?
(Translation]


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, section 214 of the Railway Act deals with "fences, gates and cattle-guards" at railway crossings. For the time being the Department of Transport is not considering an amendment to the Railway Act in that respect.


TAXATION OF STRIKE PAY
Mr. Robinson: Is any consideration being given to the inclusion of strike pay as income for taxation purposes?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: This is a matter of government policy. Should the government decide to include strike pay as income for taxation purposes, it would be announced in the appropriate manner.
[Mr. Jerome.)


CORPORATION AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT REPORT, 1968
Mr. Blair: 1.	Was the 1968 Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Report on Labour Unions reprinted after it had been approved for Tabling in Parliament in order to delete critical references to international unions?
2.	Were any representations received from international unions requesting the alteration of the Report?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. No. The Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act Report, Part II-1968-which summarizes returns made by labour unions under the Act was completed in draft form and printed while the Dominion Statistician was out of the country. It was held for review and approval of the Dominion Statistician on his return. Some parts of the textual material of the report were not considered to be appropriate and therefore it became necessary to amend the text and correct some typographical errors before presentation to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for tabling in Parliament. No charts or other summary tables were altered or deleted from the original draft on which the analyses were based.
2. At no time between the original drafting of the report and tabling in Parliament was there any discussion concerning content of the report with anyone connected with any union organizations nor were any copies of the original draft made available to any union officials or organizations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1960, what was the total amount spent or invested by the federal government in the constituency of Richmond?
2.	What projects have been carried out or are planned?
3.	Where are they located?
4.	What amount is invested by the federal government in each project?
5.	Does the government intend to spend money in the constituency of Richmond in the near future and, if so, how much and in what areas?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRMS COMMISSIONED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Orlikow: What public relations firms and economic and social research organizations commissioned by government departments, agencies or Crown corporations have been hired or given contracts to produce pamphlets, brochures, economic surveys, etc., to explain government policies to the public and (a) by what department or agency were they hired (b) for what specific task were they hired (c) what amount did they receive (d) was the firm chosen by asking for tenders and, if not, how was the choice made?
Return tabled.
June 28, 1972


TOTAL PAYROLL OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What was the total full-time payroll, by sex, of each of the federal departments and agencies as of April 1,1968?
2.	How many persons, by sex, were earning more than $15,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
3.	What was the total full-time payroll, by sex, of each of the federal departments and agencies as of April 1,1971?
4.	How many persons, by sex, were earning more than $18,000 annually, distributed according to $1,000 intervals?
Return tabled.


MURDERS IN CANADA
Mr. Forest: 1.	Since 1960, and per year, how many murders were committed (a) in Canada (b) per province (c) in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?
2.	Since 1967, and per year, how many policemen, constables, sheriffs or other such persons employed for the maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of their duties, have been killed (a) in Canada (b) per province?
3.	Since 1967, and per year, how many wardens, jailers or other employees of a prison, acting in the course of their duties, have been killed (a) in Canada (b) per province?
4.	Since 1967, and per year, how many death sentences have been commuted, in the case of homicide of policemen, constables, sheriffs, prison wardens, jailers or other such persons, acting in the course of their duties?
b. Since 1960, and per year since, how many persons sentenced to (a) perpetual imprisonment (b) for a period of over twenty years, for homicide, have had their sentence reduced or would have been conditionally liberated?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE-PUBLICITY AND INFORMATION EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts spent by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on publicity and/or information in the fiscal year 1970-71?
2.	(a) What were the names and addresses of firms with which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce entered into contract in 1970-71 for the purpose of publicity and/or information (b) what were the amounts of money involved in each case (c) what was the specific purpose of each contract?
3.	(a) What were the amounts provided in the main and supplementary estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year 1971-72 for the purpose of publicity and/or information (b) what amounts were spent or contracted for to date (c) what are the names and addresses of private firms with which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce entered into contract (d) what are the amounts of money involved in each case (e) what is the specific purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-DIPLOMATIC ESTABLISHMENTS
Mr. Blackburn: 1. At what level does Canada maintain diplomatic relations with (a) Algeria (b) Bahrain (c) Egypt (d) Federation of Arab Emirates (e) Iran (f) Iraq (g) Israel (h) Jordan (i) Kuwait (j) Lebanon (k) Libya (1) Mauritania (m) Morocco (n) People's Democratic Repub-
Orders for Returns
lie of Yemen (o) Republic of Yemen (p) Saudi Arabia (q) Sudan (r) Syria (s) Tunisia (t) Turkey?
2.	(a) In which of these states does Canada maintain consulates separate from embassies, and where are these consulates located (b) where Canada recognizes these states but does not maintain permanent diplomatic establishments, how are the consular needs of visiting Canadian nationals met?
3.	In those states listed in part 1 where Canada maintains permanent local diplomatic establishments (a) what is the total number of staff in each case (b) what number represents Canadian nationals (c) what number represents nationals of the host state hired locally?
4.	In those states listed in part 1 where Canada maintains local diplomatic establishments (a) what are the latest total annual cost figures in each case, including salaries at all levels and general operating costs (b) what number of Canadian foreign service officers (diplomatic and commercial) have a speaking and reading knowledge of the native languages, specifically Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Hebrew where applicable (c) what provision does the Department of External Affairs make for the training of such officers in the Arabic, Turkish, Persian and Hebrew languages, and from what institutions, domestic or foreign, is such language training received (d) what provision does the Department make for the introduction of such officers to non-linguistic aspects of the cultures of the Middle East and North Africa, and by what institutions, domestic or foreign, is such training provided (e) in its policy for hiring trainees for the foreign service (diplomatic and commercial), does the Department take any special interest in applicants whose university education has included a solid training in area studies, including linguistic competence in the languages of the non-Western world?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many Agriculture Training Program courses were offered by the Department of Manpower and Immigration under the auspices of the Canada Manpower Training Program, by province?
2.	How many people participated in these courses, by province, and what was the total cost by province?
3.	What was the average amount paid to an individual while participating in such courses, by province?
4.	What was the duration of such courses?
5.	Is each province consulted as to content and formulation of course of studies and, if so, how is this undertaken?
6.	Are individual municipalities consulted as to content and formulation of study courses before the program is instituted and, if not, for what reason?
7.	What are the criteria for selection for people to participate, by province?
8.	Who are the present members of the Alberta Manpower Committee, including government and farm organizations?
9.	Who participated in the eleven Farm Management Courses offered in Alberta in 1971-72?
Return tabled.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of personal privilege I should like to draw the attention of the ministry and the House to the interesting circumstance that starred question No. 476, which has been on the order paper since March 29 and for which this might be the last clear date on which to provide an answer, has not been answered.

June 28, 1972
Motions for Papers


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate to the House at this time that, in keeping with the practice that has prevailed on some occasions in the past when the House has risen for an extended recess on a Friday, we are endeavouring to continue during the rest of this week to answer as many questions as possible. I am hopeful that we will be in a position to deposit answers to quite a substantial number of questions on Friday. This will, of course, require unanimous consent to call written questions, but we shall be seeking such consent.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire whether or not it would be possible to answer question No. 425 which has been on the order paper for fully three months. It pertains to grants and other forms of financial assistance to some 95 corporations. It seems to me, given the possibility of an election coming up soon, that the answer to this question could be rather pertinent.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 48 is acceptable to the government.


CONTRACTS DEALING WITH PUBLICITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all contracts dealing with publicity and/or information entered into by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal years 1970-71 and 1971-72.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 58 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations mentioned by the parliamentary secretary, does the House agree to consider notice of motion No. 58 as passed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND CANADA RELATING TO SUFFIELD EXPERIMENTAL STATION, ALBERTA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Agreement or an exchange of correspondence between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of Canada governing the use and terms of such use of that portion of the Suffield experimental station in Alberta for training purposes by British troops, including British armoured vehicles.

Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 5, 22, 34, 46 and 68.
COPY OF REPORTS ON USAGE OF MARIJUANA Motion No. 5-Mr. McIntosh:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports or other documents relating to tests or experiments conducted to date by or on order of the Department of National Health and Welfare on usage of marijuana.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all marijuana experiments sponsored by the department have been made public. Interim reports must remain classified in order to avoid misinterpretation of inconclusive discoveries. The department has also supplied the Le Dain Commission with chemical analysis of drugs, therefore the discoveries belong to the commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary should indicate whether he is prepared to table the papers requested by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


André Ouellet: For the aforementioned reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we think that all of these reports paid for by the taxpayers should be made available, so we should like the question to be put.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPY OF CONSULTANT REPORT BY ECONOMIST
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by the Economist Intelligence Unit on guidance and assessment of the Canadian textile industry, undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moose Jaw has asked previously that a copy of the consultants; report on the Canadian textile industry be released. The department's position is still as follows: the study contains information provided in confidence to the department on the understanding that it will not be
June 28, 1972

disclosed. Such disclosure would prejudice the department's ability to obtain similar information in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's position is the same, as follows: he would like the papers.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPY OF REPORT BY GHERZI TEXTILE ORGANIZATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 34-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Gherzi Textile Organization on the Canadian textile industry undertaken for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal year 1966-67, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the 1st Session of this Parliament.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf, Mr. Speaker.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same. Would you like me to read it again?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The response is the same, too.


James Alexander Jerome: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPY OF CONTRACTS DEALING WITH PUBLICITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 46-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all contracts dealing with publicity and/or information entered into by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the fiscal years 1970-71 and 1971-72.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, we cannot accede to the request of the hon. member because a contract is a confidential document between the individual and his employer.
I should therefore ask the hon. member to kindly withdraw his motion.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw it because the government accepted a similar request before in respect of a different department. Therefore I ask that it be transferred for debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few minutes ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) said that the government agreed to notice of motion for the production of papers No. 48 which reads:
Motions for Papers
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all contracts dealing with publicity and/or information entered into by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the fiscal years 1970-71 and 1971-72.
Notice of motion No. 46 now before the House is in exactly the same words but refers to a different department. I think it is quite improper for the government to agree to one and not the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member brought his argument forth by way of a question of privilege. He will appreciate that this is an argument he may want to put forth when the matter is debated in the House, perhaps in July or August. The motion is transferred for debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be here.


An hon. Member:: What else is new?


COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS RELATING TO MAIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 68-Mr. Dinsdale:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the correspondence between the provincial governments and the federal government with respect to the deteriorating mail service, particularly the courier service set up recently by the Province of Alberta to provide more efficient mail service between Calgary and Edmonton or any similar mail courier service established by any other province?
Gerald William Baldwin: I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no correspondence between the Alberta government and the federal government on this subject. Therefore I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: He will also be here in July or August to debate it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. Will he tell the House why he found it necessary to invoke Section 33 of the Fisheries Act in respect of the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Because, Mr. Speaker, the construction of the refinery in question is

June 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
well advanced and the company had not clearly indicated it was prepared to make all the installations which will be necessary to meet the fisheries standards once that plant is in operation.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the minister has deliberately misled the House in his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: I make that charge on the basis of information which has come to me that meetings were held among officials of the minister's department, the refining company, the contractor, the Newfoundland provincial government, the Minister of Finance and various other people involved in the project. These meetings took place on June 7 and June 8, and on June 22 and June 23 the same people met and agreed on all aspects of the requirements of the minister and his department and indicated they were willing to abide by those requirements and would proceed to take the necessary action to correct these problems. I think the minister has deliberately misled the House on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will, of course, allow the minister to reply, but the hon. member is a member with some experience and knows he cannot charge another member, including a minister, with deliberately misleading the House. Perhaps we might allow the minister to reply and then I will return to the hon. member.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member should spring to the defence of the Newfoundland Refining Company when he well knows-


Mr. Horner:: Tell us how big a grant your government gave?


John (Jack) Davis: -that this company has been very slow in making commitments in the direction of pollution abatement.


An hon. Member:: This didn't happen when Joey was around.


John (Jack) Davis: The company has not made available to the government the plans necessary to meet the tough standards we have set, and with which, incidentally, the hon. member undoubtedly agrees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point made by the minister and the point made by the hon. member are debate between the minister and the member. This might lead to a full-fledged debate of some kind. I am sure the hon. member for St. John's West appreciates it is a long established practice of the House, as old as the parliamentary institution, that an hon. member cannot suggest that another hon. member has wilfully misled hon. members. I

would invite the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair. I suggest it is possible to have debate, to have questions and answers, to have controversy, in other words, to have the system which exists, without accusing other hon. members of having wilfully misled the House or having wilfully misled other members. I would hope the hon. member would find it possible to express his thought in some other way.


Walter C. Carter: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am not prepared to withdraw that comment on the basis that the minister and his department were quite aware of the fact that the Newfoundland government, the principal owners of the refinery, the company, the contractors and all the other people concerned were willing to abide by the decision of the minister with regard to requirements and at the meeting of June 22 and June 23 that intention was expressed and the minister's officials were present.


Mr. Speaker:: Again that is debate by the hon. member. The hon. member may feel very strongly about this matter and feel he is right, but I believe he has an obligation to the House, to this institution, to respect the traditions and customs of the House, I really do not see how we can help the House of Commons and the traditions of this House by adopting a rigid attitude. It is easy for hon. members to adopt rigid attitudes, whether they are on the government side or on the opposition side. It is much more difficult to bend with the rules. I really think there is an obligation on the part of hon. members, even when they feel strongly about a matter, to take into account the traditions of the institution and forget about the feelings and emotions which are perhaps linked with a situation. I would earnestly invite the hon. member for St. John's West to give some thought to the situation and not place the House in the difficult position in which he is placing us all now.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I recognize my responsibility as a member, but I think the Minister of the Environment also has a responsibility not to mislead the Canadian people and the House. I still contend that the minister did mislead the House in his answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the contention has been made very often in the past that the House has been mislead. I have had the feeling over the years during which I have heard debates that hon. members unwittingly, and without wanting to, will mislead other hon. members in the statements and speeches they make. This applies to any hon. member. I am sure that if I had the opportunity to participate in debate as my colleagues have I might be placed in the same situation where unwittingly I would not convey the information I might be expected to convey in the course of statements. But there is a difference. I think the hon. member has the right to accuse the minister of misleading the House, but there is a distinction I might draw that a member cannot say that another member has wilfully misled the House. I think this distinction is an accommodation the hon. member might wish to avail himself of.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, one hon. member rose in the House today to say I should have
June 28, 1972

made a statement and did not. Another hon. member has been saying that I misled the House. Since I have not previously commented on the subject, I cannot see how I misled the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The responsibility of the Chair is not to determine whether a member has effectively misled or has wilfully misled. The point is not that at all. I am not here to judge the circumstances. In fact, I know very little about the circumstances to which the hon. member for St. John's West has alluded and the circumstances to which the minister has referred. I am dealing strictly with the procedural aspect, that it is not possible according to the rules to accuse another member of wilfully misleading. I think it is in accordance with the rules to suggest that another member has misled the House. I hear that accusation made often in the House. I have heard it on a number of occasions. I would hope the hon. member would want to co-operate with the Chair, with other hon. members and with the House by indicating that that is what he had in mind when he made the statement.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I think the facts speak for themselves in that I would suggest to the minister that if he wants to make an example and start to flex his muscles Newfoundland is not the place to do it. The minister was well aware of the fact that these conditions were being met by the parties concerned. Despite that, he issued a statement at which time he threatened to invoke Section 33 of the Fisheries Act. Today in his answer he certainly gave the impression that the other parties were not willing to abide by the rules of his department with regard to pollution control. I do not know how else to put it, Mr. Speaker. The minister's actions are deliberate. I do not know any other way to put it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says the minister has faulted certain rules of conduct. I suggest to the hon. member that he is faulting certain rules of the House. He is accusing the minister of being intransigent. That is quite possible. I certainly cannot rule on that. But the hon. member might be just a trifle less intransigent. It seems to me he has made his point. He has had three occasions on which to express his views in relation to the circumstances of the matter. He feels very strongly about it, but I would feel that, for the good conduct of the affairs of the House, the hon. member might like to amend his statement along the lines I have suggested.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is prepared to correct his answer I am prepared to correct my statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Admit it was a cheap trick.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously we have reached an impasse. I think I have a duty to the House to appeal again to the hon. member. Apparently he feels very strongly about the matter. Obviously he does. But there are rules of the House, and I certainly have no hesitation
Inquiries of the Ministry
at all in living up to my responsibilities. Every single member of the House, including the hon. member for St. John's West, would want the Speaker to enforce the rules of the House. From what I know of him I am sure this is what he would expect me to do. I wonder what in the world is gained by the kind of debate and argument that has arisen between the hon. member and the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. I would again suggest to the hon. member that it would be so easy for him to indicate that he is prepared to review the matter in light of the statements that might be made later when questions are asked during the question period. I would think that the hon. member for St. John's West appreciates that the question period will continue in a short while and he can then ask all the questions he likes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There seem to be objections to this. Other hon. members appear to have questions to ask also, but the hon. member can ask questions to get some clarification about this very delicate matter. In the meantime, perhaps he might like to amend his statement, which will give us an opportunity to proceed with the question period and will give an opportunity to the hon. member for St. John's West to ask his questions.


Walter C. Carter: If I may be allowed to change the wording slightly, I would say that the minister is guilty of uttering a terminological inexactitude.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really feel that the hon. member has come a long way.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the minister moving a couple of inches?


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that the good will indicated by the hon. member for St. John's West would show itself in the responses given by the minister to the questions that might be asked by the hon. member for St. John's West. I really feel that the hon. member has gone a long way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members may not think that is so, but I feel that it is a very substantial concession-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -not to the Chair, not to the minister, but to the practices of the House, to the longstanding traditions of the House. I understand that the hon. member is substituting the words he has just used for the suggestion made earlier that the minister had wilfully misled the House. On that understanding, I will recognize the hon. member for the purpose of asking his question. I would hope that we would not have to go further and that questions can be asked.


Walter C. Carter: This is my supplementary question to the minister. Was he aware of the fact that his officials and
3600

June 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
officials of the company and of the Newfoundland government had agreed to concur with his requirements with respect to the oil refinery at Come-By-Chance?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. There have been a series of meetings held with the company. We have not yet received plans which would indicate that the company was definitely committed to building, for example, dikes around oil storage tanks. We were not convinced that it had the financial wherewithal to carry out those plans. Until we have those plans and until we have proof of the financial capability of the company to carry out those plans, we must, under the provisions of the Fisheries Act, take the steps which we have taken to date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the fact that agreement was only reached last Friday and that this would not have allowed time for the plans to arrive in Ottawa yesterday prior to making his irresponsible statement?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, until we have the plans and until we are convinced that the company will carry them out, I do not see any reason for us to continue to be lenient in this case.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister was caught out in a cheap, political trick, and he knows it. He got carried away by the Stockholm conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may rephrase a question which was asked earlier. Can the minister confirm to the House that a meeting did take place last Friday, June 23, at which time the Department of the Environment was present as well as the clean air, water and soil authorities of the provincial government, the refinery company and the consulting firm representing the provincial government, and did the company at that time, on Friday, agree to meet the specifications he laid down earlier at his meeting with the finance minister?


John (Jack) Davis: There have been a series of meetings of that character including representatives of the provincial authorities, but we have yet to receive the proof we need.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I am not making myself very clear. I am trying to conform to the rule of brevity in the question period. Can the minister indicate whether that meeting took place on Friday and whether the company agreed to the several points regarding effluent control which were recommended by the Department of the Environment?


John (Jack) Davis: One of a series of meetings, the latest, occurred on that date. The company did agree to undertake some additional changes in its plans, but until we are

sure that all the necessary changes will be made we have no alternative but to take the action we did.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate may ask a further supplementary and then the hon. member for Kootenay West will be recognized for a supplementary.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps the minister would like to take the time on motions-I am sure he would get the agreement of the House-to correct the very bad and wrong impression he gave the Canadian people right across the country and the cheap political stunt he pulled yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. How long has the department been aware that the building plans of the Come-By-Chance refinery were inadequate so far as pollution control requirements are concerned?


John (Jack) Davis: The plans which we received were always inadequate, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Monteith:: Answer the question.


Randolph Harding: I sun sure the minister missed my question. How long has the department been aware that the building plans of the Come-By-Chance refinery were inadequate so far as pollution control requirements are concerned?


John (Jack) Davis: They have not been adequate over the last 18 months during which we have had frequent meetings with the company. They have yet to be made adequate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Randolph Harding: I have another supplementary question for the minister. Why was federal action on the building plans delayed until this late date?


Some hon. Members:: Get to your feet.


An hon. Member:: Answer.


John (Jack) Davis: We were always hopeful, even though the construction of the refinery was proceeding, that the company would see the light and that with the backing and indeed urging of the provincial government would make the necessary plans available to us at an early date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Did the officials of the department extract such an agreement from the company and/or the Newfoundland government last Friday?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is where the he is.


Mr. Nowlan:: We ought to build a dike around you.
June 28, 1972



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, by chance may I turn to the Minister of Communications and ask him to respond to a question I have asked him on two or three occasions. Has he completed his study of the facts which appear to have justified the Canadian Transport Commission irf giving Bell Canada large increases in consumer rates? Has he completed that study and is he able to inform the House as to any action he is contemplating taking?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: hope to be in a position to do that tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Meanwhile I might tell the hon. member, because I know he is interested, that I have arranged to place the transcript of the Canadian Transport Commission hearings on loan with the library of the University of Windsor so that Dr. Lloyd Brown-John may have full access to it.


David Lewis: I appreciate that action of the Minister of Communications. I am not saying that with tongue in cheek; I really do.



BELL CANADA RATE INCREASES-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION BY TRANSPORT COMMISSION IN LIGHT OF LAY-OFFS BY NORTHERN ELECTRIC AND BELL CANADA UNDERTAKING

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Communications if he is aware of the fact that Northern Electric has been laying off between 2,000 and 3,000 people, giving as a reason that Bell Canada has cancelled orders to the tune of about $100 million, contrary to Bell Canada's undertaking with the Canadian Transport Commission that this money would be spent on necessary equipment and expansion, and that their refusal to carry out the commitment has resulted in these large lay-offs of Canadian workers in Montreal?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is asking me if I am aware of those facts. I could not vouch for them. I have seen some disappointment expressed by Bell Canada that the increases given by the Canadian Transport Commission are not sufficient to carry out the full capital program they might have hoped to carry out.


David Lewis: Will the minister investigate the facts to which I have alluded and, if they are so, will he undertake to do what in my respectful opinion it is the duty of the government and Parliament to do, that is, immediately request the Canadian Transport Commission to reconsider?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a representation. Perhaps the minister might reply to the question itself.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect to you, I am not making a representation. I am asking the minister whether he will undertake, when he looks into these questions, to ask the Canadian Transport
Inquiries of the Ministry
Commission to rescind, revoke or alter-I think "vary" is the word used in the act-to vary its decision as it has the authority to do under the act giving it the power to set rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, that is a question whereas the hon. member's previous statement was a representation. The minister could reply to the question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would share what appears to be the hon. member's dim view of any failure to carry out commitments made to the commission, and I will be glad to inquire whether that appears to be the case.



BELL CANADA RATE INCREASES-REQUEST BY UNIONS ACTING ON BEHALF OF LAID-OFF NORTHERN ELECTRIC WORKERS FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Communications. Has he yet replied to a request he received from three unions acting on behalf of workers directly affected by lay-offs at Northern Electric to meet with him? I understand this request came to him about ten days ago in the form of a letter. Has the minister replied and, if so, what was his reply?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think the request came to me somewhat indirectly in that the unions had the impression that the Minister of Transport had somethingg to do with communications. However, I do not have much to do with lay-offs. I have been making inquiries about what might be the best procedure for one or more ministers to meet with these people. I do not think that by myself I could be very helpful to them in regard to lay-offs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We do have to try to move along. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby may ask a last supplementary and then I shall go to the hon. member for Champlain, because we are running short of time.


John Edward Broadbent: It was my understanding that a subsequent letter was written to the minister asking for a meeting and I understand there have been some discussions between himself and the Minister of Labour. Would the minister give a commitment to the House that he or some other minister directly involved will undertake to meet with representatives of these workers?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation with a view to having such a meeting. Although I did not realize it until just now, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is always one step ahead of the rest of us in these matters, has already met with a representative of the unions.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: June 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
at the request of union members but not with representatives of the unions. In accordance with the request made to me we shall try to arrange for further consultations.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-USE OF FUNDS NOT SPENT BY CERTAIN APPROVED PROJECTS

Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
What does the department he heads intend to do with the funds made available through the Opportunities for Youth program for projects that were accepted but for some reason or other cannot be carried out?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary oi State):: Mr. Speaker, the same thing that we did last year, that is, the way some projects disappear, the same way others suddenly develop new needs for additional funds.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the statement made by the Minister of the Environment that it appeared there was insufficient money to complete the refinery at Come-By-Chance according to specifications laid down by his department, would the minister advise whether the Department of Regional Economic Expansion made any grants under its incentive program and in what amount? Would he also inform the House whether the department verified the financial status of the company before advancing any funds?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there is no grant from my department. As you know, oil refineries are excluded from the incentives program.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Were there any special grants under any other program with regard to docking facilities or ancillary facilities?


Jean Marchand: I do not know about docks in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Somebody else should answer the question.



AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
termination of fowl slaughter program-request FOR PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY ON FLOCKS BOOKED BY PLANTS FOR KILLING
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, on June 8 the government announced a fowl slaughter program and on June 27 it announced that the program was being terminated. Since approved poultry processors were unable to handle all flocks committed to them during this period, will the government pay the approved subsidy on all flocks booked by killing plants which were not slaughtered because of lack of facilities?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there were sufficient facilities at the plants to reduce the total flock numbers in Canada by the objective that I stated on June 8 of about one million birds. As a matter of fact, up to last night the number would probably be closer to 1.4 million or 1.5 million birds. We see no necessity to reduce the flocks any further.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister's original announcement was very misleading and led producers to believe that they would have six weeks within which to become eligible for this assistance, would he now make an announcement that the program will continue for up to six weeks?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the announcement never implied or expressed any such thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: That's fowl play!



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister which arises from a serious allegation in an article appearing in the Toronto Star today. The author, Tom Haslett, alleges that certain special agents have infiltrated the Prime Minister's office, the security planning group and other groups. These agents are alleged to represent the Cuba Directorate of General Intelligence. Has the Prime Minister seen that article and is he prepared to make a statement in reference to these serious allegations?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article but I have heard of it. It is my understanding that the article does not say there has been infiltration as the hon. member just indicated, but that there has been attempted infiltration. I believe the hon. member is incorrect in asking the question in that way.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept the word "attempt".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 28, 1972


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not having an argument with the Prime Minister. I am asking him, in light of that serious allegation in regard to his own office and other offices, whether there has been an investigation. If so, what was the result and did the attempt go as far as an overt act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the article has been made public yet but is appearing this afternoon. I have not taken cognizance of it, but of course I will investigate all serious allegations made anywhere. So far as infiltration is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the most serious infiltration of my office thus far has been by westerners, and that is very welcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: When the Prime Minister talks about westerners, it depends from how far west they come. I wonder if he would take this matter seriously, and I am sure he does, and look into the question of the book by Orlando Castro Hidilgo entitled "Spy For Fidel" which makes certain allegations that apparently are the basis of the story that I referred to when I put my question to the Prime Minister?



ACTION ON COMPLAINTS REGARDING LACK OF GRAIN DOORS

William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. As delivery points on CNR lines are facing real problems because of a lack of grain doors, would the minister inform the House what action will be taken by the government to force the CNR to take action?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was last brought to my attention it was brought to the attention of various authorities. I understood corrective action had been taken. If the hon. member has further specific examples, I will be glad to pursue them in the same way.


William George Knight: Having raised this matter with the minister the last time, inasmuch as these same delivery points are still short of grain doors and as this involves CNR lines serving nine delivery points in southern Saskatchewan in particular, may I ask him to inform the House what action will be taken in the very near future?


An hon. Member:: Get different doors.



ALLEGED SPOTTING OF UNCLEAN BOXCARS BY CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that Canadian National Railways is presenting a great many boxcars that are unfit for loading to local grain elevators. They have not been cleaned out. Unlike
Inquiries of the Ministry
the CPR, the CNR does not have proper arrangements for processing these cars before they are presented. Is the minister aware of this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, specific allegations of that sort have not been brought to my attention in the last few days or weeks. There was a series of such incidents at an earlier period of time and again some corrective action seemed to have been taken. I am always glad to pursue individual complaints and try to see that the railways do the best possible job.



HARBOURS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with port development at Pictou, Nova Scotia. In view of the continuing concern of the industries involved and submissions made by the government of Nova Scotia, I wonder if the minister will be making an announcement in the near future concerning possible aid for port development at Pictou? I should like to thank the minister for his courtesy in keeping me informed of the submissions made by the Nova Scotia Minister of Development in this regard.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on a day like this compliments of this type, I assure you, are very welcome. The answer is that I have had a reply from the appropriate minister in Nova Scotia and we are going to work jointly with regard to devising appropriate plans for the dockage in the area.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and is with respect to the decision handed down yesterday by the court of appeal of British Columbia which has the effect of putting in doubt the validity of thousands of awards for maintenance of petitioners and children arising out of divorce suits. Has the minister considered the decision and does he propose to adopt any measures, legislative or otherwise, to eliminate the state of uncertainty in which thousands of Canadians now find themselves?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet seen the decision but I will be glad to look at it and discuss it with the hon. member.

June 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry CRIMINAL CODE



POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO LENGTHEN REST PERIODS FOR CATTLE IN TRANSIT

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. In the interest of reducing the heavy losses of cattle in transit from the west to eastern feed lots, is it the intention of the minister to give favourable consideration to the request of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association for an extension of the 36-hour limit in the Criminal Code to 42 hours for rest periods during the movement of cattle by the railways? This would shorten the trip between Winnipeg and Toronto by approximately 18 to 20 hours.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question and the minister may reply.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, following the representations from the association I asked for some special studies to be undertaken to see whether it would be within the tolerances of humane treatment if there were such an extension. I propose to institute some special studies in this regard forthwith in order to see if any accommodation can be arrived at.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Following the latest talks between the Premier of Quebec and himself, could the minister say to the House whether the discussions bore on the establishment of future national parks in the province of Quebec, and whether setting up a national park in the Chaudiere area is part of the projects of his department?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this subject in general, but I cannot say which particular project is being discussed now.



TRANSPORT


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. As the Department of Transport is directly responsible for the ferry service between the mainland and Pelee Island in Lake Erie, will the minister investigate the rather serious charge that union pickets are preventing the normal flow of goods and food across the government dock, although no longshoremen or union dispute appear to be involved?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I was advised a few hours ago of this difficulty. I am naturally concerned because it is delaying construction of the Pelee Island airport. According to my tentative information, the labour dispute does not involve the federal government. I am proposing to visit the area and talk to the parties concerned in order to see what our involvement is.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and concerns the proposed interprovincial national park at Nipissing, Ontario, and Temiscaming, Quebec. Has the minister to date been given any indication by the Ontario government whether that government is willing to proceed with such a joint project which would be the first interprovincial national park in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will be allowed to reply, but again I caution hon. members that they should try to resist the temptation to ask questions about area national parks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is because we have been so successful with this program. I have not yet received any information from the Ontario government.



CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION IN APPLICATIONS FOR PERMIT BOOKS

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his dual capacity as minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Would the minister say whether, when a farmer files an application for a Canadian Wheat Board permit book, the information given as to the amount of acreage he has and as to the size of the cash advance taken under that permit book is confidential, or is this information as to how many acres he has under cultivation and how much he owes with regard to cash advances available to the general public? Is this information to be available to the general public or is it not? It is either one or the other.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the Canadian Wheat Board about their practice in this regard.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I addressed my question to the Minister of Justice in his dual capacity as minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
June 28, 1972


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to know whether or not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -this information is confidential or
otherwise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point which has been made by the hon. member. He directed his question to the minister in his capacity as Minister of Justice; at the same time the hon. member for Crowfoot must appreciate, as I do, that he cannot ask for a legal interpretation from the minister in his capacity as Minister of Justice.


Gerald William Baldwin: The opinion would probably be bad.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rarely disagree with your rulings, and I do not disagree now. But I believe that there ought to be, within the confines of the Canadian Wheat Board, an understanding that when a person files an application in connection with a permit book the information he gives regarding his personal and private operations on the land shall remain confidential. That precedent should have been established long ago, particularly since the Canadian Wheat Board has been in operation for some 37 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is presenting argument in support of his point. He may be right, but I would think that from a procedural standpoint the question would hardly be acceptable.



CASH ADVANCES-POSSIBLE CHANGE TO PERMIT ADVANCES TO FARMERS WITH RENTED LAND

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board concerning permit books and cash advances as they relate to permit books. Would the minister indicate if the board is giving consideration to making changes in the cash advances system in order to enable those farmers who own part of their land and rent part of their land to take a cash advance on the portion they own, even though the landlord may refuse the necessary consent with respect to his interest in the land rented?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this matter was discussed very thoroughly in the committee when this legislation was last before it. There are some real difficulties concerning the application of provincial law and the ownership of grain which have so far made it impossible for us to arrive at a satisfactory solution in this regard. I know of no further work being done in this regard at present. We did work very exhaustively on it at the time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. members that there are perhaps 20 hon. members seeking the floor to ask questions. Normally the question period would have expired by now, but I thought the House should not be charged with the minutes that I took on my earlier entreaties. Ten minutes is being added to the end of the question period because most of that earlier
Inquiries of the Ministry
ten minutes was occupied by my soliloquy. However, I would invite hon. members to try to limit supplementar-ies.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence on the very serious matter I raised on Friday last concerning the action of International Telephone and Telegraph in preventing a counsellor from the Northwest Territories from visiting his constituency. Can the minister advise if he has had a report on the incident? Can he advise what he has learned and, more significantly, what he has said or done to reassert Canadian sovereignty and autonomy over our northland?
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, I looked into this matter. As I understand it, the incident occurred some 18 months ago. The company running the particular radio installation is not International Telephone and Telegraph; it is the Marconi Company of Canada. They own the particular airstrip involved. It was constructed by them. They are quite willing to have people come and visit there, but there are certain arrangements which have to be made for people to get on a chartered aircraft. From my information I understand that the person involved demanded to be put on a privately chartered aircraft to go to this airstrip. He was refused, unless he went through the Marconi representative and was cleared by him.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. As a result of his great interest in pollution as indicated today, would he concern himself, particularly within the cabinet and particularly with regard to the minister responsible for Canada's national parks, with the situation in Cape Breton Highland's National Park where all effluents and waste are being deposited in Little river, destroying the river and the salmon fishery? Would he cause an investigation to be carried out and ascertain whether the government and the department concerned could not set up proper sewage facilities so that the fishery will not be destroyed any longer?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries to see whether the hon. member's submission is true in fact.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-

June 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of [English] order?


Robert Muir: Yes, on a rather interesting point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has suggested that I am not telling the truth. He is going to investigate-


Mr. Drury:: He is going to find out if you are.


Robert Muir: -and ascertain if this is a true statement. I think he is questioning my integrity; furthermore, he is deliberately misleading the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that the hon. member is saying this with a smile. I appreciate that the minister perhaps-


Robert Muir: You always have to smile at this government, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the minister did not want to reply in this way, saying he will investigate whether the hon. member's statement is true. I do not think that is the proper way, that these words were correctly chosen. In any event, we understand what the minister wanted to say and what the member wanted to ask, and perhaps we might leave it at that.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have the greatest respect for you and always will have but I do not think you should make excuses for a man who suggests that the truth is not being told in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: That was not my understanding. I must say that I have to interpret the statements made by hon. members, and I really did not interpret this one in that way. I did not think the words were that well chosen, but I do not think the minister wanted to impute that the hon. member was not telling the truth to the House.



POSSIBLE PROVISION OF FREE DRUGS TO PENSIONERS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the accelerating costs, especially severe to old age pensioners, veterans and others on low income who are suffering ill health and require drug care, and in view of the minister's objective of moving into the provision of free drugs for those people, will he state whether he intends to introduce legislation before the House recesses?
Hon. ]ohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare): Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there would be no chance to bring in whatever legislation the hon. member is referring to before the recess. I would like to point out also, Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member may be aware of it, that under the Canada Assistance Plan we pay for drugs supplied by the provinces to those in need on a 50-50 basis. My understanding is that many provinces are now supplying drugs to those who are recipients of the guaranteed income supplement and giving them drug cards, and the federal government is paying half that bill.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are just two minutes left before the end of the question period. Obviously, we will have difficulty recognizing the 10 or 15 members who are still looking for an opportunity to ask their questions.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his answer and remind him that this is a statement he made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are just two minutes left, and I suggest we should not take up these two minutes to remind ourselves of things.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Will he soon be in a position to announce a complete review of his department policy on the pitiful condition of the federal works as well as on the landslides due to tides and especially the speed of boats on the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the member's question. The Department of Public Works is not responsible for the erosion from natural causes but only that due to navigation or other federal works and in the latter case my department is actively repairing the damages as soon as they are pointed out.



STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR WEEKLY RATHER THAN HOURLY PAY SCALE

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. A few days ago I drew attention to the problem of students in the career oriented summer work program whose pay scale has been changed from a weekly to an hourly basis this year, with a consequent loss, I am now told, of up to $195 for their summer's work. The minister told me that he would be glad to look into this matter. Has he done so, and what does he plan to do about it?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I made some preliminary inquiries, or had some made, but I do not see an easy solution under which, as the hon. member suggests, the students would get rather
June 28, 1972

more money than the terms of employment offered would provide.



SECRETARY OF STATE


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. There are many questions one could put, but I shall be brief and to the point in view of the fact that this minister may have only one more day to report to the House. Would he tell the House when he is going to file the annual report of his department, which is now three years late? If he does not understand the question, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the only annual report of this minister's department was filed in the House as a sessional paper on June 26, 1970, and then distributed. A year later the next report for 1968-69 was three years old. When is he going to file the last three reports?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peace River.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the hon. gentleman inquire into and make a report on the allegations surrounding the state of the band funds of the Hay River Treaty Indians, where $2.5 million was reduced in four years to $500,000? Would the hon. gentleman inquire into this and report to the House on how this happened?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I read the article that the hon. member has in hand and before he put his question, yesterday, the assistant deputy minister had already left to investigate on site.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 27, consideration of Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, as report-
Farm Credit Act
ed (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Motion No. 1.
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to say that as far as we are concerned the motion we are considering in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is very much in order and it is appropriate it should have been moved.
Indeed, when the bill was in committee I, personally, moved a very similar amendment. We adopted this approach because the bill gives the corporation power to carry out certain duties which have not been assigned to it by an act of parliament. It will exercise these powers by virtue of orders in council. We consider this would be allowing the government, and the corporation, too much latitude. Arguments were advanced ift committee in favour of the bill as it presently stands. We were told the corporation would have extensive powers anyway, that there would be $130 million at its disposal under votes 1 and 15, and that the corporation would have power to act without the benefit of these provisions in the bill in any case. I was a little disturbed that it should be so easy for the minister and the corporation to lay their hands on so much money and pursue policies which would appreciably affect the fate of many people involved in agriculture in the absence of what, to my mind, is proper control through legislation. So, regardless of the explanations given by those responsible at that time, I am still not ready to embody in an act this very loose enabling power which will give the government an opportunity to act without, to my mind, the necessary degree of responsibility to Parliament.
We were also told in the course of discussion that certain changes would, in any case, be necessary in connection with the farm adjustment program, now called the farm development program, and that it would be just as well if the board could carry on for a little while; after it had experimented, in effect, guidelines could then be laid down in legislation. But suppose that in the course of this experimentation one or two proposals do not work out very well and hardship or inequity arises. What recourse would individuals or communities have under the law? Could they go to the ordinary courts and say: "Certain things have been done which have cost me money, and I wish to recover the losses I have sustained"? They could hardly argue that certain things had been done which should not have been done under the terms of this or that Act of Parliament. As a legislator, I myself, for example, could not very well appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and say to the minister or to the representatives of the corporation that in a particular case they had taken action which did not conform with this or that section of the act. For these reasons, I do not believe the approach recommended to the House is a good one.
Anyone who observes the scene in agriculture today knows there are problems with which we must deal. At the same time, we must ensure that we act in such a way as not to aggravate those problems. One of the things which disturbs me is the lack of a clear indication of policy. The committee held several sittings, and a number of witnesses appeared. Finally, the minister came in and said: "Yes, we do have an updating of the statement made on March 8, 1972". I believe that was the date. But in any

June 28, 1972
Farm, Credit Act
case, whatever the date was, it was a long time before the information was available to us.
I must say I am bothered by the lack of balance in the policy as far as it has been explained to us. For example, there is provision for some subsidization of older people who choose to move out of farming; an annuity is to be paid to them, and so on. But I would have to learn a great deal more about the details of this proposal before I could either accept it or reject it. On the other hand, no assistance is provided for the younger person, or newcomers to agriculture who wish to establish themselves. In some European countries, interest rates are subsidized in such circumstances. The legislation before us ignores this aspect. It is considered quite all right to increase the total amount of a loan to $100,000, and that may be useful for those who want to borrow that sort of money. But for someone entering farming for the first time, the subsidization of the interest rate up to about half of the $100,000 is altogether justifiable. However, it is not even considered.


Robert Elgin McKinley: They would not even accept the amendment.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: No, we could not even get the amendment on the record, as the hon. member rightly says. It is not as though there were no subsidization policy in this country because there is. Under DREE, large subsidies are offered to private industry. I anticipate similar subsidies will be offered to industry to conform with antipollution laws. Students are subsidized through loans so they may attend college and university. The building of such institutions is also subsidized. Therefore, why should not persons entering agriculture be subsidized over the initial years, which are the tough years, while they are establishing themselves? If they turn out to be good farm operators and their income structure does not prove to be disastrous, they will turn their businesses into going concerns. The minister, who has lived in a farming community, knows that very well.
As I say, this need is ignored. We just assume that people will buy land, equipment and livestock, will become able and competent farmers and produce the food we need domestically and for export. I noticed that the other day the minister journeyed to Charlottetown in Prince Edward Island, and the main burden of the speech he made was that Canadians should produce food for export, that this assists the Canadian economy. I wonder whether the minister talked to the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island and received from them the assurance that they were in a sound financial position and would continue to produce potatoes? Did the minister also get the same feeling of confidence from farmers in the grain growing areas of Canada? I would ask also whether we have the same feeling of confidence about the general agreement on tariffs and trade, about our relations with the United States and our access to that important market. However, I do not want to digress.
Getting back to the bill, I am wondering whether those who drafted the bill clearly understand how it will be implemented and how well the two programs will dovetail together. On the one hand, we have a lending agency that has assisted farmers for a fair number of years on the
[Mr. Gleave.)
basis of their productivity and the management of their operation. We are now adding this social function. When you implement a policy that aims at the creation of farms of a certain size, you are performing a social function, not a commercial function. I suggest that, despite the usual pitfalls, a commercial lending operation is a fairly straightforward proposition. It is true you make bad guesses sometimes with regard to management or productivity, and you must take the good with the bad. However, if some able person is conducting the operation, over the long haul the operation will prove successful. As far as western Canada is concerned, despite the fact that western farmers experienced two or three low income years, I think it is fair to say they, too, will be successful. I suggest the Farm Credit Corporation has confidence that in the years ahead, as our cash flow increases and agriculture picks up again, our farmers will continue their operations satisfactorily. The minister and the Farm Credit Corporation realize that in the west there are good producing farms and there is good management.
However, the government has introduced a land development policy that is not only socially but politically motivated, and they will find that they are riding two horses which may very well be going at different speeds. As a result, the government are going to run into a fair bit of difficulty. I pointed out in committee that the bill provides that the appraised value of farmland shall be based as far as possible on its productivity. Yet the government is apt to use a different measure altogether, that of transferring farmer A to some other place and bringing in farmer B in his stead to operate his block of farmland. That is a different concept entirely.
The minister has run into some difficulty with the provinces, but I do not want to dwell unduly on that matter. I tried, as did other members of the committee, to get all the information I could on this matter as the bill was going through. Certainly, I do not want to criticize the minister for not getting agreement with the provinces. I assume he tried to, but I was not at the negotiations and do not know what happened. All I know is what I was told during the committee hearings. However, I suspect one reason there was a fair amount of difficulty in achieving agreement with the provinces was that what was proposed by the government in this area of land adjustment was ill-defined. The provinces, especially those which are largely dependent on agriculture, cannot afford to gamble on their future in that area. The income is very important to them and if farming operations are not in good shape, certainly in some cases the industrial base is not sufficient to make up for the mistakes made in the agricultural area. I would be much happier if we, as a committee and myself as a member, had more information on this matter. I know some of our people want additional amounts by way of loans. I know the needs of the farmers in my area fairly well, and the minister knows them across Canada.
I see you are getting uneasy, Mr. Speaker, so I assume my time has expired.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to thank the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Prince Edward-
June 28, 1972

Hastings (Mr. Hees) for moving and seconding the motion yesterday on my behalf. I was unable to be here yesterday, as I was attending the opening ceremonies of the 28th annual meeting of the Indian Association of Alberta taking place at the Saddle Lake Reserve in my constituency. I thank the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) for explaining briefly the purpose of the motion I placed before the House for consideration. The purpose of the amendment is simply to restore parliamentary control over the possibility of any agricultural program being assigned to the Farm Credit Corporation for administration.
We have in Bill C-5 an amendment to Section 11 of the Farm Credit Act which broadens the powers and alters the functions of the Farm Credit Corporation, giving it the power to administer any kind of program that may be assigned to it by any other act of Parliament or by government order in council. It has been repeated many times in the committee by the minister and the Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation that it is not necessary for this portion of the bill to be enacted to administer farm development programs. This arouses some suspicion. We wonder why we must have a clause in this bill which is all encompassing, broad and powerful.
There is no obligation under the provisions of this amendment to have an agricultural program approved or debated by Parliament. There is no obligation on the part of the government or the governor in council to discuss these programs or consult with the farmers of Canada or their organizations. There is not even an obligation for the government to produce a white paper or a position paper such as was produced under the provisions of the Small Farms Adjustment Program introduced on March 8. We wonder why we need such a broad and encompassing clause. We can only assume that the government may have some other mechanism which, in its wisdom, may alter the social and economic structure of agriculture.
During the consideration of this bill, and particularly of the adjustment program, we had a great deal of difficulty extracting information. An announcement was made of the government's intention in March, 1971, but we did not have a revised edition of the program presented to us until June 15 of this year, notwithstanding the fact that the bill was introduced on February 24, 1972. Throughout the course of the debate we tried to ascertain the direction in which the minister and the Department of Agriculture were proceeding. We have been and still are suspicious of the fact that this program will tend to reduce significantly the number of farmers in Canada, and we have evidence to back up that suspicion. Discussions and negotiations have been taking place with the provinces since the time the proposal was placed before the public. As I understand it, as of this date there has still been no agreement reached. Perhaps the minister will respond to that suggestion sometime later today.
We have been discussing this particular proposal in a vacuum. It was not until the provincial representatives appeared before the committee and took very strong exception to this bill, as did representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, although not as vigorously as other witnesses, that we had enough information to outline the
Farm Credit Act
main structure of the program. These representatives of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan who appeared before the committee have serious reservations about the scope of the power granted in clause 1. The representative of the province of Manitoba stated explicitly in his brief, as recorded at page 6:
I have no recourse but to recommend to your Committee that the amendment to Bill C-5, extending the authority of the Farm Credit Corporation to administer such a program, be deleted from the Bill. Until such time as more satisfactory arrangements can be developed between the Federal Government and the provinces, I feel that the authority of the Farm Credit Corporation should not be extended to permit it to administer the proposed Small Farm Development Program.
The National Farmers Union, in an excellent brief, said basically the same thing. Let me quote from Committee Proceedings No. 22 of June 20 at page 22:4:
-the government, in our view, is being devious by circumventing public discussion and debate on the entire question of the Small Farm Adjustment Program while implementing an important part of the program in Bill C-5.
Certainly, so far as the NFU is concerned, there has been no communication from the Minister of Agriculture relative to further plans under the Small Farm Adjustment Program since his initial statement of March 8,1971.
It seems rather strange that a program which will very significantly affect, in some cases detrimentally, the farmers of Canada that little negotiation or discussion took place with a farm organization that speaks for the farmers of Canada.
Let me point out that the amendment to Section 11, as provided for in clause 1, does not only give power to the Farm Credit Corporation to administer the Small Farms Adjustment Program, but also any other duty or function assigned to it by the government by order in council. In other words, it can administer any agricultural program. In my opinion, and in the opinion of my colleagues, this power is much too broad for this or any other minister. The farmers of Canada have had some bitter experiences with some of the legislative measures introduced by this government, that is legislation drafted and introduced without any prior consultation with the farmers of Canada or their organizations. These pieces of legislation required many major amendments before they were acceptable, or indeed useful, to the farmers of Canada. They had to be changed by Parliament.
One could say that with the power which is to be delegated to the Farm Credit Corporation in this particular clause (1), Bill C-176 in its original form could have been administered by the Farm Credit Corporation had the government in its wisdom seen fit to assign to it a program of that nature rather than deal with it through legislation. We all know that after two years of parliamentary and public debate, the bill did pass but was altered significantly. It was altered to suit the wishes and needs of the producers who were affected. I suppose the same thing could be said about the stabilization bill which was certainly not in accord with the wishes of the vast majority of the farmers, according to the mail I have received and the public reaction generally.
With the power contained in clause (1), the government in its wisdom could have seen fit I suppose to assign the

June 28, 1972
Farm Credit Act
program under the stabilization bill to the Farm Credit Corporation for administration without parliamentary debate and without discussion with the producer organizations. So, I believe it behooves each and every one of us to think very seriously before we delegate this kind of authority to any kind of agency. In short, this clause would give the necessary power to reshape the social and economic structure of agriculture without reference to Parliament, without reference to the farmers of Canada, without reference to the provinces and without reference to the producer organizations. I recall that in the presentation of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the cabinet, the necessity was reiterated of producers being involved more closely and more meaningfully in the organization and development of programs as well as their evaluation.
Quite frankly, we believe this small farm adjustment program is tainted with the recommendations of the task force on agriculture which suggested that the number of farmers be reduced significantly in order to cure the ills of agriculture. We believe the major emphasis of a program such as the small farm adjustment program should be aimed at assisting those who are in the industry to improve their income and their standards, so that they may be able to remain in the field of agriculture and thus remain within the rural areas of Canada. This particular program does just the opposite. It is a program which encourages farmers to move out of agriculture. We recall that when the original proposal was presented by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) it was entitled an adjustment or redevelopment policy for agriculture, a proposal for farm adjustment and resource mobility. In the contents of the white paper, it was pointed out that one of the aims was to grease the wheels of adjustment.
I suppose because of the lack of acceptance of a title of that nature, the minister in his wisdom saw fit to rename the program the small farm development program. However, there is very little in that proposal to indicate it is a development program for small farms but rather is a development program for large farms. Perhaps it might be more appropriately called the small farm extinction program. We cannot accept a proposal which gives the government such carte blanche authority to proceed with any-and I want to emphasize the word "any"-detrimental or otherwise, agricultural programs which could affect the welfare of those engaged in the agriculture industry. I, therefore, propose that any such program which would affect the social and economic fabric of the agriculture industry should not be proceeded with by government order in council but rather by a bill which would be processed through the machinery of Parliament. Certainly, an ad hoc measure of this nature is neither desirable nor suitable.
I am sure all of us recall the ad hoc measure that was introduced to reduce wheat acreage entitled the Lift program. This was a stop-gap measure with an originally suggested expenditure of between $100 million and $140 million. Because this program was an hoc measure, it was introduced without any prior consultation or discussion with the farmers of Canada or indeed the farm organizations. Less than 50 per cent of the farmers of Western Canada were able to participate in the program and less

than 50 per cent of the funds allotted were expended. As a matter of fact, it discriminated against those farmers who had reduced their wheat acreage in the years prior to the introduction of this measure. Certainly, it was a very ill advised program. It was a bitter experience to many farmers of western Canada. Legislation which deals with the welfare, development or extinction of farmers in Canada should be clearly defined, clearly understood and introduced in Parliament as a piece of legislation rather than as a government order in council. Therefore, I urge all hon. members to accept this amendment which has been proposed.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in the committee on agriculture, we spent a considerable amount of time dealing with the different aspects and clauses of this particular bill. This amendment to section 11 of the Farm Credit Act, I suppose, in many ways has created the greatest controversy. I think the motion moved by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is a commendable one and one which should be accepted by the House. Through a long process, we have seen different pieces of government legislation dealt with in terms of how they affected the farmer. We have seen debate centred around Bill C-197. After considerable debate, it ended up as Bill C-176. In that process there were no less than 6, 7 or 10 fundamental changes in the various provisions of the bill. We once sat all night at Christmas time- and I shall refrain from emphasizing this in case it should put you in a bad mood, Mr. Speaker-dealing with that legislation, and some rather fundamental changes were made in the government's proposal.
Now, in the second or third last day of the session we have the Minister of Agriculture bringing a bill before the House which, according to the amendment to section 11 of the Farm Credit Act, will allow the Farm Credit Corporation to administer any program the minister sees fit to allocate to it. My hon. friend moved a motion to delete this particular aspect of the proposed amendment to the Farm Credit Act. If we allow this amendment to pass as proposed by the minister, without accepting the deletion made by the hon. member for Vegreville, then we are giving a free hand to the Minister of Agriculture, regardless of who he is, to allocate whatever program he sees fit to the Farm Credit Corporation without giving the representatives of the people of Canada an opportunity to make a decision on that action. That, in the light of the activities of this government, can be a real threat to people in the rural areas.
In dealing with this amendment, I need only refer hon. members to the action taken by the government on the task force report on agriculture which stated that two out of every three farmers should be removed by 1990. There has been a drop in the number of farmers, and this has been a trend in agriculture for a long time. We all know that. The government is attempting to accelerate the removal of farmers from the land, in this case particularly those on small farms. This amendment allows the small farms consolidation plan to go into operation without any legislative authorization.
June 28, 1972

If the minister were still a member of the party which sits to my left, I wonder how he would have reacted to a Liberal government bringing in a bill that allowed plans and programs costing in the neighbourhood of $150 million over seven years to be put into effect without any authorization from the people's representatives. I wonder what he would have thought, and how it would have affected his constituency, if some minister of agriculture earlier in the history of this nation had carried out such a program.
What do we know of the small farm development consolidation plan? We know that it was introduced on March 8, 1971 as a resources mobility and adjustment program, not a development program. We have had a great deal of experience in listening to government ministers introducing programs with fancy names and no real intention behind them. Since that time we have not had a brief outline of exactly what the intent of that program is, other than what the minister called a corps program in committee. Only one provincial government has stated that it is in agreement with the plan as introduced by the Minister of Agriculture. Farm organizations, such as the National Farmers Union, have stated categorically, as the hon. member for Vegreville pointed out, that the method by which this program is being introduced is nothing short of devious, and that is the mildest word that can be used to describe the manner in which the minister has introduced the program. Under the program two farms would be made into one or three farms would be made into two. That is not a development of small farms, it is a development of bigger farms.
We find that the agricultural policies advocated by this government are continually overshadowed by the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture. I am sure that the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) does not appreciate the extent to which the economists control the Department of Agriculture and its policies. We are well aware of his opinions as expressed in the committee. First of all, on the basis of the task force report, the department made certain assumptions regarding the consolidation of farm holdings in terms of what they called efficiency. May I point out to the minister that farmers are more efficient and productive than Canadian industry. I do not understand how in the Lord's name he could ever introduce a consolidation program on grounds of efficiency. That is the purpose of the program. Part of the same concept of rationalization was the basis for the introduction of the incomes stabilization bill. If there had been a decision to administer that program through this amendment, members of this House would not have been allowed to have a public debate on that bill, the withdrawal of which would never have taken place and western producers would never have benefited from the savings.
I feel that this is a fundamental point, and I wish to repeat it regardless of the fact that the amendment deletes the provision relating to the small farm consolidation plan. Let us deal with the limited knowledge we have, with certain aspects of that particular program. First of all, the minister says that the program will be put into effect regardless of provincial agreement. This is very high sounding, and a beating upon one's chest before the federal election. It may sound good in some parts of the country. Let me point out to the minister that, as has been
Farm Credit Act
said in the committee, in terms of administration this program suggests the hiring of counselling personnel. That kind of counselling and advice is provided in almost every province with large rural areas, such as for example the Ag-Rep program in Saskatchewan.
I can tell the minister that if he thinks that the introduction of the small farms consolidation plan through this amendment will be a feather in his cap in the next federal election when the farmers know that he has added one more civil servant to the payroll to visit them, let me tell him that this plan will not go very far and neither will the minister. Not only are we setting up a program that cannot be examined by members of the House of Commons, but we are setting up an administrative bureaucracy which could affect each province in Canada where counselling and administrative services are already available, such as for example the Ag-Rep program in my province. Yet, the minister says that he is going ahead with it.
There has been some discussion about incentives being provided for farmers to leave their farms and to take up some other occupation. In view of the fact that there are 512,000 unemployed people in Canada, I am not sure what kind of employment they could expect. It has been mentioned that consideration must be given to those people going on welfare. I hope that the minister is well aware of the fact that in view of the lack of job opportunities in this country there seems very little opportunity for a man who has spent his life farming to suddenly train himself to be a technician in a chemical plant or to train himself for some other job which is usually non-existent anyway. Under this program there is no provision for the second, third or fourth son of a farmer who may have moved to the city and who wants to return to the land. This is where the social judgment comes in. Instead, there is a provision that the young farmer whose land, within the definition presented by this government, is uneconomic should be removed from the land. When I inquired about the possibilities in the Prairies for expansion I was told that he could find another quarter or half section of land but that might be 20 or 40 miles away and the cost was likely to put it out of his reach.
A program such as this would be impossible to administer because of the variation in the types of farming in the country. A small livestock or grain producer in my constituency of Assiniboia does not operate at all, in terms of land and costs, in the same way as a potato grower on Prince Edward Island or an apple grower in Nova Scotia. The average size of a farm in Saskatchewan, for instance, is much larger than the average size in Ontario, but in the small farm development consolidation plan there is no provision for such differences. Yet, Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is going ahead with it.
Mr. Speaker, I have given a number of reasons why I think the motion moved by the hon. member for Vegreville is a good one and I support it. I believe that he has a second amendment dealing with interest rates for young farmers. I am very interested in that and I hope it can be put to the House.

June 28, 1972
Farm Credit Act


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Under Bill C-5 the Farm Credit Corporation may carry out virtually any program that the government of the day sees fit and this gives enormous power over an industry which already suffers from too much government interference. Apparently it is the stated intention of the government to use this clause of Bill C-5 to administer the small farm development program but, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this program has been accepted or understood by the provinces. Indeed, from the minister's remarks I am not sure that he understands it, either. Any action in this area should be debated in Parliament so that members will have some idea of what is in store for the people. I think it is doubly important that legislation dealing with small farms should be thoroughly perused.
A study of what has happened in agriculture during the last four years shows how the government has intruded into the day-to-day business of farming. The Canadian Dairy Commission was in existence prior to 1968, but in that year it became much more active and since then it has substantially changed the pattern of the dairy industry in Canada. However, it has done this on a political basis rather than according to the demands of the market. As a result of high labour costs, many dairy farmers have switched to other products and the only way to get quotas for farm separated cream or milk is through the government or the Dairy Commission. The same situation now applies to eggs under Bill C-176 because quotas will be given to the provinces. Without a quota, a farmer cannot become involved in this industry. As far as chickens are concerned, the only way that a quota can be obtained in the broiler industry is from a commission. In Manitoba, a farmer can only raise 300 turkeys without a quota. If he raises more than that, he must obtain a quota from the provincial turkey board. Also in Manitoba a farmer without a quota for hogs is just out of luck. That leaves only cattle and sheep, the sheep industry is too small to get involved in quotas but the cattle industry is heading that way. In the western grain industry a lapsed quota has meant severe hardship for the small farmer who is prevented from taking advantage of some of the efficiencies available to his larger neighbour. Some of the Wheat Board's ideas with regard to grain deliveries are commendable, since the main thing is to get the grain to our customers. Some of their other ideas, however, have driven the small farmer to early retirement because of his economic situation.
As it stands, this clause of Bill C-5 would give the government power to do almost anything in order to carry out its program, and I believe this authority is far too wide, Mr. Speaker. We have heard only vague outlines of the small farm development program, Mr. Speaker. There is the assumption that the federal government will buy or in some manner rent or lease small farms, giving the owner an opportunity to take up another occupation or to retire with dignity. But, Mr. Speaker, no arrangement has been made to deal with the situation in the provinces. It should be realized that land use is under the jurisdiction of the provinces and will have to remain there under our concept of government. This is just another indication of

the federal government's centralistic approach to a problem which comes largely under provincial jurisdiction.
In their brief submission to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the representatives of the National Farmers' Union said:
We believe members of this committee are fully cognizant of the effects of proposed amendments to raise upper limits on FCC loans to $100,000. Your endorsement of proposed amendments to Bill C-5 will signal your support of policies which advocate the continuing depopulation of rural areas and the sacrifice of the family farm to technology and economic determinism.
They then said that the bill does little for young farmers who need credit and that it fails to meet the needs of young farmers who wish to become established in farming. The government has not yet announced how small farmers under this legislation will have access to credit. Even if the amendment of the hon. member for Vegreville were to be incorporated in the bill, and even if the provisions of the bill applied to small farmers, we still would not know, and the government has not told us, how the small farms program is to be organized, how it is to be operated, and what its main thrust is to be.
This is an important measure and should not be dealt with in such general and vague terms. Until such time as the government comes forward with more definitive plans and proposals and defines more clearly what it means by the small farms program, I think this amendment ought to stand. We must be given a chance to debate any proposals the government has in mind for small farms.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to speak in the closing portion of this debate. At the same time may I say that I support the amendment which would delete what we consider to be the contentious part of Bill C-5, the amendment brought forward by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
First, may I say that I agree in principle with that part of the Farm Credit Corporation bill which deals with increased amounts that are to be lent to farmers. The maximum amount to be lent is to be increased from $40,000 to $100,000. That sum is probably enough for one-owner farms. I should like to see a provision incorporated in the legislation which would raise the limit for farms owned by a corporation, which could be a family or a partnership. The maximum should be increased beyond the present limit for such farms. I think there is a legitimate reason for so doing, Mr. Speaker.
In the past year we have seen, and you will see to an accelerating extent in the future, and increasing emphasis on farm corporations on the Prairies and elsewhere in Canada. Farms have been incorporated, I suggest, because of our tax laws and because of the estate and gift taxes that many of us have had to live with in Canada. The government, in many cases, has forced the small businesses, and I certainly include many farms in that definition, to incorporate to escape succession duties that would need to be paid on the death of the person who established that particular farm or business enterprise. I should like to see the provision I have alluded to included in this bill or at least something along that line could have been included in the bill. In any event, I welcome the
June 28, 1972

increase in the ceiling, which is to be $100,000. At least under the Farm Credit Corporation legislation, farmers will be able to borrow that much and I think this bill will permit the Farm Credit Corporation to operate more effectively as a lending agency in the 1970's.
We must look realistically at farming, Mr. Speaker. When I say that, I do not want to leave the impression that I am in favour of larger farms and against small farms. As I say, in looking at agricultural problems, we must be realistic. Often we hear people say that the government must come up with positive measures for dealing with the small farm problem. Important though such measures may be, if we look at the picture positively and realistically and consider what shape farming will take in future, we will concede that, of necessity, farms should become larger. Any young farmer with managerial skills and ability to work hard will, as soon as he can, try to buy more land, because he will want a more viable economic unit. He will want to reduce his costs, and that is the most natural thing in the world. It is fine to talk about small farms and the preservation of the small farm in Canada. Until we can solve this problem, we shall, I think to a great extent, be just talking.
I think we should emphasize assisting farmers who want to remain on the land rather than making it easier for them to get off the land. I am talking of farmers with ability. One way to do this, I suggest-and I may be encroaching somewhat on the next motion that my hon. friend will propose-is by so structuring the Farm Credit Corporation that it will grant special loans to young farmers. These should be available in the first few years of farming when a farmer is seeking to become established. Possibly, repayments could be put off, and I am talking about interest and principal, for a few years until that young farmer gets on his feet. The mechanics of the loan could be worked out in such a way that the total amount of the loan would be paid back eventually. That would give the young farmer starting out a break. He would not need to repay borrowed money at once. This is important in view of the cash income situation of Prairie farmers. The government has been saying a great deal about this. It suggests that there is more cash in the hands of western Canadians now than there has been for some time. In view of rising costs and prices, Prairie farmers, despite their extra cash in hand, are considerably worse off than they were years ago. I feel we are justified in introducing some form of special credit facility for those young farmers who want to begin in the business. Such facilities should not be given to all segments of society; however, in view of rising costs, relatively low prices and the cost-price squeeze, such facilities I feel would be justified for young farmers.
Now, I come to the more contentious part of the bill. The amendment deals with a contentious matter. The small farms development program, as the government has called it, was introduced by the back door. Members of Parliament did not deal with that matter directly. All that we gleaned about the bill consisted of those small bits and pieces of information we were able to extract from the minister through answers to questions raised in the House of Commons of information obtained from press reports and of information contained in statements made outside the House. As a result, we became suspicious of the gov-
Farm Credit Act
ernment's intentions with regard to the small farms legislation. Only after extensive questioning in the committee that dealt with Bill C-5, and only after the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the farmers unions had made every effort to discover the government's intentions, were we given a glimpse of what was in the package. There were not too many members who were in total agreement with what the government was proposing. One of the biggest problems we will see with the small farms development program will be the overlapping with provincial jurisdiction.
The province of Manitoba, in its submission to the committee, said that regardless of what happens to this legislation it will go ahead with its own legislation on small farms. We have heard the same story from oth^r provinces. The provinces are quite worried about the fact that there is no real flexibility in the program to meet the various needs of the different agricultural regions. There is a fear that a major emphasis in the program is placed on the readjustment of human resources out of agriculture. The provinces are also worried about the establishment of federal administrations in each province to administer the program, giving rise to overlapping with farm management and consulting services operated by the provinces themselves. The provinces are also worried about the fact that they had no say in the makeup of the small farms development program. They feel it was formulated by Ottawa and presented to them with the threat, "Either you take it or leave it We are not going to bend in any way so far as our proposals are concerned."
The fundamental issue that was outlined at the Edmonton meeting in July of 1971, attended by the other provinces, still remains. It concerns the federal government proceeding on a unilateral basis with a major program affecting Canadian agriculture, without permitting the provinces any say with respect to the kind of program that best suits their needs. In this respect we are seeing the hard core centralism or federalism that emanates from the present government It is not willing to negotiate with the provinces. I represent a riding in the province of Manitoba, and I know that province has additional concerns about details of the program which have not been outlined to any great extent in the House or even before the committee. I would like to mention one problem which will arise if the federal Department of Agriculture proceeds unilaterally with its program.
It was indicated earlier that a limit of $20,000 would apply to any property purchased under the land transfer program. The minister has stated that his department is still sticking with that figure, but there is a hint that this level could be raised through negotiations. But assuming that the level stays at $20,000,1 know that in the province of Manitoba much of the land covered by this program is land that the province itself does not want returned to agricultural use. This is just one example of the kind of problem the government will encounter if there is not further negotiation with the provinces.
Associated with this problem is the broader question of who will determine land policy within a province. All the provinces want to establish their own priorities in this matter, but it looks as though the federal government

June 28, 1972
Farm Credit Act
wants to have some say in determining provincial priorities. The provinces which made submissions noted that insufficient emphasis is placed on measures to assist farmers who wish to remain in agriculture. In fact federal officials have been emphasizing programs to assist farmers who wish to leave agriculture. This is one of the biggest concerns expressed by the majority of provinces with respect to the small farms development program. The fact is that the program is not flexible enough. The manner in which the federal government is trying to remove farmers from the land is not acceptable to western Canada or, indeed, to any part of Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, once again I say that the amendments respecting dollar value, in so far as the FCC is concerned, are acceptable. They make the dollar value realistic for the 1970's. However, I think we should be able to deal fl/ith the small farms development program on a different basis. Toward the end of the committee hearings I believe the minister said a bill would be introduced after the program had been in operation. What use would a bill be at that time? This is completely unacceptable to most members on this side of the House. I urge all hon. members to support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Vegreville, and I hope it will be carried when it is voted upon.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most surprising pieces of legislation dealing with agriculture that I have seen since becoming a member of this House. The bill's provisions will modify the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation in several respects. In each case it is said that the changes being made will not necessarily affect the Farm Credit Corporation's operations as presently defined, with the exception of that provision governing an expansion of money, but the changes are being made so that the government can implement its new policy on small farm development.
During the last couple of years, Parliament has received several visitations from farm organizations that have been critical of the government's proposed program. All of the provinces have been unwilling to accept the small farms development program as outlined in a series of papers, I believe seven in total, of which only a couple are in the public domain. The Manitoba government, the Saskatchewan government, the National Farmers Union and other farm organizations have been highly critical of the proposed small farms development program, not knowing what its purposes are. One simple fact which is apparent to everyone is that size in itself is not necessarily advantageous. There is no one in this country who is not aware that size in itself is not necessarily an advantage. It may not even be advantageous to enterprises whose size approaches the upper limits.
I can recall one of my hon. friends asking, a few years ago: "What is wrong with a supermarket simply because it is big?" But we have seen supermarkets expanding to their present size without bringing any particular economic advantage as far as the consumer is concerned, though, no doubt, there is a great deal of return for those who finance these huge operations. So it may be with agriculture. I think of the largest farm units in my constituency.

In all cases they are operating on the basis of loans. Four or five of them have borrowed such large amounts that the local co-operative is in debt to the extent of $250,000. It cannot collect because the operators of those very large farms are so far in debt themselves that there is nothing to foreclose. Anyone who has advanced credit without attaching the land has no chance of getting the money returned.
There are advantages, of course, attached to the ability to procure extended credit. I am thinking of operations under the Dairy Commission through which amalgamations did take place; farms and quotas were purchased and this resulted in economic units being developed in my area. But this was not possible because the owners could borrow money or because their holdings had increased in size. It resulted from action taken by the government which produced a fair price for the product. It meant farmers were selling their product at profit and, within limits, the more they produced the more profit they could make. But if a farmer is producing wheat, for instance, and is selling at a loss, all he does if he doubles the size of his holding is to double the size of his loss. It is obviously not to a person's advantage to expand in those circumstances. He would be better off to maintain his holding and operate with the machinery he already possesses.
Representations made to us in connection with this bill suggest that the people themselves, in the area concerned, should have some say as to whether it would be advantageous socially or economically to amalgamate the smaller farms. If one farmer, whose production is uneconomic, buys a second farm which is in a similar position mainly because of the low prices received for the commodities produced, he will have acquired a larger unit, it is true, but it is very doubtful whether any real advantage has been secured.
I was interested in the charge made by representatives of the Farmers' Union that persons who are coaxed into borrowing more money are usually in difficulty already and that the borrowing of additional sums only means that some of this money, in a roundabout way, becomes income upon which the borrowers can live for a period. The government has on two occasions brought agricultural legislation before us to which the people directly concerned were opposed. One was the stabilization bill. Witnesses who appeared before the committee were of the opinion that this bill was detrimental to agriculture in general and to certain farmers specifically. The truth of their contention has now been borne out. Farmers are many millions of dollars better off in western Canada as a result of the stabilization bill not being passed.
Again, we are being warned by these same people that the legislation before us is not in the interests of the average farmer. Government spokesmen have offered very little by way of defence. What we are really doing is changing the terms upon which the Farm Credit Corporation operates. In line with this is the obvious intention of the Liberal party to reduce the number of farms in Canada. The Liberal party has pursued this intention for ten or more years, and it has never wavered in doing so. I am not sure that this is good policy. I know there are many farmers in eastern Canada who have remained in business only because the federal government intervened
June 28, 1972

to improve the price received for the commodity they produced. The only segment of the agriculture industry which is in reasonable shape today, the only segment I would recommend any young farmer to get into, is the milk production industry. This is the only agricultural enterprise which would warrant the borrowing of large sums of money. I say this because if a dairy farm is judiciously handled it will produce a better than average farm income.
When we talk about a farm development program we should obviously be talking about arrangements for young farmers entering the agriculture industry. This involves changes which the Farm Credit Corporation is not able to make on its own. There will need to be developments along the lines of a co-operative which will form conclusions as to the moral standing and agricultural ability of a young person and, if it is satisfied, lend him money, bearing in mind that he has time in which to repay it. Today money is lent to farmers 55 years of age. They Eire advanced sums of up to $100,000 though there is no possibility of their living long enough to pay off the debt.
I suggest that if we examine the amount of interest and premium payments made by farmers, it is doubtful that most of them would ever repay the premium amount before they die. Yet, we are making large loans to young farmers who are going into partnership with their fathers, which will mean that the junior member of the partnership will be mortgaged for the rest of his life, and perhaps for the lives of his grandchildren as well. I know of a case where, in my opinion, the mortgage on a farm is about twice the value of the goods and chattels on the farm and the land itself.
I do not think there is any other industry that offers an income so low that it is not possible to make a success of the operation. The average income of farmers across Canada is considerably less than $5,000, yet we are going to lend them money to enlarge their operations, to buy neighbouring farms, and in that way eliminate a very large proportion of our rural way of life. I, personally, know dozens of young people who have gone to cities to find work and have become immersed in an environment with which they are totally unfamiliar. In large part they have been given direction by the Department of Agriculture.
On the other hand, we make no attempt to give the farmers sufficient money to make a success of their operation and allow our young people to stay in rural communities where they can make a useful contribution. It is a fact that governments in Canada have always been plagued with the idea that they must create agricultural surpluses. No other industry offers its products in this way. However, I suggest there will be a day of reckoning if we continue to enlarge farm units but fail to take into account what those units can produce or to arrive at a reasonable price for those products.
Looking back over the past 20 years we find that the federal government has often maintained agriculture through payments out of the agricultural stabilization fund. We have disposed of our agricultural surpluses to countries around the world through the vehicle of a
Farm Credit Act
number of government agencies. We have made a national contribution in a number of ways by disposing of surplus production on our hands. And on a number of occasions, we have made efforts to arrive at a reasonable price. But it seems to me that the agricultural industry will never be a healthy one. Certainly doubling the size of farm units will not create a healthy agricultural climate. The only thing that will help agriculture is to give the farmers a reasonable price for the goods they produce.
I suggest that once this legislation has passed, the farmers should look at it very carefully before deciding whether to borrow further money from the Farm Credit Corporation. In my area, a number of people are anxiously considering another piece of farm legislation passed by the provincial government to establish a cow-calf operation. My advice to them is that if they have the buildings and sufficient land and machinery to go into a cow-calf operation today, they would probably be wise to borrow the capital required and increase their production considerably. But if they have to use the loan to amalgamate farm units before they can increase their production, or if they require buildings and other items of capital cost, then they are not going to make a success of the operation.
I suggest that we have already extended so much credit to the farmers that it would be foolish if they took advantage of further credit just because it was available. The farmers should consider very carefully whether borrowing money is the answer to their dilemma today. What is important is not the size of farm units or the farmer's capacity to produce, but the price he receives for what he produces, which is often below cost even in a well operated farm unit.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, might I rise on a point of order to ask whether the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will indicate if he is going to accept this amendment? It might facilitate the passage of the legislation if he would say now that he will accept the amendment. The debate might then come to an end and we might have a vote. I am also wondering whether the minister plans to make a speech. I just raise those questions as a point of order.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the debate, but as I said yesterday when the bill was reintroduced at the report stage, the amendment before us now is either identical to, or essentially the same as, one that was debated for several days in the standing committee, after which it was put to a vote and defeated.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister for the opinion of the committee, I asked him for his opinion. At times his committee does not agree with him, and at other times he does not agree with the committee. I thought he could give us the position of the cabinet, which is not necessarily determined by the committee.


Robert Elgin McKinley: He does not have much say in the cabinet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) suggests that the minister has very little say in the cabinet, but I would not want to say that. I always hold out hope that any westerner in the cabinet has some power, though

June 28, 1972
Farm Credit Act
I might add that it appears to be a diminishing power to we westerners who sit close at hand and watch.


An hon. Member:: You do not complain about our increased wheat sales.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Do not talk about rising wheat sales. It is the record demand for wheat in the world that has caused this increase. I am particularly pleased to see that we are not completely dead, and that our wheat sales for the year we have just finished studying increased 20 per cent over the previous year. This compares with the Australian increase of 32 per cent and the United States increase of 50 per cent. I would like to think our sales had increased even more. It is too bad we are not the leaders instead of running third, particularly when wheat plays such a dominant role in the income structure of so many farmers in western Canada. I wish our sales had increased to a greater extent and at a better price, rather than at a record low price. In fact, the realized net return on wheat to farmers in western Canada was the lowest in the last ten years according to the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board which we finished studying late last night. If the hon. member who intervened would like to look at those figures, I can give him the page number of the report.
In Clause 1 of this bill we find the following:
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.
This is a sort of ambiguous clause which leaves some fear in the minds of many members who are convinced that the governor in council some day may dream up another operation such as Lift, for example, and turn it over to the Crown corporation for administration. The Lift program was another matter that was never debated. Because of the demand throughout the world for wheat and feed grains this program has proven to be a gross error of tremendous magnitude, particularly in respect of farm income.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) announced in January that he had made a real breakthrough in that he was going to establish a realistic two-price system. Payments were to be made under a two-price system based on a dollar a bushel, and so on. What happened when Parliament reconvened? Slowly but surely, this idea seeped away. All of a sudden we heard there was not going to be any legislation, the government was just going to pay out the money in a one-shot program. Many farmers suspected the government was trying to buy their votes in the rumoured June election, or whenever it might be. Unfortunately for the Liberal party, the minister ordered the payments to be made but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not call an election. Now, the Liberals are afraid that the farmers may spend the money before the election and not vote for the government, but these things happen.
The amendment spells out specifically that the corporation has all the powers necessary to carry out such duties

or functions in relation to the administration of any agricultural program assigned to it pursuant to act of Parliament. We feel there is some value in debate and in learning through the exchange of ideas. We have not given up on the concept of dialogue. We may have differences of opinion and violently disagree with what is going on in western Canada, in the Maritimes, in Newfoundland or in Quebec. We still agree that this shall be the meeting place of the representatives of the people and that dialogue will produce an exchange of ideas or a cross-pollinization. We feel this cross-pollinization will result in satisfactory answers to the problems confronting the people in various areas.
This particular bill seems to indicate that the Minister of Agriculture is afraid of dialogue and an exchange of ideas. He seems to be saying that we should not bother him too much because he has a television view and can only see in a straight line. We should not bother him with all the flack that comes through the process of debate. He wants to do what he wants, perhaps the creation of another Lift operation or acreage payments based on the two-price system so that votes will fall his way. He wants to build 2,000 boxcars but does not want debate, legislation or anything else which might let the people know who will be paying for those boxcars.


An hon. Member:: Are you against it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member can read the speech I made in the House of Commons on March 8 to find his answer to that question. He will see that I was not against it but suggested it.
In any event, it appears that the minister is afraid of debate. He is taking a negative approach. The minister, the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members go out to western Canada and ask the people what they want and why they are not satisfied. They say they are moving the grain, selling all kinds of it and want to know why they are not happy. They tell them they are building boxcars and they should be happy. We as the representatives of these farmers want to participate. Clause 1 of this bill will give the minister, through order in council, the right to bring in any kind of program he wants without consulting anybody except a few Liberal cronies back home, providing he has not become too high hat to speak even to them.


An hon. Member:: There are not too many of them anymore.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I agree with the hon. member, there are not many of those old Liberal cronies left. This is how democracy is falling down, and this is how the parliamentary process is being eroded. We must not sit as legislators and allow such an all-inclusive clause to pass. Many members have read this all-inclusive clause and have come to the conclusion that this is how the small farm program gets into the picture. The minister has not really answered that question. He has said this would cover the small farm program, although it was not necessary because votes 1 and 15 of the estimates assure that this program will go ahead.
Much of the debate on Clause 1 has centred around small farm legislation. I was going to say this is propaganda, but it is even a little better than that. The minister put
June 28, 1972

forward this much talked about document on March 8, 1971, but since that time he has backed away from it. Some have suggested that the March 8 document indicated that the government would be purchasing land, along with other non-farmers. As a result of the minister's vacillation at committee meetings, we are in doubt as to whether the government will purchase land. I have asked the minister whether this is so and I hope he will answer before this debate is concluded.
Can non-farmers, who have no intent to farm, purchase land under this program for speculative or other purposes? Can they borrow money from the Farm Credit Corporation for the purchase of such land? There was a great deal of talk about the fact that the March 8 document indicated the small farm program would be available to senior farmers prepared to sell out when the farm land had a value of no less than $3,000 and no more than $20,000. The minister now says it is not tied to those values but is flexible. Someone asked whether the eligible value could go up to $35,000, and whether a portion of a farm rather than the whole farm could be sold. If a farmer were selling to his son, could he sell half the farm for $30,000 and lease the other half and receive the maximum grant? The minister has not answered these questions. He has suggested that the $20,000 limit will be raised, but he has not said how high. I asked him in committee if it would be raised to $35,000. He said it may, but that depended on the provinces.
As yet no province has agreed to go along with this program, and therefore the minister has categorically said that the government will not wait for the provinces but will proceed alone. Will a small farmer with a net real estate value on his farm of $35,000 qualify for the assistance to the elderly farmer who wants to sell out. That is about the fourth question I have asked to which I should like an answer. When I asked the minister if the small farms program was limited to the elderly farmer, he said that in his mind any farmer could receive the grant but that he preferred to think it would be given to a farmer who was elderly and wished to enjoy a higher quality of life somewhere else. Such a farmer would be given assistance. The minister said there would be a direct grant of $1,500 to such a farmer who would be selling out, plus 10 per cent of the sale value of the farm. If the maximum value were $20,000 this would mean a grant of $3,500. This is the bonus that would be received by a farmer who retires from the land who seeks, in the minister's words, a higher qualify of life in another occupation.
The other question which has not been answered is in respect of a young person or another farmer buying land and receiving special consideration. Would he be able to buy it under conditions which would allow him a lower down payment than if the program were not in effect? I do not think that question has been answered. We are led to believe the House plans to adjourn at the end of this week. If I were in the minister's place, I would be inclined to try to co-operate in answering these questions. This may be the last piece of legislation the minister will have the privilege of bringing into this House of Commons, the good Lord willing. I think if I were in his place I would be very co-operative with the House and try to answer these
Farm Credit Act
questions. In this way the minister would have an opportunity to have his name recorded in posterity as one who put forward one more piece of legislation. These are the four or five questions I have in respect of this legislation.
I have before me the Federal Farm Credit and Related Statistics booklet. In this booklet there is a table which sets out the class of FCA borrowings by province. Without going into the matter of the provinces, the number of loans made on farms with a net value of land worth $20,000 represented 4.7 per cent of the number of borrowers. So, up until this date we are dealing with a very small section of borrowers. Does the minister hope to enlarge this section? Is the program geared to encourage the small farmers to borrow more money in order to buy land or, as suggested by the National Farmers Union in the committee, is this program designed to take agricultural land out of production? Is it designed to lend the money to nonfarmers who will use it perhaps for the purpose of subdividing the land into what are called acreages on the edge of major cities or for the purpose of light industry. Is this the concept under which a farmer who has been producing, let us say, a fair return or a fair amount of money per acre will find that his acreage is to be used to pasture one saddle horse for the young children in a family rather than being used to produce products to be sold abroad. This is a question in the minds of many people. We on this side of the House go along with the over-all concept of lending more money to farmers. One has only to look at the difficult plight in which many farmers find themselves.
In the same booklet at page 63 there is an interesting table in respect of land tenure by province. Let us take, for example, the province of Alberta. There is much concern today about Americans buying up Canadian land and so on. In the province of Alberta in 1961, 51.5 per cent of the agricultural land was farmed by the owner of the land. In 1966, this figure increased to 62 per cent. I think this is a good direction in which to be going. In the province of Saskatchewan, however, the reverse is true. In 1961, 64.9 per cent of the land was farmed by the owner. In 1966, this figure had reduced to 55.4 per cent, nearly 10 per centage points in a five-year period. In other words, more farmers were leasing or renting land in that province rather than owning it. I might as well give the figures for the province of Manitoba. In 1961, 80 per cent of the land was farmed by the owner. In 1966, the figure had reduced to 65.8 per cent. This is a trend of which I do not believe anyone should be particularly proud. It is interesting to note in that same table that for the remainder of Canada the percentage is much higher, in the 88 per cent and 89 per cent bracket, and remains relatively constant in that five-year period in comparison to the three prairie provinces.
Because of its application to very low net worth farms, this small farms program will not be very beneficial to the areas which perhaps need it the most. If it were necessary to pass judgment on the small farms program, it might be considerably different from the judgment on Bill C-5 because Bill C-5 does two things. It allows the Farm Credit Corporation to lend more money to the individual and to a younger individual. It reduces the age of the borrower from 21 to 18. I think these two things are beneficial. Clause (1), in its all-encompassing provision,

June 28, 1972
Farm Credit Act
takes in the small farms program and it is regrettable that the minister has not given a more complete and clear explanation of what he really envisages. Is it to reduce the number of farms? Is it really a farm adjustment program or a farm development program? Is it to place more farmers on the land who will be better able to provide for themselves or is it to have less farms on the land? These questions should be answered before this minister and this House ask us to pass this legislation during the dying minutes of this session.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, the minister should speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
When this bill was called yesterday, Mr. Speaker had some reservations about this motion. I have had the occasion to look at his remarks in Hansard of yesterday and I, too, have reservations. Hon. members may want to assist the Chair in this regard, but it seems to me that there are financial implications in the amendment. If the bill were amended as proposed, and enacted into law, it would put an additional burden on the Treasury. However, what is probably more to the point, and my second concern, is that the proposed motion in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville amends section 17 of the Act which is not a section in the bill and is not before the House at this time. However, I would appreciate hearing the opinions of hon. members if they would like to comment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on this motion. Under the provisions of section 23 of the Farm Credit Act, the Governor in Council has the power to establish interest rates. He can prescribe rates at 2 per cent, 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent. So, I believe that it is within the realm of the provisions of the act.
My second point is that the powers of the Farm Credit Corporation are indeed being expanded to enable it to administer a program for which something in the order of

$150 million is to be appropriated over the next seven years. I believe that in the estimates in excess of $20 million has been appropriated under Votes 1 and 15. This particular program provides for the expenditure of these funds over the next seven years, as I pointed out. Funds are allocated under the program for grants to farmers who wish to retire or leave the business of farming. There are special facilities to be provided and there is the buying and selling of lands, all of which will be a burden on the Treasury, and all of which is provided for under the small farms development program. Delegation of powers is extended under clause 1 of Bill C-5.
I simply ask in this amendment that a certain portion of the funds be allocated for the subsidization of interest rates, because if this is truly a small farms development program it is certainly necessary to provide encouragement and incentive to young farmers to engage in the business of farming. There are other sections of Bill C-5 which refer directly to the administration of the small farms development program, and since such broad powers are granted, I believe that a certain portion of the funds allotted should be provided for the subsidization of interest rates to farmers under the age of 30 who are applying for loans for the first time. I believe that this would certainly give young farmers in Canada a fighting chance to engage in the business of farming, and it would certainly assist them in assembling the kind of viable unit that is necessary to conduct a successful operation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to indicate, if the minister will excuse me for a moment, that I wanted to hear the hon. member for Vegreville who put forward the motion, but I do suggest that he may have diverged from the question of the procedural acceptibility of the motion. I mention this because I see several other hon. members rising. Until we decide on the question of whether or not the Chair can accept the motion, hon. members should direct their comments to the procedural argument.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in speaking directly on the procedural matter, may I point out that this bill does not provide money or in fact make an appropriation for any subsidization of interest rates. Of course, the hon. member defeated his own argument when he admitted that that was the objective of his amendment because, quite obviously, if there is to be a subsidization of interest rates for the purposes described in the amendment it would require a recommendation. Of course, there are rules regarding any motion brought to the House for an appropriation of money or an additional charge on the Treasury, and it is not within the competence of a private member to make such a motion. Of course, he has other methods of bringing that before the House if he chooses.
The other important point is the one to which you alluded, Mr. Speaker, and that is that this amendment does not in fact amend the bill which is before the House today; it attempts to amend the Farm Credit Act. I do not have all the citations before me, but I am sure you are familiar with them, Mr. Speaker. There are dozens of cases where attempts have been made to amend an act sections of which are not contained in the bill before the House. Of course, there is no question that the Farm Credit Act, as contained in Bill C-5, deals with section 17. The other part of the procedural prohibition against a private member
June 28, 1972

moving a motion that is in fact a direct or indirect charge on the Treasury is valid, and this amendment is out of order on both counts.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was not too impressed with the hon. minister's remarks. Bill C-5 amends the Farm Credit Act, and the corporation does lend money at a prescribed interest rate that is 11 per cent higher than the rate at which the government borrows. In this amendment, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) specifies that the interest should be less for a certain portion of the loan. This does not necessarily cause an expenditure of money. I notice that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) is nodding his head in agreement with that statement, Mr. Speaker. If the government borrowing rate were to dip, this amendment would not cost the government a cent. Indeed, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) told us not so long ago that government interest rates were coming down, so in the near future they may even be below this suggested rate. Indeed, if I took the assurance of the minister to heart I would assume that they are nearly below it now.
The fact is that this amendment may not cost the government any money at all, and it is specified that it should only be made to a farmer of less than 30 years of age, so the government may be saving some money. The bill deals with the Farm Credit Corporation which lends money at an interest rate which may well be below this because it is an adjustable interest rate, not a pegged rate. This amendment cannot be ruled out of order, because it may not cost the government any money at all.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I wish to concur in the remarks made by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). This amendment may not cost the government any money at all. I think this procedural difficulty could be solved if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) were to accept the amendment.


An hon. Member:: Move the amendment, Bud.


An hon. Member:: Come on, Scrooge!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has for consideration and decision whether motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) can be accepted by the Chair as being procedurally correct. In my initial remarks, I indicated that I had two concerns. One was that the proposed amendment, if it were enacted, might cause a charge against the Treasury and there is no recommendation accompanying the motion. The second was that it appears to go behing the bill and purports to amend the Farm Credit Act.
The hon. member for Vegreville, the hon. member for Crowfoot and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) have argued, with respect to the first point, that there will not necessarily be a charge against the Treasury. I would like to look at that argument if I were to base my ruling upon it but, in any event, I would want to base my ruling on the second point which, I indicated earlier, was a bar to the acceptance of this motion. The
Division
motion does not in fact purport to amend the act and, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has pointed out, the authorities are clear that this is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint. I must, therefore, decline the motion on this basis.
I understand that on Motion No. 1, the yeas and nays have been taken.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: So that there will be no confusion, I might ask the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) if he did indicate his vote?


Mr. Gauthier:: I did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He did.
After the taking of the vote:


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Farm Credit Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I wonder whether Your Honour would inquire as to a possible disposition in the House to give third reading to this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is our hope that the spirit of kindness may move the minister to change his mind and alter somewhat his hard-hearted approach to this legislation.
It being five minutes after six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. June 29, 1972