1972-05-09

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought that perhaps the government might have considered making a statement on motions about the serious situation in southeast Asia. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether that is the intention of the government?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend giving an undertaking to make a statement at this point. It is possible we will want to make one, but at this stage we are trying to get more knowledge of the facts and a better feeling of the situation.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills.
April 27, 1972-The Minister responsible for the Wheat Board- Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act."
Mr. MacEachen:: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker? With respect to this bill of which notice is given, there have been discussions among the House leaders and because this is the same bill as was reported out of committee last session it is understood that when and if it is given first reading it will be moved forward to the report stage on the understanding that hon. members will be able to move amendments in the usual way and will not be confined to the amendments that were moved in the last session. If the House is of a mind to do so, I should like to have an order which would put this bill at the report stage, where it stood at the prorogation of the last session, on the understanding that hon. members might move amendments either as in the former session or new report stage amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. Is it the intention that we now proceed with first reading of this bill on the basis of the order of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made a few moments ago this bill stands for consideration at the report stage.



CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-205, to amend the Criminal Records Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Philip Bernard Rynard: This bill is aimed particularly at those young offenders who have been convicted once of an offence such as the possession of marijuana or driving while impaired and who go on to lead useful lives but whose progress is marred by having a criminal record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the dangerous escalation of the war in Viet Nam, ordered by the President of the United States, which poses a serious threat to world peace.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has given the Chair due notice of his intention to request leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing what he has termed "the dangerous escalation of the war in Viet Nam".

May 9, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
It is unnecessary for the Chair to emphasize the gravity of the situation to which allusion has been made. The Chair is confronted with a very difficult procedural question in deciding whether or not Standing Order 26 provides a suitable vehicle on which to stage a debate of this nature at the present time. This is not to ignore recent developments in that area of the world, but the broad question of the struggle in Viet Nam will be recognized by all hon. members as being one of a continuing nature. In that regard the Chair need only point out that a debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26 was held on May 1, 1970, on the basis of the "widening of the war in southeast Asia" and, in particular, "to seek ways and means of avoiding further escalation of the war and of promoting effective international action to bring peace to the area." Those words were used in support of the motion on that occasion.
Hon. members are aware that there can be only one debate about a given situation in the course of a session under the provisions of subsection 16(d) of Standing Order 26. Hon. members will ask themselves whether, in a developing and changing situation, the point has been reached where the provisions of the Standing Order should be invoked for the purpose of the adjournment of the House. It may well be that hon. members would find it more practical or useful to have such a debate later on.
Because of the uncertainty of the whole situation, it seems that the interests of the House would be better served if the Chair were not to put the motion today. It might well be that hon. members, either by mutual agreement or under the terms of Standing Order 26, might want to have such a debate later on as the situation clarifies. The hon. member for York South or other hon. members may want later on to invoke the provisions of the Standing Order. If that were done, the House may be assured that the motion will be considered very carefully in light of all the circumstances at the time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance arising out of the budget he presented to the House last evening. Presuming the real rate of growth of the gross national product that the minister is forecasting, according to the Economic Council of Canada we are two or three years away from getting unemployment down to a rate of around 4 per cent. I should like to ask the minister whether the government accepts this as a satisfactory goal in view of the minister's priority of fighting unemployment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to the Economic council report at all last night. I said when I first assumed this portfolio that my
|Mr. Speaker.)
goal was a job for every Canadian, and I do not accept any statistical measurement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the unemployed exist, whether the minister wants to recognize it or not. I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the Economic Council's studies and other forecasts made by the University of Toronto forecasting body indicating prolonged unsatisfactory levels of unemployment, which the minister has pledged himself to fight against, he is able to refute these predictions by the Economic Council of Canada by any government forecast relating to unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I was as specific as I thought I should be and as frank as I thought I should be to the House last night about forecasts and the state of the art of economic statistics. I have nothing further to add to what I said rather fulsomely, I thought, last night.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it from that that the minister does not dispute the forecasts of the Economic Council of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the minister's budgetary statement he also announced his reversal of policy in accepting the principle of an automatic real cost of living escalator in relation to the basic old age pension. I should like to ask the minister why this principle was not extended to cover the real increase in the cost of living since the principle last applied, rather than adopting simply a token gesture of increasing the basic old age pension by the amount of $2.88 per month?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will not prevent the Minister of Finance from replying to the question, but I hope we do not get involved in the budget debate during the question period. I think this kind of question, which is relevant and important, could be asked by many members and that would take the whole 40 minutes, but I wonder whether that is the intention of hon. members. This having been said, the minister might reply briefly to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give us some prognosis of the level of unemployment we can expect throughout 1972 or, perhaps more specifically, when we can expect to achieve that glamorous goal of a job for every Canadian that he announced some time ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, too, sounds like debate. The minister appears to be anxious to reply to these questions, but I suggest we should not have the budget debate before we get to it. If the minister wants to reply to these questions it is not my intention to prevent him from doing so, but I do not think we should get involved in a debate during the question period.
May 9, 1972



PENSION ESCALATION ANNOUNCED IN BUDGET- INQUIRY AS TO SIMILAR ACTION FOR RETIRED PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked a moment ago by the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to direct it to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that old age and veterans pensions are now to be escalated in accordance with the actual rise in the cost of living, will the President of the Treasury Board be bringing down legislation to provide the same condition in respect of pensions of retired public servants and others who come under federal jurisdiction?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is asking whether we are bringing down the same legislation the answer is no. He probably is aware of the arrangements under which superannuates' pensions are escalated. Contributions to such pensions are made by the employer, the government, and the present employees and before we can alter the present arrangement it is quite apparent that consultation with the employees' representatives would have to take place.



PENSION ESCALATION ANNOUNCED IN BUDGET-SIMILAR ACTION REGARDING RAILWAY PENSIONS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in the same area I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Now that other pensions are being put on an escalation basis that is related to the actual cost of living, what is the Minister of Transport doing with regard to railway pensions, both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of Canadian National pensions, even before my colleague the Minister of Finance brought down his budget last night I had held discussions with Canadian National. These have been progressing over a matter of several weeks now. The president of Canadian National is at present out of the country but expects to be back on the 15th. I believe he will have some proposals for me at that time.
As for the CPR, as I have indicated on previous occasions I have conveyed to them the representations of the hon. member and others, but from a legal point of view we have no power, of course, to require the Canadian Pacific to do anything.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three or four members seeking to ask supplementary questions. We must try to make some headway. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for one supplementary question, then the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate for a supplementary to his question, and then we will go to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if this has to be my last supplementary question in this area
Inquiries of the Ministry
today, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he will again approach the Canadian Pacific in view of the fact that last week excessive profits were announced by that company? Surely these could be used to improve the pensions of those who made these profits possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is in the form of a representation, of course.



INTENTION OF BUDGET WITH RESPECT TO UNEMPLOYMENT LEVEL

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase my earlier question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his undertaking several days ago to indicate some of his expectations in his budget in so far as employment is concerned, will he very briefly indicate to the House whether his budget is aimed at keeping unemployment at the 6 per cent level or can we expect a substantial reduction? I ask this in view of the fact that obviously his budget would have to be based on some knowledge of what his expectations may be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even as rephrased I suggest the question is not in order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: I have to apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking the minister to give us some indication of what his budget will do in terms of the unemployment level, whether it will bring it down or keep it at the same level. I suggest that this question is very much along the line-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.



SUGGESTED INTERRUPTION OF BUDGET DEBATE TO IMPLEMENT PENSION CHANGES

['Order, please. We will attempt to return to this subject later. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.']
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the government give consideration to interrupting the budget debate so that it may immediately introduce legislation dealing with the proposed changes in respect of old age, veterans, blind and disabled pensions outlined last night so that these changes proposed by the government, though inadequate, may be dealt with immediately and not delayed until-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the question as asked is debate, but perhaps the minister again might be allowed to reply to some of the questions asked in the last few minutes.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member surprises me. That is a very good idea.

May 9, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.



David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I appreciate that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not scheduled to be here today, but in view of the serious situation in Southeast Asia I am sure the Prime Minister appreciated that questions might be asked of him. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government was informed of the intention of the President of the United States to escalate the war in Viet Nam before he made his statement last night, or was that not the case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing to the use of the word "escalate" by the hon. member, which would lead us into a debate, I am sure he would agree that that can be interpreted in various ways and I do not suppose there is any more reason to talk of an escalation by the President than by North Viet Nam when it sent 12 divisions into the South.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the substance of the question, the answer is that the United States government did inform our embassy very slightly prior to the announcement by the President last night.


David Lewis: I gather from the wording of the Prime Minister's answer, Mr. Speaker, that it is the position of the Canadian government that the announcement of the President of the United States of the intention to mine harbours in North Viet Nam is not a matter which distresses the government or against which the government is intending to protest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants to gather that, he is not making the right assumption because I said that if we had any position to take we would consider making it known either through the Secretary of State for External Affairs or myself. What he can gather is that I think it is rather unusual to talk about an escalation by only one side when, I repeat, 12 divisions from the North invaded the South when this action was taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: It is always easier, Mr. Speaker, for a minister-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


David Lewis: Just hold your horses, if you have brains enough to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: It is always easier for the Prime Minister to debate in giving an answer than it is for me when I ask a question. I wish to ask the Prime Minister finally whether he can give the House any assurance regarding a statement being made on behalf of the government some time this week before what has now happened in Viet Nam escalates into a world war or brings us to the brink of a world war?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can only repeat my earlier answers on the possibility of a statement. I am willing to be helpful and to answer questions if the hon. member wants me to put on record statements which the government has previously made regarding the horrors of this war-


David Lewis: It is a new situation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the desirability of ending it by negotiation rather than by military force. This has been the position of the government and it is well known. I submit even that it is probably in the interests of the three main powers involved in Viet Nam to terminate this war by negotiation rather than by the horrors of war. I think the President's action does not necessarily contradict this reality.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether he intends to make representations to the government of the Soviet Union, asking them to urge North Viet Nam to put an end to the communist aggression against South Viet Nam.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that President Nixon himself will make such representations to the Soviet government. With regard to the position of the Canadian government, we entertain good relations with the Soviet Union, the United States and the People's Republic of China and, should those countries feel a need for our views, Canada will always be ready to offer advice and, if required, to serve as an intermediary.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the grave threat to world peace inherent in the situation in Viet Nam, would the government consider seeking to have the Geneva conference reconvened thus leading to a ceasefire and a mutual exchange of prisoners between the two sides?
May 9, 1972


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I just said in answer to the hon. member for Charlevoix, the Canadian government's position of being on good relations with the three main powers involved is well known. I do not think that at this stage a suggestion such as that made by the hon. member would be constructive. Indeed, I do not think it would result in anything precise until we know whether the President of the United States will go to the meeting in Moscow, as he is scheduled to do, and what type of exchange will take place there. In other words, it is less than two weeks before that meeting is to take place, and I suggest that if this kind of idea is to be discussed at all it would be better to discuss it at that level than in this House or through any representations of this government.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the severity of the situation I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he would consider approaching the parties concerned and having them raise the question in the Security Council of the United Nations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat the answer I gave to the hon. member for Charlevoix.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is with respect to Canada's participation on the International Control Commission. Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the government has instructed our representative to take any particular action in view of the drastically changed circumstances in Viet Nam, and can he indicate the nature of those instructions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware of any such instructions, but I will gladly refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With regard to other Canadians working in aid projects in Viet Nam and the likelihood that these will be disrupted and perhaps be stopped altogether, can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not CIDA or the Department of External Affairs has been in contact with our people in Viet Nam to obtain an appreciation of their situation and any changes they may have to make?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is referring to their physical security, I believe arrangements have been made through the British embassy to ensure that any evacuation of Canadian personnel will be looked after with the help of the British embassy in Saigon.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will attempt to return to this subject later. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.



FINANCE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance?
It was announced in the budget speech last night that the deficit would amount to one billion dollars, and this deficit of course will require borrowing money to finance it.
Is the minister in a position to indicate if this money will be raised in the United States, if the government will float bond issues in Canada or if it will secure an interest-free loan from the Bank of Canada?


John Napier Turner: There will be many procedures to follow, Mr. Speaker.



PAYMENT OF NATIONAL DEBT

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance indicate why it was not specified in the budget speech last night how the government intends to act in order to settle the national debt? Does it propose to forget about it, to pay it up or to let it grow for ever?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
It would appear that every time ministers or the Prime Minister are asked questions of a financial nature, it is difficult to obtain an answer. Would it be because ministers are incompetent and do not understand a thing about financial matters? At any rate, we seldom get an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member for Temiscamingue is not expecting me to answer this question from a procedural viewpoint.



MEASURES TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR INVESTMENT BY CANADIANS IN COUNTRY'S INDUSTRIES AND BUSINESSES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that last week the government disclosed its limited policy with regard to foreign investment in Canada and since there was no mention of that matter in last night's budget, would the minister advise the House whether it is the government's intention to introduce other measures which will afford positive incentives to Canadians to invest in their own industries and businesses in Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite familiar with the income tax legislation in this country. He is aware of such incentives as the dividend tax credit, small business incentives, pen-

May 9, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
sion fund investments, the deduction of interest by one company to buy another Canadian corporation, and the incentives under the Canada Development Corporation. I could name a number of other incentives provided to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Notwithstanding all those points which have existed for a year or more and have had no effect, may I ask the minister whether he has any further positive measures to introduce so we will get a meaningful operation with regard to Canadian investment?


John Napier Turner: I think I can say that at this stage Canadians should explore the wealth of incentives that are already available to them to invest in Canadian resources and industries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we will try to make some headway. There are literally dozens of members seeking to ask questions, and we will be running short of time. I hope we can limit supplementary questions so as to give more members the opportunity to ask their questions.



SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF BUDGET BILLS TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN EQUITY SECURITIES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister giving consideration to bringing in appropriate amendments to the budget bills when they appear so that it at least will not be disadvantageous for Canadians, as it is at present, to invest their money in Canadian equity securities compared with United States equity securities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This appears to be debate. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.



TRANSPORT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company and Burlington Northern, Incorporated versus the CPR et al, which reversed the Canadian Transport Commission's decision. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall wrote a dissenting judgment. Nevertheless, there is no question that his summary of what took place is the correct one, namely:
The whole scheme would appear ... to be the classic case of a foreign conglomerate in concert with related Canadian companies so manipulating the enterprise that the export of Canadian jobs would be the result.

In view of that fact, which is borne out by the evidence and as the number of jobs for Canadians involved is very large with two million tons of coal a year going to be exported to Japan, in order to assure that these jobs shall not be exported would the minister bring in a measure to assure that this shall not be the consequence of that judgment?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I answered this question in part just a few days ago. As to the objective of ensuring that as many jobs as possible are retained for Canadians, and the appropriate legislative route to do that, I am looking into that issue separate from the Supreme Court Judgment because, as I understand it, further actions will probably be taken in the courts or before the Commission on that particular application. As to the basic question of protecting the jobs of Canadians in this way, I repeat that I am looking into it to see how it can be done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the matter has been under consideration for at least ten days, is the government now in a position to bring before the House very simple legislation to cover the decision of the Transport Commission and make it binding regardless of what the Supreme Court of Canada decided in reversing the decision of the Transport Commission?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without wishing in the least to become argumentative with the right hon. member, I think he would agree that justice should take its course in terms of the various appeals and the like that are possible on this matter without our anticipating decisions of either the commission or the court.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no appeal.



PROPOSED LINKING OF KOOTENAY AND ELK RAILWAY TO U.S. LINE-ASSESSMENTS OF SUPREME COURT DECISION

Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. On May 2 the minister indicated to the House that he had two conflicting assessments of what was meant by the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision affecting the Kootenay and Elk Railway. May I now ask the minister what these two different assessments were and whether or not at this point the conflict still exists?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that information in complete detail. I will try to answer the hon. member tomorrow and also to send him, or any other member interested, a written summary of the sequence of events.
May 9, 1972



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of one I put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce last Friday and one that the hon. member for Regina East put to the Minister of Finance yesterday concerning the duty free remission rights that were being granted to the Michelin Tire Company in Nova Scotia. Yesterday the minister said on the one hand that the government had not authorized any duty free entry of certain types or certain sizes of tires for the Michelin Company and then he went on to say that the decision had not yet been reached as to when such a remission would come into effect. Would the minister clarify this? Is it a matter of time for the remission to be implemented, or the right to import duty free to be implemented, or has the government decided not to make such a concession to the Michelin Tire Company?


John Napier Turner: I would interpret it primarily as a matter of time, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: If it is a matter of time, can the minister inform the House whether other tire companies in Canada located in Ontario and Quebec are going to be granted the same right to import tires produced in other countries duty free?
Mr.Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): I cannot answer that question at this time, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister explain to the House why no budgetary provision was made for the anticipated shortfall in the unemployment insurance fund due to the excessive unemployment when it will be necessary for the government to make up that shortfall from the consolidated revenue fund?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, even on the basis of the premise of the hon. gentleman's question there are sufficient funds.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Is it not a fact that due to unemployment the shortfall above the statutory limit will be as high as perhaps $500 million and that this amount will have to be met out of the consolidated revenue fund during the coming year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this again is debate. This is the kind of consideration that hon. members will want to take into account during the debate on the budget.
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the government is indirectly subsidizing day-care centres through LIP, especially in the province of Quebec, would the minister tell the House whether there has been discussions between himself and Quebec minister Caston-guay on this subject?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question of permanent daycare centres would fall partly under provincial jurisdiction, and the type of continuous dialogue the hon. member has suggested would take place between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his counterparts in the various provinces.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF MAKING DAY-CARE CENTRES PERMANENT

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister to explain what he meant when he said he would try to find ways of making the day-care centres under the Local Initiatives Program permanent? What is his program for doing that?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, we intend to retain the criteria that were established when the Local Initiatives Program first came into being some months ago for those projects that involve day-care centres. This means that ongoing programs as of the first of June would include those day-care centres that can bear the scrutiny and examination we are now giving them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point I have to appeal to hon. members. We have just about ten minutes remaining before the end of the question period. A number of hon. members are seeking an opportunity to ask questions. I will make an effort to see as many of them as possible, but for this purpose the Chair will need the co-operation of hon. members in limiting their supplementaries.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: According to what the minister has just said, is he planning to make the day-care centres permanent for only four more months, which I understand is the duration of the Local Initiatives Program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. lady is suggesting that because it is impossible for me to extend them beyond the four months without the consent of all the provinces we should not extend them at all?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate.

May 9, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not want the minister to get me wrong in any way. He knows I am interested in finding out what his program is to make day-care centres permanent. Again I ask him, does he intend to provide funding for day-care centres beyond the next four months of the Local Initiatives Program?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady has devoted more time than anyone I know, and I say this sincerely, to getting such a program implemented, and she ought to know that when such a program becomes a permanent feature of Canadian life the announcement will be made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Can he inform the House whether the government has yet made a formal offer on wages and job security in the talks with the postal unions?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the Postmaster General addressed himself to this question last week. I would repeat again that it is at the express request of the Council of Postal Unions that the detailed progress of the negotiations has not been published.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is the government going to ask the Minister of Labour to offer his special mediators to help prepare a new contract with the postal unions before the situation deteriorates into an impasse?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, all services of which we can avail ourselves will be used to prevent an impasse occurring.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister examining the recommendations of the first report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on the Ann Booth case concerning the rights of civil servants to participate in political affairs?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather difficult question and I have instructed the Treasury Board staff to make a review of
[Mr. Speaker.)
what is done in this respect in other jurisdictions to see what can be done to clarify the situation.



FISHERIES


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can he advise whether he has yet had time to evaluate the efficacy of his call for a domestic boycott of Danish goods? Also is he in a position to indicate the response of the Danish government to this retaliatory move?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any comment.



FINANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Since neither the announced fast write-off of two years on machinery and equipment nor the reduction to 40 per cent in the top rate of corporate tax on manufacturing and processing income applies directly to our fishermen, would the minister indicate what new programs he plans to implement to improve productivity and to raise the incomes of our fishermen, as stated in his budget speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that such a general statement ought to be made on motions. If the minister wants to indicate whether he plans to make this kind of statement on motions, the question will be allowed on that basis.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, would the minister make a statement on motions clarifying his position on this matter?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I made a speech last night, but I will be glad to see what I can do to clarify the situation for the hon. member.



TAXATION


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House and the country, as he has a group studying taxation as it applies to agriculture, that this group is not sterile of ideas and that he will be coming forward with a budgetary statement soon which will be of benefit to the agricultural industry?
May 9, 1972


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the committee under the chairmanship of my friend, the Minister of State from Calgary, is as fertile in ideas as is the hon. member.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The budget would not appear to be so fertile in ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.   Homer@: What does the government have against the farmer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CONCESSIONS TO CORPORATIONS IN BUDGET INTENDED TO CREATE JOBS-MONITORING AGENCY TO CHECK HOW ADDED INCOME IS USED

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I always seem to rise when there is commotion. May I ask the Minister of Finance a question arising out of the tax concessions to corporations which he announced last night and which he said he intended should be used for the creation of jobs. Does the minister intend to set up any kind of monitoring agency in order to watch over the way in which the added income from these concessions is used by companies, to see whether the income will actually be used to create jobs or whether it will merely be an addition to company profits? Is he setting up any machinery to monitor that very important situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the confidence I have placed in the manufacturing industries will be borne out to the satisfaction of both the hon. member and myself. We will monitor this together, and I think we are capable of doing it.


David Lewis: In view of what the minister said, would he tell the House whether actual corporate profits, which have risen substantially in the first quarter of this year in some cases, MacMillan Bloedel by 550 per cent, and Imperial Oil by 35 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of asking a question. It seems to me we are anticipating the budget debate, and many hon. members are seeking an opportunity to ask questions.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that and the list is rather lengthy. May I therefore ask the minister whether he is going to watch particularly these corporations with these large profits since the increase in profits in the case of many of these corporations was accompanied by an actual reduction in the work force and in some cases by the shutting of plants, that being the historical experience-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I suggest to hon. members that questions taking two or three minutes are perhaps a little too long. I suggest that very respectfully. The minister might attempt to reply briefly.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman can make these points, if he wants to 25316-9
Inquiries of the Ministry
make them, when he responds to the budget address. I will certainly arrange for a gentleman from our side to reply with the facts.


David Lewis: That is what we want-facts.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF EARLIER APPLICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION FROM TRANSMISSION COMPANIES

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement by the Prime Minister in Edmonton ten days ago that the cost of the proposed Arctic highway would be recovered through levies upon oil companies operating in the Arctic, is the minister reconsidering his statement to the House of April 25 in such a way that the government would call for submissions or applications from pipeline transmission companies for the construction of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline? I mention this with a certain sense of urgency because there is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister oi Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Prime Minister did not say that and I have not changed the policy statement I indicated earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rising on a supplementary?



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is not actually a supplementary; it is a bootlegged supplementary but it does deal with applications. May I ask the minister if he has had an opportunity to examine the practice followed by AECL in dealing with applications for jobs in Cape Breton?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have. I understand that AECL approached two Cape Bretoners with respect to filling the position, but they turned AECL down; other public relations and media people were approached without success; that, because of the urgency involved in filling the position it was decided to go ahead and hire this particular young man who had shown knowledge of the industry and particular ability. So the situation had been canvassed in Cape Breton before he was hired. When these approaches were not accepted it was decided to go ahead with the hiring of this young man.

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister has been misinformed by the authorities. I have a letter in my possession which outlines quite clearly that this man has not been on the job long enough for his qualifications to be assessed. Without question, he was taken on without experience. This leads to another question which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should probably deal with. How can they bring a man in from Scotland without giving him some kind of status under the immigration laws? It is all a pack of lies.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise hon. members that we have reached the end of the question period. I wish to remind hon. members that we should from day to day make every effort, by mutual consent and agreement, to limit the number of supplementaries asked. I know that in theory we might spend the whole question period on the same subject. Many of these matters are very important and would justify our spending a full question period on them. However, when questions are two or three minutes long, as some are, hon. members are deprived of opportunities to ask questions. If hon. members will examine the questions the next day as they appear in Hansard, they will see that many look more like speeches than questions. This applies also to replies made by ministers, which I feel are often too long. This, I suggest, deprives hon. members of an opportunity to ask questions which are important.
I have noted a number of hon. members in the third, fourth and fifth rows who have not had an opportunity to ask their questions. I will honestly try to make every effort tomorrow to give them an opportunity to ask their questions, and I apologize to them for not being able to reach them despite my best efforts. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the amendment of Mr. Korchinski (p. 1872) and the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Knight) (p. 1903).
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, just before debate on this bill adjourned last night, I had been discussing the role of farm credit within the framework of a comprehensive farm program. The point I was trying to make was that, in the thinking of some farm groups during the past years, too much emphasis has been placed on the value of a farm credit program by itself. This does not mean that we underrate the fundamental importance of an adequate farm credit program. However, I think the farm credit program is only one part of the equation necessary to produce an effective, over-all farm program.

If we are to have a farm credit program that will fulfil the desired objectives, it is necessary that it be complemented by an adequate farm income program, an adequate pricing program, some measures to control the cost of goods that farmers must buy and ensure that adequate services are available to them to carry on their business. It is very important to keep these points in mind. This leaves aside for a moment the question of the merits of the measure before us and simply attempts to deal with the problem of farm credit within the context of a comprehensive farm program. It is necessary to view it in this sort of context if we are to come forward with an adequate program.
In dealing with the subject of farm credit and the structure of the farm industry in general, in recent years there have been too many instances of tribute being paid to the concept of the absolute necessity for increasing the size of the farm unit if farm problems are to be solved. In fact, there is some basis in economics for this sort of contention. In many respects, it is obvious that larger size farm units contribute to a more efficient operation. However, in recent years we have seen that an increase in size does not result in a better farm operation or the solution of the problems facing agriculture. When we referred to size in the past, the primary consideration was the size of the land holding or the physical size of the unit. We have to keep in mind that in agriculture today it is not necessarily related to the size of land holdings. In fact, size can be more closely related to intensive features of farm operations. Investment in the development of productive facilities on a very small land holding may be more productive in some cases and more important than the land holdings involved in a farm unit.
I took careful note of the comments made yesterday by the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan). He referred to the role of economists, his appraisal of economists and the poor service they have rendered to farmers in many instances in the past. I believe I correctly noted the context of the hon. member's remarks. I have to say a word about this because I have some credentials in this field. I hope the hon. member will listen closely because he might learn something. It is society that has assigned to the economist a role which does not properly belong to him. In many cases society has set up the economist as the final repository of wisdom in dealing with a complex of factors which involve a combination of social and economic considerations. The role of the economist is a particular one. If he is called upon to pass judgment within the framework of many considerations that should be clearly understood. The economist has his role to play just as the engineer and other professionals have their role to play. An engineer may respond to a request that the steam pressure on a boiler be doubled. He may say that is nonsense and, if you do that, the boiler will blow up. That is the engineering consequences of such a proposal or decision.
Similarly, the economist can quite validly point out the economic consequences of a certain course of action. However, all too often economists have been called upon to make social and value judgments which are not within the purview of the professional competence or skill of the economist as such. They may lie within his field of inter-
May 9, 1972

est. He may have other skills in other fields of social science which may contribute to making a good decision, but they are not necessarily a part of the body of knowledge associated with that involved in calling upon the services of a professional economist. When comments of this nature are made, I hope it will be kept in mind that all too often it is society which has assigned to the economist a role which does not properly belong to him. I certainly acknowledge there are many economists who would be only too happy to accept the glory that goes with the role assigned to them by others and, in some cases, without validity.
When we take note of the role that farm credit plays in the rural community, it is important that we keep in mind what happens to many small farm communities throughout Canada which are presently facing a very serious situation. When touring various parts of Canada in recent years, I became very disturbed about some of the trends I saw. I not only witnessed the deterioration of some smaller communities which provided valuable service to the farm industry and people engaged in farming, but I witnessed the haphazard disintegration of some of these communities, involving both the farming sector and the small urban sector. This is very disturbing. It is not taking place as a result of rational planning or rational decisions made within whatever available framework we establish. It is happening by some sort of process which is very difficult to visualize and very difficult to tackle. It is happening in the absence of any sort of planning framework for our rural communities. This is of very great concern to many of us.
It is inevitable that there is going to be a process of rationalization take place in many of our rural communities. There will certainly be changes in transportation, communities, economics and other factors involved in carrying on business and providing services. This carries with it consequences for farmers and smaller communities. However, the changes are taking place without any thought being given to developing an alternative structure and a new framework whereby we can ensure an adequate level of service to the farm community.
Unless we ensure that adequate services are available to farmers, it will be much more difficult for farmers to develop a viable, efficient and economic farm enterprise in the long run. It is important that we keep this in mind as we consider this bill and other elements of government programs. Both federal and provincial governments must play a leading role in ensuring that the rural community survives in Canada and that the rural community is healthy, vigorous and making a viable and important contribution to the overall Canadian economy. If we do not have a healthy rural economy and rural society, it will be very dangerous for Canada from a social or economic point of view.
Rural Canada has played and continues to play a vital role in the Canadian economy. Whenever we have witnessed a turn-down in the economy, it has been largely due to difficult conditions in the rural sector. Everyone in Canada should keep this in mind. I see in many parts of the country the destruction of rural society. Rural Canada is in the process of being destroyed in the absence of
Farm Credit Act
effective policies to ensure that those who compose it enjoy standards of living and income commensurate with those provided in other sectors of the national life. No planning framework is being developed to ensure the continuance of a healthy and vigorous role in society. It would be dangerous to allow the present process of deterioration to continue. Any government which permitted this to happen would deserve a black mark against it, yet very little has been forthcoming under the leadership of hon. gentlemen opposite to ensure the maintenance of a vigorous rural society.
One element of a possible policy would be to ensure that young people are able to enter farming or remain in the smaller communities which serve the agriculture industry. A great deal of attention has been paid to this subject in various quarters. Lip service has been paid to the principle and token gestures have been made, but what has been done up to the present has been ineffective, proof of which lies in the continuing and increasing exodus of young people from rural communities. At present, rural communities are made up for the most part of old people on the point of retirement. Those who wish to take up farming, those who wish to stay in smaller communities, find it impossible to do so bearing in mind the amount of capital investment necessary to establish themselves in business. In most cases they move to the larger urban centres where they can often get jobs without a comparable effort in investment and labour.
Many farmers find themselves locked in, spending a lifetime paying off their land debts. Hon. members are familiar with the saying that many a farmer has lived poor and died rich. This is often the case; the only way in which the farmer has been able to build up a viable enterprise has been by incurring debts and then depriving himself and his family of many of the things which ought to have been theirs if they had been able to enjoy a standard of living comparable with that of others in our society. In some cases, when the time comes to retire, their position is not a bad one if they have managed to survive over the years, but it was only made possible as a result of a lifetime of hardship. This is a factor which contributes to. a great deal of the poverty which is now evident in Canada and which is proving such a millstone around the neck of our society. Unless we deal with it we shall never be in a position to abolish poverty in Canada.
I am concerned about the whole question of interest rates as they affect rural communities. We debated this subject a few years ago when the government decided, as a matter of policy, that it would raise interest rates above the 5 per cent level which had been placed in legislation in previous years, and adopt a rate based on a formula linked directly to the current bank rate. This, as the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) pointed out, involves giving priority to strictly economic considerations. I say it is wrong to act on a basis of economic considerations alone when dealing with these matters. In such situations it is necessary to make social judgments and social values should take priority. I believe we should throw out the provision leading to the higher interest rates which have been in force during the past few years; unless we do so the agriculture industry will continue to be locked in the situation which it has known for far too long.

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
The minister made a case for not changing the interest rate structure in connection with the operations of the Farm Credit Corporation. He was bragging about the way in which interest rates had declined from 8 J per cent to 7 per cent in the last few months. Big deal, is all I can say. He says that if interest rates were kept below the going market rate the result would be an upward pressure on land prices, a situation which would bring no net benefit to farmers. There is some truth in what the minister says in this regard when one considers the corporation as, largely, a land buying agency. But it seems to me we should look at the situation from an entirely new point of view. An effort should be made to ensure that farmers are able to obtain lower interest rates than in recent years and that this be arranged in such a way as to make an effective contribution to the carrying on of good farming.
As to the bill before us, I am not sure what good it will do. It certainly does not display the type of imagination, the type of initiative which is needed if we are to find a way out of the present agricultural crisis. I hope the government will take a fresh look at the entire question in an effort to reach a solution different from that which we have seen up to the present time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the previous speaker's remarks about Bill C-5, entitled "An Act to amend the Farm Credit Act", and designed to assist farmers, which enables the Corporation to grant loans up to $100,000.
Mr. Speaker, during the last two weeks, I happened to visit some strictly rural communities and regions in western Canada, particularly in Alberta, SAskatchewan and Manitoba. Now, I do not think that Bill C-5 will be of any assistance to them. Actually, many western farmers are at grips with terrible financial problems; they cannot even pay, at this stage, the interest on loans obtained 10 years and sometimes 15 years ago; some farmers are now urging this government to take steps, and resort to the legislation called the "moratorium", to prevent the seizure of their land'. Being unable tp pay the interests, they certainly cannot think of writing off their capital.
Here is what is said in an explanatory note of the bill, about clause 16:
-This amendment would provide that loans may be made under the Act only to individuals who are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. It would also provide that loans may be made to farming corporations only if they are controlled by shareholders who are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants and to cooperative farm associations only if their members are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, the problem facing western Canada is not so much the repayment of loans, but rather the sale of a production that has been piling up for quite a few years. I saw over there grain producers who were still stuck with their crop of four or five years ago. Now, at that time, they were forced to borrow on their inventories in order to have some liquid assets that would enable them to keep on tossing about in this system that I would term a criminal one for farmers.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, presently, farmers cannot even pay the interest on their loans. At Medicine Hat, in northern Alberta, in the centre of the province, as well as in the areas surrounding Regina, Gravelbourg or Humboldt, they are deep into debt, at inconceivable interest rates. How can farmers be expected to pay an interest of 7, 8 or 9 per cent on loans, when they cannot even sell their products? It is not the government which pays the interest, it is the farmer. And today, several among them are scared to death of losing their farms.
Furthermore, young farmers are not at all interested in taking over from their parents on the farms. These young western farmers are rushing to the cities in order to find employment, whereas if an adequate agricultural system enabled them to earn a living, they would be eager to take over.
And the same problem arises in the East, as my colleague for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) was saying.
Mr. Speaker, in order to expand, farmers have to borrow money, but these loans should not be granted at excessive interest rates, as they are now. Let farm loans be granted at rates of 21 or 3 per cent at the most, and then, I think that farmers' sons will be interested in carrying on the work started by their parents and will be more concerned with farming. This is merely a suggestion.
One of my hon. friends has said in this House that when it comes to grants, there is a tendency to favour large industries. More grants should be made to agriculture which, to me, forms the basis of the whole economic structure of Canada as well as of any other country. And I notice that the sector of Canadian society which we protect and help the least, although it has to put up with the greatest number of working hours weekly, monthly and yearly, is the agricultural sector. It is the farmers and the sons of farmers who have to work continuously. Quite often some of these people toil from 4.30 or 5 in the morning till 9 or 10 at night. Moreover, some farmers nowadays do not even earn 10 cents an hour even in eastern Canada or in Quebec.
They do not enjoy the right to strike and everybody knows, for instance, that cows do not go on strike Sunday morning or evening. The farmer is therefore compelled to work, to milk his cows in order to deliver his milk on the market the foilwing Monday morning and continue to earn an income.
However, we do not take into account the situation of farmers. People often laugh at them or blame them by saying, for instance, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did a year and a half or two ago when he spoke thus to western wheat producers: "So you have wheat for sale? Get out then and sell it!" That was, then, the agricultural policy of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, we are not here to give that kind of answers. When a government sets up a table, progressive and acceptable agricultural policy, farmers feel at ease and at home. But today, they do not feel at home, but at the finance companies the whole year round and they are being exploited to the point where their lands can be lost or seized as presently happens in western Canada and often in eastern Canada.
[Mr. Burton.J
May 9, 1972

Mr. Speaker, it is stipulated here that a farmer can borrow as much as $100,000 provided he proves that he needs that amount. But if he borrows $100,000, he will have to pay 7, 8 or 9 per cent interest. I say 7 per cent, but that is seldom the case. It is always a bit more because of administration costs. A bit more than 7 per cent is always charged.


An hon. Member:: Seven and three-quarters!


David Réal Caouette: And soon it will be 8} per cent.
How can a farmer expect to pay 7, 8, 8} or 8 j per cent interest when that does not even represent his profits on his farming operation?
As I said earlier, some Saskatchewan farmers still have the wheat they produced four years ago-yes, four years ago-and the government says that we are selling wheat to China, Russia and advises the farmers to go and sell their wheat.
If, instead of travelling throughout the world to see how things are going in other countries, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) or the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) were truly looking for clients surely they would find several countries which need Canadian wheat.
A few weeks ago, I was in Cameroun with other members of a Canadian parliamentary delegation at the Yaounde interparliamentary convention and noticed rather skinny young Negroes who surely were prepared to buy Canadian wheat.
Other countries, for instance India, need wheat. I am convinced that if we had the required machinery our ministers could sell our surplus wheat and help our farmers who cannot sell their crops.
Bill C-5 authorizes the corporation to grant additional loans. If someone already owes $15,000, $25,000 or $30,000 he will be granted a new loan so as to sink even deeper into debt and this new loan will include the amount already outstanding. Perhaps the former loan was granted at a rate of 4, 4 J or 5 per cent but under the new act the farmer will be able to borrow to pay his arrears at a rate of 7, 7 i, 8 or 8 k per cent.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members or the people may think that this bill will assist the farmer. It is not going to help him, but to hurt him further. This reminds me of a certain finance company-this government is the agent of finance companies-when it advertises on the radio or television: If you owe money to the Household Finance Company, to the Beneficial Finance Company, to the Niagara Finance Company and to the Western Finance Company, "bundle up" all your bills and come to the Avco Finance Company, which will grant you a loan covering all your debts and you will have only one payment to make. The guy hurries up, "bundles up" all his debts-amounting to $2,000 or $3,000-and to have only one payment to make, he goes to the new Avco Finance Company-that which advertises every week on television-to raise a loan in order to pay off all the other companies. Once he gets out of this finance company's office, instead of owing $2,100, he owes $2,700. He will then owe $600 more but will have
Farm Credit Act
one payment to make instead of four or five. He will be told: Old chap, we got you out of the hole. But in fact they got him deeper in it and this is exactly what is being done with farmers under Bill C-5. They are urged to incur additional debts so they will be able to go into farming.
Mr. Speaker, within five or ten years a great many farmers will have lost their lands. Some rich western farmers-in Gravelbourg, Ponteix, Humboldt or Prince Albert, it matters little, I went there-were owners of their farm and operating it. Today, after 15 or 20 years of hard work, those people no longer own their farms. They live in the fear of their farms being seized because of interest past due, and the government maintains that system.
Canadian agriculture is being put to death. And I repeat that agriculture is still the cornerstone of the whole Canadian economic structure, even though some may laugh.
If it were not for the farmers, some people with bowler hats and dressy suits in the Montreal offices would dry up in no time. The farmer is needed, but few understand that. It is said that farmers work hard. They get up at five in the morning to milk their cows, while others get up at ten o'clock to "milk" the farmers, especially the financiers.
I see my Liberal friends smiling: they know what I mean.


An hon. Member:: The ten o'clock boys!


David Réal Caouette: The ten o'clock boys!
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to say more on Bill C-5, but I want to put on the record the opinion of the group that I represent in this House, namely, Social Credit party members. I am sure that in all rural constituencies throughout Canada, farmers expect improvements rather than bills that hurt them further with debts at ever increasing interest rates.
I suggest that the government introduce a stable overall agricultural policy for the whole of Canada instead of a policy which is liable to sow discord between farmers of Western and Eastern Canada. Western farmers say, We have not enough because the government gives too much to the East. And in the East, farmers say, We do not get enough because the government gives too much to the West. And yet, there are enough resources in Canada for the whole population.
The problem that arises in Canada today is not one of production, but rather of distribution of consumer goods. There is the real problem: And unless we grapple with it, it will remain unchanged, even with budgets such as the one that was brought down last night.
We give incentives to manufacturers and say to them: "Produce more," even though we cannot sell what we produce now. We say to the farmers: "Produce more, buy combines, new trucks, tractors, farm machinery and produce." But we can't even consume what is being produced, simply because the consumers have no purchasing power.
Mr. Speaker, we have too much wheat in the Western provinces, too much milk in Quebec, too much corn in Ontario, too many mines, too many forest products in British Columbia, too much fish in the Maritime prov-

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
inces, in short we have too much of everything. Have you ever heard that a worm dies in an apple because the apple is too big? It is exactly the point we have reached right now.
Within the next few weeks, when 600,000, 700,000 or 800,000 unemployed students will be asking for integration into our society and a summer job, there will be nothing we can do for them. Because we have too much of everything, are we going to let people live in misery? Mr. Speaker, this is not the solution. It is our barbarian financial system which aggravates the problem through class struggles.
Therefore, we say: Let's give through the Bank of Canada. For some people on the government side this seems to be a laughing matter. Nevertheless, the Bank of Canada should be instrumental in giving to the people of Canada the purchasing power which will enable them to buy the products existing in Canada. We shall then be witnessing unity in Canada and mutual respect among the provinces. The people will be satisfied because the government shows results which they expect through its administration.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with keen interest to the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) speaking in the characteristic breezy manner which he always uses to take us, with his acknowledged eloquence, on a tour of farming from East to West. Unfortunately, he is speaking of farming as it existed in the Ford car era of 1929, of non-profitable farming at the subsistence level.
What surprises me more is the hon. member's claims, referring to certain regions of Canada, that federal government policies are always beneficial to the Western provinces and that no heed is given to a policy seeking to assist Eastern producers. It would however seem that there has been preaching going on recently in some areas of the country, with no consideration given to the fact that the media can inform us of a speech made in one region of the country and another elsewhere by the same speaker, who did not expound the same philosophy throughout Canada.
However I should not like to restrict myself to what I consider to be a very negative approach, preferring a positive approach to Bill C-5 entitled "An Act to Amend the Farm Credit Act."
A study of the whole scope and philosophy of the bill reveals that the government is seeking to place farming in the proper modern context. The general purpose of the amendments is to increase the ability of the Farm Credit Corporation to meet the requirements of producers who seek long term credit, and to give them an opportunity to live decently on their land. In my view, those are both very worthwhile objectives, comparing the amounts of loans now available to those obtained formerly when the ceiling was $40,000 under Part II and $50,000 under Part III. These ceilings were set in 1964.
For corporate farmers, the ceiling was $80,000 for two joint owners and $100,000 for more than two, under Part
II,	and $100,000 for a syndicate, for instance, under Part

I went recently in an area of vegetable production, around Sainte-Clothilde, and I see here my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith) who was telling me about it at noon today. These vegetable farmers want this act to be passed as soon as possible, so that they can build cold stores into which they could preserve their vegetables and put them on the market at a time when there would not be a surplus, thus getting better prices for their products.
In my mind, this act tends to favour farmers who are actually specialized, and not certain people who farm in order to produce all sorts of things.
I should like to reconsider a little the four phases of today's agriculture: In the 18th century, 80 per cent of Canadians lived off agriculture, which was called subsistence agriculture, and I think that no farmer wishes to go back to that type of farming.
At the end of the nineteenth century, we had a farm population of 75 per cent and an urban one of 25 per cent. Then, the economy was moving towards industrialization and agriculture towards commercialization. And this latter trend continued.
In the twentieth century, for example, we saw a radical change in population distribution when only 20 per cent of the population was agricultural and 80 per cent in the industrial or urban sector.
In 1970, we had an industrialized economy and agriculture. I feel that through amending the Farm Credit Act, favouring access to greater credits and helping the young to make of farming a profession, we will greatly help our agricultural industry.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to some of the previous speakers still discussing family farms, and I suggest that it is very difficult to know where the family farm ends and the industrial farm begins, and that for many reasons, especially emotional ones.
In Canada the family farm is characterized by the use of the labour and capital provided by members of the family. At that time, it was the members of the family who tried with more or less success to produce some income. With the rise in the living standard, the labour of men and women is reduced and is replaced by capital. Even if in some parts of Canada the family farm is still a pretty vital operation, it can be said that in many regions the family farm faces great economic problems.
Efficiency in agriculture as in any other segment of industry requires capital. But the transfer of farms from one generation to the next has prevented young farmers from taking immediate possession of farms which were productive on a wider basis. And when the transfer was possible, young farmers had to work for other people for a salary during many years and postponed as long as possible the investments that were not available to them under the old legislation.
I think that the changes that have been brought are really very desirable because the old legislation did not provide for loans to young people under 21, whereas this legislation will enable the Corporation to grant loans to farmers under 21. This provision meets representations from provincial legislatures.

May 9, 1972

Farm Credit Act
I listened attentively to the interesting remarks the hon. member for Temiscamingue made a moment ago. Even granting loans at 2 or 3 per cent interest would not have solved the problem.
First of all, I should like him to tell us from what source we should have obtained these funds. The problem is much more serious than that. I think that even if funds with interest rates in line with those he quoted a moment ago had been available, and if the producers had sold their goods at a loss, for instance, milk at $3 per hundred weight as it has happened before or-as someone said earlier-broilers at 10c. a pound, the producers cannot make a profit, no matter the availability of capital on the borrowing market, because attractive interest rates will not solve the problem. Farmers could have been put in a position where they could never pull through and it might have resulted in their further downgrading. Instead, the government developed an agricultural policy which, at a national level, takes consumer power into account.
Endeavours are being made to organize production so that farmers are able to obtain reasonable prices for the time they have been spending to grow their products. What has the present government put forward in order to ensure normal profits for Canadian farmers, so that as experts, they are treated as fairly as possible? I am sure there is still much to be done, but considering the steps already taken by the government, I think they have a promising future.
I will now deal with the Canadian grain policy. The hon. member pointed out a while ago that there was too much grain in western Canada, too much milk in eastern Canada, in short too much of everything. It is easy to say that there is too much of everything. But it would be better to put some order at the production level so that it will be geared to consumer and export markets.
Through a regulated grain and dairy production policy, grain as well as milk producers now receive good prices for their products. If those two products had been left as they were, if more investments had been encouraged through a 2 or 3 per cent rate of interest, real stagnation would have followed. Instead of making such a popular decision, we adopted a sound administrative line and asked producers to follow some regulations.
What about the results? Whenever one meets producers and asks them about it, one can see that they think the Liberal government is to be commended for such regulations which, as I pointed out, generated much more attractive prices and much more interesting incomes for producers.
As regards other production fields, we brought forward recently another agressive economic policy: the esta-blishement of national marketing boards. Those national marketing boards for farm products will be another instrument enabling farmers to get a decent price for their marketing products. The implementation of that legislation will start with farm products and eggs.
All that, Mr. Speaker, to say how proud I am of the changes made in this legislation on farm credit. The importance given to the maximum amounts young people may borrow is certainly a worthwhile improvement.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to keep the floor any longer, but I think that when allowing credit for production we should also give advice to the producers. It is risky to extend credit without some accompanying advice.
In order to show to what extent we are aware of the importance of the agricultural sector, we shall set a policy consolidating those small farms which prove unprofitable because unit costs are too high, the size of the land does not warrant farm machinery expenses, or increasing production to 200,000 pounds of milk is not viable.
For various considerations such as for instance, the father's age or the transfer of the land to the son, we are promoting a policy aimed at consolidating unprofitable small farms into much more profitable units.
Mr. Speaker, all these changes show to what extent this government is aware of the prevailing farming revolution due to the transformations farming is being subjected to by technological advance, enlarged knowledge, higher agricultural yields and higher per unit animal yield, which contribute to a higher production, regardless of consumption capacity. We are very much aware of this revolution, I believe, and we are endeavouring, with the mechanisms I have referred to, to tidy up things at the production level.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat strange that we should be considering increases to the Farm Credit Act at a time when foreclosures are predominant throughout many parts of the country. There are many pending cases of foreclosure and, as a matter of fact, I believe that the cases of pending foreclosures are at an all time high. In my own province of Alberta, where there are some 25 per cent of farm credit loans in arrears, where some 17 foreclosures have been made in the past year, 1971/72, and 102 foreclosures are pending, one must ask whether this legislation will be of any assistance to those farmers who are experiencing this type of difficulty.
I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of May 2 entitled "Farmers Feel Pinch of Easy Credit". The article was written in the northern part of the province, in Manning, Alberta. It reads as follows:
Easy credit has become more of a curse than a blessing to many farmers in this region.
The harsh realities of accumulative interest and a depressed agricultural economy have ruined some farmers and even the best are feeling the pinch to some degree.
Foreclosure actions appear on the increase in the North Peace, prompting strong objections from the National Farmers' Union, which is seeking a two year moratorium on foreclosures to give farmers some breathing space.
At first glance, the government's Farm Credit Corporation appears the chief culprit, since that institution has financed the majority of farm expansions in the region and therefore is involved in proportionately more foreclosure actions.
But even those farmers who've lost land through FCC foreclosures are inclined to admit they've had more than a fair hearing from the crown corporation, most particularly when compared to some of the more conventional trust and mortgage firms.

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
I should like to reiterate the words of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) who paid tribute to the officials of the Farm Credit Corporation who have looked at the various problems of arrears and the people involved with a great deal of sympathy. I have had correspondence with the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation and many of his officials and officers who, in my opinion, have bent over backwards to try to help these individuals in every way possible. I want to convey to them the appreciation of many who have found their administration flexible enough to consider all factors.
The article goes on to point out further specific examples. It reads:
Ralph Ressler was raised on a farm in this region and in fact gave up farming during the 1950s to work in town.
And he wishes he'd stayed there, although he's in a better financial condition than many of his neighbours.
"Twelve years ago I had a good job and don't owe anybody a cent, but the government came along and said grow wheat and I listened. I borrowed $30,000 and bought some new machinery and more land and some cattle."
Right now Ralph is $4,000 in arrears, he's been threatened with foreclosure and he's certain that "without those cows I think they'd have foreclosed on me a long time ago ..."
Peter Kulyna, a 41-year old mixed farmer who's been at it since he was 18, maintains there is plenty of agricultural land available now and "It's no use opening up any more land."
Ten years ago, he says, he had eight quarters of land and "about $30,000 kicking around in cash".
Today he's about depleted his reserves and says it's a simple matter of agricultural products costing too much to produce in relation to their selling price.
That is generally the perspective offered by the agricultural economy today, particularly in the northern parts of my province and in many other areas of western Canada. The problems involve mainly an unfair return for the products produced by the farmer in relation to the cost of production, combined with inaccurate marketing information, and also some trouble in respect of fiscal management.
When considering this bill to amend the Farm Credit Act, one of the first observations that one must make is that it goes far beyond the original objectives of the Farm Credit Act. A number of the proposed amendments can be classified as improvements to meet current demands. These include such provisions as the increase in the amount of the loan, provision for increased capitalization, amendments to the minimum age requirements, and the matter of citizenship eligibility. These are generally desirable amendments. I have no objection to them. But it seems to me that this measure will be of little benefit to any of the farmers who are having difficulty at present in discharging the mortgages they hold. The main problem in agriculture today is that of net income, and not necessarily having more funds available to borrow.
In his speech to the House last week, the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) went to great lengths to point out that the agricultural situation has improved quite considerably. It may have improved in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. It may be fine there, but I must say that in western Canada we have had a reduction of roughly 50 per cent in our net realized income between the years 1966 and 1970. Here I
[Mr. Mazankowski.)
am referring to the statistics of net farm income for 1970, provided by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. We had roughly $1 billion worth of realized net income in 1966. That dropped to roughly $494 million in 1970, a reduction of more than 50 per cent.
When the Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation appeared before the standing committee the other day, he disclosed the amount of arrears which farmers had incurred on their loans. In western Canada those arrears are roughly $15 million, an average of some 25 per cent of the outstanding loans. In Ontario, the arrears amount to $1.5 million, or 7.7 per cent of the outstanding loans. In Quebec the arrears are $446,000, or 4.7 per cent of the outstanding loans. So, while these problems are present generally across the country, the position of the agricultural industry in western Canada has been reduced more than the position of the industry in central Canada.
Clause 1 of this bill reads:
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.
It seems to me that this clause delegates power and authority to the Farm Credit Corporation to reshape the economic and social structure of the production sector of agriculture. These powers are very broad. They may be assigned to the directors by the Governor in Council or by an act of parliament. This is my first objection to the bill. If we are going to assign carte blanche authority to a Crown agency to administer agricultural programs and thus reshape the concept of the agricultural industry, as parliamentarians we should have a right to know what their programs are all about, and we should have a right to debate them. Above all, parliament and the farmers of Canada should know what these programs entail.
I am against any program being assigned to the Farm Credit Corporation or, for that matter, any other federal agency, by order in council, and when we reach committee stage I believe an amendment must be introduced to withdraw that power of assigning such a function to the corporation by order in council. The details of the immediate program intended to be administered through this clause of the bill are very sketchy. They are ambiguous, and in many cases controversial. We really do not have a bill before us dealing with the provisions of the so-called small farm development program. Without knowing the details, and the intentions of the government, we are not in a position to debate this part of the bill in an intelligent way.
I believe that the motives behind this program form part of a plot to cure the problems of agriculture by encouraging the removal of vast numbers of people from the agricultural industry. It is, if you like, a form of occupational genocide. There can be no doubt the ultimate objective is to carry out the plan of the ivory-towered bureaucrats and academics through a process of rationalization and adjustment in the family farm enterprise. From what we are led to believe after considering the small farm adjustments program, from the various policies that have been introduced by the government, and indeed from the task force report on agriculture, farming is no longer considered to be a way of life but
May 9, 1972

rather a hard-nosed business operation, notwithstanding the vagaries of the weather, the international market place or the policies of competitive countries.
We are moving into an era when the federal government wants to opt out of the program of assisting the industry. Subsidy is now a bad word in agriculture. It is all right for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is all right for the Department of Manpower and Immigration. It is all right for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. But, I repeat, when it comes to agriculture it is a bad word, and the government is firmly committed to withdrawing any respectable assistance to agriculture.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking to the Cooperative Federee du Quebec on February 2, 1972, said of agriculture:
Like any other industrial sector it has to operate and will have to operate without subsidies, without outside aid, as a mature organism that has developed to its full potential.
It is less and less acceptable that the consumer should have to bear the cost of deficiencies which the farmer himself suffers-
I merely want to draw attention to the fact that the productivity index in the agricultural sector has increased from 100 in 1961 to 166.7 in 1971, as compared with 121.4 in the non-agricultural sector. That is efficiency, Mr. Speaker, but while achieving this efficiency we have had a reduction in the net realized income of the farmer.
The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said something similar in an article which appeared in the Star Weekly on December 22, 1971, headed "Our Antifarm Policy." I quote from it as follows:	,
Eight years ago Otto Lang was offering the first hints about what was to become the federal government's policy to kill Canada's smaller family farms.
Lang is now the federal minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, but then he was a law professor speaking to agriculture graduates at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon.
"The family farm is not entitled to subsidy," he said. "Should those living on farms be subsidized by non-farmers to bring their economic level to that of non-farmers? Clearly not. The farmers are receiving non-economic benefits to make up the difference."
The benefits, he suggested, include 'independence, fresh air, quiet and privacy and the intimacy of neighborliness where you know all of your neighbors well.'
Lately, neither Otto nor Ottawa has been talking about all those benefits. But the federal government has been bluntly informing family farmers that they can't expect to be subsidized much longer. The big farm is more economical to run. ...
Federal Minister of Agriculture H. A. Olson said not long ago, in the stilted language of the bureaucrat: 'We want to give farmers who are close to retirement age the opportunity to use their assets to put together a satisfactory retirement package. We also want to give other farmers the opportunity to withdraw from agriculture with a certain amount of dignity and security if they choose to do so. However, the choice will certainly be left to the farmer.'
What that statement really means is that the low-income family farmer has become an economic anachronism in Canada. And Ottawa will no longer prop him up with subsidies which can only be justified on sentimental grounds.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The government's proposals for a production and grain receipts policy for the Western
Farm Credit Act
Grains Industry, of October, 1970, reaffirm the government's objectives to integrate smaller farm units and produce units of a more efficient size. While considering the question of size, Mr. Speaker, let us, for a moment, look at what Judge James Ross said. He conducted an inquiry into the egg industry in Ontario. One newspaper carries this report. Speaking of Judge Ross it says:
Repeatedly he insists that the family-type farm, employing one to three full-time men, must be buttressed. Not because it is a socially desirable business unit, which it is, but because it happens to be the most efficient production unit.
With lucidity he explodes the myths about bigness and 'economy of size' which are believed and preached by a number of naive university professors. Like the authors of the Farm Income Report, he was unable to find one example of a corporate unit giving a better return to capital, management and labor than a family-run enterprise. In fact returns usually are lower.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We know that the task force report in part recommends that subsidies and price supports to agriculture should be phased out, and that we must emphasize efficiency and rationalization. The approach of this government and the approacch of bureaucrats is that there must be more bigness, so to speak, in farming. For instance, more money is to be available for farm loans. This money is not necessarily to help the new fellow in agriculture get started; instead, it is for those who are already fairly well established and want to grow larger. How much bigger must farms become before they reach that so-called viable size that the government and its economic advisers talk about? That question is hard to answer, particularly in view of recent findings. I note that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is not here. I think the parliamentary secretary may be familiar with the comments in the CFA presentation made before the Prime Minister and members of parliament. Page 5 of the CFA presentation reads in part:
It is becoming clearer to all that agricultural subsidies must often be provided as necessary, legitimate features of overall policies and programs in support of the industry-
Farmers have no quarrel with this so long as rationalization does not turn out to be another word for abandoning necessary social and economic goals for our rural economy, and so long as it is understood that the transition may well prove to be an extended one in today's fast-changing and unpredictable world.
May I read one more paragraph from page 6 of the presentation, as follows:
The reality and the challenge facing Canadian agriculture today is that, a well defined, well understood intermediate to long-term policy and program must be developed for every commodity sector and in every vital area of agricultural policy.
By well understood we mean well understood by the farmers themselves, and basically accepted by them. This in turn must mean that the necessary programs and policies are developed and carried out with producer involvement all along the line.
That, Mr. Speaker, has not been happening; that approach is not evident in this bill. Once more, in this bill, we are seeing the government implement some of the recommendations of the Task Force on Agriculture. As we know, that report has become the bible on which Liberal agricultural policy rests. Notwithstanding arguments to the contrary, there is sufficient evidence to show that many of the programs the government has introduced in this House emanated directly from the report of
2098

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
the Task Force on Agriculture. I am referring to programs such as Operation Lift, the grain stabilization bill, and Bill C-176 of the previous session, which introduced national marketing. Now, a so-called small farms adjustment program is being introduced.
May I point out once again, and this must be considered, that not one farmer served on the Task Force on Agriculture. Its report is the work of academics who, in all likelihood, had little or no practical experience in the art of farming. Our problems have arisen because so-called arm-chair experts have used theory and economic ideas in their attempt to cure the ills of agriculture. In addition, this government has displayed little imagination in its policies with respect to agriculture, and has shown little devotion to the people engaged in agriculture or to their welfare. Governing in an authoritarian, highly paternalistic way, the government is not so much dedicated to curing the ills of agriculture as to removing vast numbers of people from that industry.
Broadening the Farm Credit Act for the immediate future will simply mean the administration of the small farm development program. Probably, we should more appropriately refer to the program as the small farms adjustment program. I know it is to be called the small farms development plan, simply because development has more political appeal than adjustment. Really, however, the guts of the proposal are the same as before. You cannot change the guts of the program merely by changing the title of the bill. So far as I am concerned, this bill spells adjustment and consolidation, and the program is based on the March 8 policy paper, which contains a general, broad outline on which the federal government has been unable to reach a consensus with the provinces. It is a policy with respect to which we, the members of parliament, have been unable to elicit concrete information. We do not know the extent of the program. We have been highly unsuccessful in our efforts at seeing the matter clarified. The minister failed to enlighten the committee. The people representing the Farm Credit Corporation could not, because many of the questions concerned policy, enlighten us to any great degree with regard to the program. There are many unknowns about the government's small farm development program. I think the government is adopting a hit-and-miss, trial-by-error approach, which is tarnished with political bait. If one examines pages 7 and 8 of Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, No. 2, one will see the definition of a small farm. Apparently, that definition will vary according to the number of applications which are received. One does not know exactly what definition will be used.
If one examines carefully the report of the Farm Credit Corporation, one will see that the majority of so-called small farmers reside in Quebec and in the Maritimes. How are the funds to be allocated? How are the amounts to be divided? We have not been able to get answers. We are aware of one thing only, Mr. Speaker: that the government's underlying motive is to encourage the people to leave the land. They want to remove vast numbers of people from agriculture. This policy will have a further devastating impact on our rural communities. How the program in question is to be carried out we do not know exactly. We only know that the provinces have not been

able to agree on it. Farm organizations do not necessarily agree. The people of my constituency do not agree.
In February, 1971, I sent out a questionnaire which asked simply: "Are you in favour of consolidating farms into larger units?" Ten per cent said yes, 82 per cent said no and 8 per cent were undecided. A news report in the Edmonton Journal has this to say about Mr. A. M. Runci-man, a most knowledgeable and respected man in the grains industry:
A. M. Runciman of Winnipeg, United Grain Growers president, says a global approach seems to be the only way 'we can get some answers to the universal conundrum of low incomes for the majority of farmers-
Mr. Ruciman defined the federal program in 1970 which paid farmers to take land out of wheat production as 'infamous' and said the announcement of the small farm development program this week was another step in the wrong direction.
I am quoting from the December 9 edition of the Edmonton Journal.
Mr. Runciman is concerned with other farm spokesmen about the new federal development program which, "regardless of the fine words ... aims to reduce the number of farmers in this country."
Several farm spokesmen point to the report on the future of agriculture in the 1970s, made by a federally-appointed committee last year, which advocated a reduction of one-third of the 400,000 farms in Canada.
"It's hard to make sense of phasing out a Canadian farmer who can grow wheat for say $1.20 a bushel when a European farmer continues to produce even though he can't get his costs for growing wheat below $2," Mr. Runciman said.
He said nothing will be solved until Canada attempts to get agreement in principle among the various producing countries on long-term policies aimed at stabilizing production; and that the trend of Ottawa's policy will continue to hurt Canada's farmers.
I have no objection to the senior members of the agricultural industry voluntarily opting out of agriculture and retiring or, for that matter, any other group. I believe the senior people in agriculture should be allowed to retire with dignity. Through the rationalization and adjustment program for the textile industry, the federal government was able to assist those who were forced into making some social adjustments. However, I am concerned about who will be filling the void that will be created by the vast numbers who will be encouraged to leave the land as a result of this small farm development program. Will it be corporate holdings or syndicates?
Where does a young fellow with a deep desire to engage in the business of farming fit into the over-all program? What incentives are there for the young man? What encouragement and positive advice is there for him to become interested or actively engaged in the industry? This is basically what the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) sets out to do. If we are going to have a program which encourages people to leave agriculture, we must have another program to attract people into the industry. If we do not do this, our rural communities will die. Without this kind of approach, the so-called farm development program will be more accurately referred to as a "small farm extinction" program.
In its latest report, the Farm Credit Corporation stated that the number of applications by young people has
May 9, 1972

decreased very significantly. The average age of a borrower is somewhere around 35. A very small percentage are under 24 years of age, something like 2 per cent of the people. The average age of the farmer now in business is in the vicinity of 57, 58 or 59. We must do something to bolster the prospects of the young person who wants to engage in farming as a means of livelihood. Such a provision should be incorporated in this bill as our amendment suggests. If we are going to spend $150 million to get people off the land, we should allocate a similar amount to get people back on to the land. We must maintain an equitable balance between our rural and urban populations. Perhaps we should go beyond that and make an all-out effort at restoring confidence and viability in rural Canada. I suggest we should form a department of rural affairs and rural development. DREE, which to some extent is responsible for rural development, has been another devastating failure. The Department of Agriculture is not concerned with the social implications it has created through this adjustment process. I believe a department of rural development and rural affairs, whose main objective would be to promote amd maintain a healthy and viable rural Canada, is something worth considering.
The problems of agriculture in rural Canada fall into three categories; agriculture, social adjustment, which perhaps comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare, and rural development. We do not have a co-ordinating body which looks at all these problems and which can be used as a co-ordinating device. The Department of Agriculture wants to rationalize everything for the sake of developing, promoting and maintaining a competitive and efficient production system regardless of the human side effects. DREE wants to encourage growth in the so-called urban growth centre, literally forcing people to migrate from rural to urban centres in order to find employment. The Department of National Health and Welfare looks at the problem on a broad basis, but is not truly meeting the challenges of social adjustment that are taking place in rural Canada. It is merely seeking more funds and herding people into the cities against their wishes, many of whom are ending up on welfare.
Rural life is what these people want. They want to stay in the rural areas. More consideration must be given to the processing of agricultural products and the establishment of light industry in rural Canada to provide the necessary alternatives. It is inconceivable that in this country, which offers so many opportunities, a person cannot be permitted to make a decent living in rural Canada if he so desires. A department of rural development and rural affairs would co-ordinate all these aspects into a viable policy that would put the emphasis on people rather than efficiency. As I said before, rural Canada must not be allowed to die. It must be strengthened and bolstered. If we do not face up to this problem now, we will have a situation in the future which will make our contemporary problems of pollution, poverty, drugs and so on pale by comparison. There is always a social price to pay for any automated or technological change that takes place. The coal miners and textile workers have received assistance. I believe the agricultural industry must be considered similarly in the light of alternatives for the
Farm Credit Act
rural areas rather than allowing the mass exodus of rural people into the urban society.
The other point we must consider is this. We must put a damper or perhaps a moratorium on the philosophy of bigness. In my opinion, bigness and the family farm concept are not compatable. If we allow this government to continue in the direction it is going, the family farm will disappear by 1980. What is meant by a family farm? Many members have suggested that it is impossible to define. One thing the Task Force on Agriculture did was make a rather succinct definition of the family farm. I wish to quote the opinion of the authors of the task force report on agriculture with regard to the future of the family farm. I quote:
-one of the most commonly accepted definitions involves the following considerations:
(1)	The farm operator makes all or most of the managerial decisions;
(2)	The farmer and members of his family supply most of the labour needed;
(3)	The available farm resources are sufficient to provide the family with at least a minimum standard of living;
(4)	Tenure is reasonably secure for the operator and his family.
Let us look at what the task force believes the future holds for this kind of operation. This is according to the Liberal bible on agricultural policy. I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head. But he knows, as I know, and as do most members of this House, that every agriculture policy which has been brought forth by the government has emanated from this book. On page 335, we read the following:
It may become impossible eventually for the individual farmer to accumulate sufficient savings during his lifetime to develop an efficient size of business and own a debt-free farm by the time of retirement. The growing management skills, the need for greater integration between production and marketing and the ability to withstand heavy risks may not be within the capacity of the family-operated farm business by the end of the century. A corporate form of farming with hired management and equity financing through the stock market may eventually evolve out of the far-reaching changes which are certain to occur in agriculture during the next two or three decades.
Having regard to the confidence which the government has placed in this report, all I can say is this: goodbye to the family farm.
When we consider this subject, it behooves each and every one of us to draw the government's attention to the farm situation and the direction which is now being taken. The measure we are presently considering constitutes a further step toward the death of the family farm and of the rural communities. It is a step in the wrong direction. I do not believe it will strengthen the industry. I maintain, rather, that it will weaken it. The timing of this program is of considerable significance. It comes before us in a year in which there is ample evidence of a serious deterioration in the industry. Older farmers, in particular, are disgusted with the way in which agriculture has been going. The words "small farm development" admittedly offers some appeal, but again I warn hon. members that the bill spells the beginning of the end of what we have traditionally referred to as the family farm.
25316-10.'.

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
Let me remind the House that, though sales of grain have been fairly good in the past year, wheat prices have been the lowest for ten years. Prices received for oats have been the lowest in 20 years, and, for barley, the second lowest in the past ten years. In the Economic Review, to which reference has already been made in this debate, the index of farm prices which appears at page 133 shows that on the basis of an index of 100 in 1961, the farm price of agricultural products had risen to 117 in 1966. But by the end of 1971, it had dropped to 112.5. One also notes that the cost of commodities and services used in the production of agricultural products had increased by some 30 per cent in the same period. In these circumstances, farmers will naturally grasp at any program which might propose some measure of relief for them. But again, I warn them they had better read the fine print. If the program is based on the thinking of the report from which I have quoted, it spells disaster. It will set up a farm management service, a counselling service, a land transfer program and a listening service. In other words, the federal government will get into the business of buying and selling land. I submit that the task of the government now is simply that of a public relations agent trying to sell a policy successfully.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are trying to warn me that my time has expired. I have many more observations to make and I hope I shall have the opportunity of making them at a later stage.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I particularly wanted to participate in this debate on Bill C-5 designed to amend the Farm Credit Act and allow farmers to borrow more easily when they find it necessary to do so.
I represent an area where there are a great number of rather diversified producers. Having met with them fairly often, I am in a position to express their wishes on their behalf and to make their needs known to the government.
I would like to deal with this bill from a positive viewpoint. It would be easy for me to be very pessimistic as regards the farm situation. Today, however, we have to make comparisons and acknowledge that in the past four years-I say four years, as I have had the pleasure of sitting in this House for four years-efforts have been made and some progress has been achieved.
I feel that, were I to attempt to make producers believe that the situation has become satisfactory enough so that there is no need to introduce anything new and so we can just let things stand as they are, I would not be doing my duty.
Still, we must recognize that the government has solved a very difficult situation in connection with eastern producers, and that some steps have been taken which have greatly improved the situation of wheat producers in western Canada, compared with what it was three years ago.
We must also acknowledge that a recent policy of subsidies for hog producers have been greatly appreciated.
Bill C-5 provides certain advantages for today's producers. It proposes to increase the allowable amount of loans, which will be raised to $100,000, as has already been mentioned by several hon. members. As for the corpora-
(Mr. Mazankowski.]
tion staff, it was deemed that those officers would be competent enough to manage a program of land transfer or farm buying.
Also, an extra $10 million allocated for farm loans is likely to help improve the fate of those who want to continue working in that industry.
Another valuable measure consists in allowing young people of 18 years of age to get loans. I believe above all that it would be a tremendous mistake to only facilitate loans to producers.
I suggest in order to be very positive, that we must accept the recommendations or proposals put forward in Bill C-5. However, we must also consider the profits with which a farmer is left after the crops are in. If we merely provide such loans, we might, in some people's opinion, extend even more the suffering of some farmers.
In my view, such measure is a very important one. But how shall we be able to introduce other measures by which each producer will get a net realized income enabling him not only to pay back his loan and interest, but also to progress somewhat which will encourage him to remain on his land, as well as his son to take over his father's business who, at a certain age, must give it up. I think that, in this area, the government must work in cooperation with all hon. members to develop a policy which will promote a better farm product marketing.
During the last two years, we have reviewed at great length Bill C-176, which provided for the setting-up of farm products marketing agencies. For my part, I believed in this legislation and I still believe that this is the way, not only provinces, but all producers, will be able to take advantage of it. Thus, they will develop, which will enable them to pay back their loans.
Therefore, we could have producers benefit from this new legislation which, as I said before, is certainly desirable.
What every producer needs is an orderly marketing which will ensure adequate prices. No matter how many amendments are introduced with a view to making loans easier for young farmers to enable them to start in farming, we shall never be able to interest them as long as they are not guaranteed fair prices for all of their products.
In what way? Well, I believe we can, through legislation such as Bill C-176. The government must be urged to act quickly through the National Council it has appointed to acquaint the provinces with the problems they are facing in the agricultural field. Indeed, it is not always easy to call the provinces together and make them accept a fair production quota for every one. However, I do not think any meaningful progress will be possible if we cannot manage to have the provinces discuss the necessary measures with the federal government.
Five or six months ago, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he was considering the possiblity of creating a new department, a state ministry for agriculture.
Without in any way underestimating the competence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), I believe that due to the complexities, difficulties and marked differences in
May 9, 1972

the farming industry across Canada, it would have been desirable to seriously consider appointing a Minister of State responsible for eastern Agriculture. I believe the members from Ontario, the Maritimes and Quebec would appreciate such a measure.
And if some day the Minister of Agriculture happened to be from eastern Canada, I believe the western provinces would then be entitled to have a representative who would be called the Minister of State for Western Agriculture.
Of course, in the present context this would enable eastern Canada to be represented as it is entitled to have a voice in the ministers' council on account of the importance of its population and consumption. This would also give the Minister of Agriculture not only an adviser but a direct associate when the time comes for discussing estimates in the cabinet.
The idea was hailed, I believe, by the eastern producers, just as it would probably be by the western producers: once again, it is not a matter of dividing a national legislation. On the contrary. To my mind, by giving responsibilities to one more man, bearing in mind the difficulties and problems existing in the field of agriculture, two heads would be better than one. This has long since been recognized. That would be one way of improving the farming situation. Surely, the government will seriously consider setting up that type of department in the interest of both the Eastern and western farmers.
As a representative of the province of Quebec, I feel that Quebeckers experienced many difficulties last year. Indeed, pork producers and egg producers experienced serious difficulties.
I know also that potato growers have been forced to sell their last crop at ridiculous prices.
As for dairy producers, they find themselves in a rather favourable situation now compared with the previous two or three years.
As for tobacco producers, most of whom are in my region, they have now no serious ground for complaint.
I know also that a number of vegetable growers are experiencing difficulties because of the lack of well organized marketing, definitely because of the policy which has prevailed for a very long time, the law of supply and demand, according to which prices fall when crops are plentiful and increase when there is a shortage. No doubt, this does not favour the protection of the consumer.
I supported Bill C-176 because I thought that the national marketing agencies for farm products could bring about a well organized marketing, which could support adequate prices. And if, after establishing such marketing boards, it should be impossible to obtain reasonable prices, the government would have to pass some legislation designed to set a basic price, if we truly want to give the farmers the same safeguards that the workers enjoy today in many industries.
In my view, the farmer is always worried about the future, because of a lack of legislative measures and of programs offering him some protection. I know that some producers in some provinces have crop insurance. That is
Farm Credit Act
not good enough, whatever one may say. The Canadian farmer is entitled to safeguards, as the worker is entitled to the safeguards provided by the unions, which enable him to breathe freely and to sleep fairly well. The same cannot be said of the farmers, even today, and yet that industry has been around for a long time both in Canada and throughout the world.
I am confident that with goodwill and positive comments, we shall succeed in making the government aware of the problem so that it will introduce increasingly better pieces of legislation for the sole purpose of granting to each producer, who has the right to dream, adequate safeguards which he may enjoy as much as the worker.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to show the government the difficulties met for instance by landless producers.
We are quite aware that the feed grain policy was discussed in one part of the country but that it can also be accepted in another. One thing for sure, however, producers throughout Canada certainly have the right to get feed grain at the same rate. And upon such consideration I invite the government, for the tenth time maybe, to seriously consider legislation along that line. This is not easy, I admit.
I had the opportunity of listening to many comments made within the Committee on Agriculture where there is good will and good faith. But must we think that because it is difficult the problem should not be dealt with? And should we accept that producers in some areas of this country be definitely forced to pay more for feed grains in order to turn out the same product?
I venture to believe that in all fairness it is the government's responsibility to introduce as promptly as possible legislation allowing all landless producers-I refer to producers of eggs and fowl, who have had and are still experiencing problems-as well as hog producers to buy feed grains at equal prices. This would allow them to compete on an equal basis with producers in other regions and the legislation could really be called fair. I hope the government will give this particular consideration.
I make this representation, knowing that the Quebec Millers Association has submitted briefs and that hon. members from the east of the country are most anxious to have these changes brought about, in view of the situation of producers in their area. Hon. members from the west are well acquainted with the matter I am now dealing with and certainly hon. members from the east always unhesitatingly supported grants to western regions when they were in trouble. We know this cost the federal government millions of dollars. However, these people needed help and I believe hon. members were quite justified in voting for grants in their behalf.
Quebec benefited by some advantages regarding the Canadian Dairy Commission. For instance, that province received grants of $50 million from the Canadian Dairy Commission. The province of Quebec also receives $10 million for the transportation of feed grains to Quebec.
I give these figures because I must be honest enough to disagree when some people say that the Quebec minister of agriculture has done nothing. I think these remarks

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
have been repeated in the House and as Quebecers we must show more objectivity.
I am one of those who have relentlessly defended Quebec's interests in this House but I am willing to recognize what the federal government has done for the province of Quebec.
In the field of agriculture, I think that the federal government has offered serious co-operation. And when the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) blamed the Quebec minister of agriculture for saying that the federal presence carries much weight in Quebec, I wonder how right Mr. Toupin was. And I am tempted to concur with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean who is very familiar with the role fulfilled by the federal government in agriculture.
As a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I have had the opportunity of meeting the Quebec agriculture minister. We were able to ask him a few questions-short ones, because he was very busy. On the other hand the Ontario Minister of Agriculture granted us two days, which was very much appreciated.
As for the statements of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, I am not endorsing them, far from it. In my opinion, the members of the Committee on Agriculture did a very good job defending the agriculture policy in connection with Quebec.
Of course, as many others, I deplored the $10 million reduction of the grants to the dairy industry made two or three years ago. But upon analysis, we must admit that generally speaking the dairy producers are really in a better position than three years ago and I must therefore admit that, even if this measure was wrong, it was probably necessary as proven by results which we must accept objectively. The farm consolidation program deserves the attention of all hon. members. I have had the opportunity of asking the minister whether he will maintain his national policy; he replied that he was decided to consider the problems and the wishes of the provinces. This reply is most interesting and demonstrates that the minister is prepared to respect the wishes of the provinces as to the consolidation of small farms.
Surely we must support the conservation of the family farms and also admit that a certain number of acres is absolutely necessary for a man to make a living. But we must accept the elimination of a number of producers and farmers.
To let people believe that with 10, 15 or 25 acres they can still make a living is to have the producers dreaming while we are perfectly aware that with the current changes it is impossible to live on a limited acreage as farmers did 30 or 40 years ago.
But between really going in for industrial agriculture and choosing appropriate standards for a man to live on a well-organized family farm, I think it is the government's responsibility to offer those farmers all the necessary means to keep their family farms, in order that their children may continue the operations which supported their parents. Even as a result of serious changes and with the facilities available under Bill C-5, it would be unfortunate to believe that a loan or farm credit policy alone is the ultimate answer.
(Mr. La Salle.)
It is a fact that credit is needed. Everybody knows that. However, what is actually needed is a policy which would guarantee adequate basic prices so that farmers may make a profit. This profit could serve as an incentive for their children to remain on the land and work it after their parents have departed. This is the only way to improve agriculture, to encourage young Canadian farmers to follow in their fathers' footsteps.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, it being five o'clock, I hope that this bill will bring about the results expected, and that this government will continue to propose policies likely to improve the lot of producers in all parts of Canada.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Manpower-Local initiatives program-Funds allocated, amounts spent, applications received, by provinces; the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell)-Fisheries-Atlantic Salmon Fishery Closure-Reason for omission of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Quebec rivers; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Transport-Proposed linking of Kootenay and Elk railway to U.S. line-Request for action to prevent movement of coal to U.S. ports.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills and notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: that Bill C-17, to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (seat belts), be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act in such a way as to add to public safety on our streets, roads and highways in Canada by including the proposed change which would require in the case of all commercial vehicles, notably trucks and buses, that the equipment, safety restraint seat belts, be mandatory and further that the use of such seat
May 9, 1972

belts by the operators of these commercial vehicles also be mandatory. This legislation is already in effect in the United States on interstate and foreign-operated commercial vehicles. It is already beginning to save lives in that country.
In this country 5,000 Canadians are killed each year on our roads, streets or highways as a result of motor vehicle accidents. No less than 190,000 people are wounded every 12 months on those same streets, roads or highways and the economic toll taken by reason of accidents in Canada is estimated at approximately one billion dollars every 12 months. To give a broader perspective of the significance of the statistics I have quoted, let us extend that thought about the casualties to a four-year period. A four-year period is one which most members of this House are well aware of, as well as many people in the country, because it is approximately four years since the present government took office. I do not want to hold the present government in any way responsible for the slaughter on the highways, but let us consider the toll which has taken place on the streets, roads and highways in Canada in the last four years. In that four-year period 20,000 Canadians would be killed, 760,000 people would be injured on our roads, streets or highways and the economic loss would be in the order of more than $4 billion.
The toll in respect of motor vehicle accidents can be said to be representative of the world's worst war. In my view it demands a great deal more attention than we have given it. This is not a political issue. I know members on both sides of the House and in all the legislatures across the country agree that the damage, loss of life and the economic loss involved day by day in our country is a very great threat to Canada. So, when I say we must take action to attempt to curtail the loss I am not making any particular political expression. Although I do not think this is a matter in which we can bring about a truce or armistice let alone a peace, I think it deserves all our attention.
The three main features in motor vehicle accidents concern the driver, the vehicle and the road or driving conditions. My proposal has to do with two of these elements. In the United States, commercial vehicle accidents involving the vehicles covered by my bill claim 10,000 lives a year with 124,000 persons disabled. In our terms, if we take the usual one-tenth standard with regard to the difference in population between the United States and Canada, this would mean that approximately 1,000 Canadians are killed every year and approximately 12,000 are injured in bus or truck accidents. Toward reducing the loss, the United States department of transport, federal highways administration, in 1970 introduced new regulations providing that seat belts for the drivers of buses and the drivers and co-drivers of trucks and truck tractors must be installed in all motor vehicles used in interstate or foreign commerce which are built on or after July 1, 1971. Older vehicles, manufactured after January 1, 1965 must be retrofitted with seat belts by July 1, 1972. In the news release which was issued in respect of this new regulation it was stated that a landmark provision of the new regulations is the requirement that a motor vehicle which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself with the seat belt assembly.
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
This is exactly in line with what the bill I have brought forward tonight seeks to achieve in Canada; that is, the mandatory equipping and use of safety restraint seat belts in commercial vehicles. I think it is clear to anyone who has considered the situation that the drivers of commercial vehicles, notably buses or trucks, have many lives other than their own in their hands when they are driving these vehicles on the highways. I believe it is obvious that if an accident occurs or a crash takes place and the driver of the commercial vehicle, a bus or a truck, is not wearing a seat belt and is hurled forward or into the roof of the vehicle or ejected from the vehicle, that vehicle would be out of control and would very likely be involved in the destruction of property or possible loss of the lives of people in other vehicles. It has been estimated that the use of proper seat belts in trucks or private cars has cut the rate of fatal accidents by 40 per cent. In this small bill, I am introducing I am simply seeking to make a change in the safety provisions in respect of motor vehicles which I believe is necessary and quite simple to bring about.
We have in our hands in this place this evening the power to save lives, if not by passing the bill, at least sending it to the proper committee for detailed study. This is a proposal to make mandatory the use of seat belts in commercial vehicles. I urge that my colleagues will give this motor vehicle proposal their approval so that it might be considered in committee and improved on if necessary.


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? I have listened to the hon. member's remarks. He indicated the purpose of the bill is to require the mandatory installation of seat belts and also their mandatory use. Does the hon. member not concede that there might be a constitutional problem in a federal requirement concerning the use of seat belts?


Barry Mather: If that should be so, and I do not know offhand whether it is, I believe this would be another reason for allowing the subject matter to go to the committee for detailed study.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) would like to amend paragraph (b) subsection (1) section 4 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act by adding the following words:
(b)-including equipping motor vehicles with safety belts for mandatory use by operators-
The amendment proposed by the hon. member though commendable lies beyond federal jurisdiction. It would rather be the responsibility of the provincial governments following agreement between them and the federal government.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, responsibility for the federal government's role and leadership in the field of road and motor vehicle traffic was assigned to the Department of Transport in 1967, following an extensive inquiry into this national problem by one of the parliamentary committees. Preliminary discussions were successfully concluded

May 9, 1972
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) met with the ten provincial ministers responsible for motor vehicle administration in Quebec city in early 1969. At that conference, the provincial ministers welcomed the suggestion of an expanded role for the federal government in certain fields related to traffic safety, and specifically in the field of traffic safety research, in facilitating international cooperation in the field of safety research, and in developing safety standards for motor vehicles and parts at the point of manufacture.
Consultations between the federal and provincial governments continued, and in September 1969 the Minister of Transport again met with the provincial ministers responsible for motor vehicle administration in Fredericton. At that time, it was confirmed that the federal government should assume responsibility for ensuring the safe design, construction and functioning of new motor vehicles manufactured in Canada and for motor vehicles imported into Canada. Furthermore, it was agreed that the provinces would continue to ensure the safety of vehicles in use, as well as the safety of replacement and additional parts for motor vehicles.

In November 1969, the Minister of Transport tabled Bill C-137, entitled "Motor Vehicle Safety Act", which was passed by the House on March 11,1970.
Commenting on this legislation, the Canadian Automobile Owners Association in its publication "Program and Resolutions for 1970-71", stated as follows:
The Canadian Automobile Owners Association commends all levels of government for agreeing to enact the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
The fact that the federal government assumes this responsibility sets up a structure which should help in overcoming safety defects in motor vehicles that may be the direct cause of accidents or of serious injuries resulting therefrom.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the two main features of this act provided authority for the federal government to enforce safety standards for vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1971 and to require manufacturers to issue notices of safety defects in vehicles in the prescribed manner. Following the enactment of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the task of developing motor vehicle safety regulations to implement the provisions of the act was commenced. The standards planned by the Department of Transport during the next five years with the objective of providing substantial safety performance improvement in those systems which contribute to the avoidance of crashes will include improved tire safety standards, standards of handling, stability, braking, vehicle controls and display systems, lighting and visibility.
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides authority to issue regulations respecting the design, construction and functioning of motor vehicles manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada. Thus, safety standards for seat belts and other safety features of new motor vehicles are prescribed by regulation rather than being specified in the enabling legislation. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act is not concerned with the use of motor vehicles on the road, as this is frequently regulated by the provinces under their highway traffic and motor vehicle acts.
[Mr. Clermont.)

Mr. Speaker, since the House passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Act on March 11, 1970, changes have been made to that act through amendments to its regulations.

For instance, the installation of seat belts in passenger cars was made mandatory on January 1, 1971 and it was required that by July 1, 1972 manufacturers instal seat belts in the operator's seating position in buses, trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles and chassis-cabs. It can be seen that the federal government has moved quite rapidly in this field to provide greater safety on Canadian highways.
You will also note, Mr. Speaker, that the use of such seat belts is presently regulated by the provinces under their highway and motor vehicle acts. While this falls primarily within provincial responsibility, I understand there is continuous consultation by the Department of Transport officials with their provincial counterparts to attempt to find ways of persuading more people to use seat belts when travelling in their automobiles.

On October 25,	1971, the Minister of Transport
announced amendments to the regulations on motor vehicle safety-which amendments are now in force-lowering the acceptable limit of carbonic fumes flowing from automobiles and commercial vehicles exhaust pipes.
Another amendment provided more detailed provisions on the installation of safety belts to ensure greater protection.
Those amendments were published in Part II of the Canada Gazette on October 13, 1971.
On December 15, 1971, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis) jointly announced a proposed amendment to the same regulations on motor vehicle safety with a view to protecting public health and checking the deterioration of urban environment.
The recommendations contain more drastic provisions concerning the fumes produced by the new gas burning motor vehicles to be manufactured in 1973, 1975 and 1976.
Mr. Speaker, other changes in the regulations were announced by the Minister of Transport on February 22, 1972, March 17, 1972, and April 21, 1972.


Mr. Andre Ouellet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to this bill. It is not my intention to speak very long because I support its intent. I commend the hon. member for introducing it and I hope that it will be referred to the committee for consideration and implementation.
Bill C-17, the purpose of which is to require the equipping of commercial vehicles, trucks and buses, with safety belts in the driver position and to require the use of these restraint belts by the driver to increase his safety and that of the occupants of his vehicle and of other highway users, strikes me as an extremely important provision.
I think that we in Canada unfortunately have far too many highway accidents which entail casualties or very
May 9, 1972

serious bodily injuries. It has been proved that the use of a restraint belt can prevent casualties and many very serious accidents.
I think we must welcome the decisions made by the government in the past few years to improve the safety of Canadians, particularly on our highways.
My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Clermont), quoted a whole series of measures taken by the government in the past few months to ensure greater safety for people who drive along Canadian highways. I think we must welcome what has been accomplished, and have a right to expect that more will be done in this sphere.
It is frightening to realize that at the present time, the highway toll in North America-Canada included-is higher than that of any war, even a world war. All governments, particularly North American governments, should make every possible effort to improve motor vehicle safety.
I for one always use a safety belt when I drive my car. The type of safety belt I have is European: it is a four-point belt which fastens on the right. And I can guarantee that this type of belt is far more effective and much safer than the types we find on North American cars at present. I suggest that General Motors, Chrysler and Ford study the European types of belt used in Mercedes and Volvos and try to manufacture similar ones. I think that passenger safety would thus be greatly improved.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that we must congratulate the hon. member who presented this bill designed to improve car passenger safety by prescribing the use of better types of safety belts, and I think that all hon. members will agree that every possible step that can be taken to prevent loss of life should be encouraged.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, again I want to join those who have congratulated the hon. member on this bill. He has shown a consistent interest in this subject over a period of time. I want to say a few things about the basic problem of constitutionality with respect to certain measures that he is proposing, and then I want to talk generally about the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, its purposes, and how the regulations under that act are brought into effect.
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which was Bill C-137 and which was passed by this House on March 11, 1970, by the Senate on March 23, and received Royal Assent on March 25, is the authority by which the federal government prescribes certain things by regulation. It provides authority for regulations respecting the design, construction and functioning of motor vehicles manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada. Thus safety standards for seat belts and other safety features of new motor vehicles are prescribed by regulation rather than being specified in the enabling legislation. The Motor Vehicle Safety Act is not concerned with the use of motor vehicles on the road, since this is presently regulated by the provinces under their highway traffic and motor vehicle acts. A few minutes ago, I asked the hon. member who introduced the
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
bill, the hon. member for White Rock-Surrey (Mr. Mather), whether he was aware of this constitutional problem. The federal government, according to the law passed by this parliament, can require the installation of seat belts, but the penalty for failure to use the seat belts has to be prescribed by the provincial authorities. This appears to be the ridiculous situation we have under our constitutional arrangements, one that cannot easily or readily be avoided.
The installation of seat belts in passenger cars was mandated in the initial Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations which came into force with the proclamation of the Motor Vehicles Safety Act on January 1, 1971. In the October 23, 1971, edition of Part I of the Canada Gazette the Department of Transport proposed extending section 208 of Schedule D of the regulations to require the installation of seat belts in the operator's seating position of buses, trucks, multi-purpose passenger vehicles and chassis-cabs. Final regulations mandating seat belts in these vehicles effective July 1, 1972, were approved by Order in Council PC 1972-603 on March 28.
With respect to Bill C-17 the government is requiring the equipping of commercial vehicles, trucks and buses with safety belts in the driver position. While the ministry is studying seat belt use and attempting ways of increasing their useage, presently only the provincial governments would have the authority to mandate their use by operators of commercial vehicles. So, Mr. Speaker, the situation is that, by regulation under the existing act, it is the intention of the government to extend the requirement for new vehicles, and this is presently being done. The requirement that the seat belts, having been installed, would be used presents a much more difficult problem for resolution here.

Mr. Speaker, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act was adopted by Parliament as early as January 1, 1970.
The purposes of this act are as follows: First, to set compulsory safety standards for new motor vehicles, in order to protect passengers against injuries or death, as well as against hazards to health caused by exhaust fumes and perhaps by noise.
This act applies to every new motor vehicle as well as to parts manufactured or imported in Canada. Provinces will continue to be responsible for the safety of vehicles in use and for the administration of existing laws.
On November 13, 1970, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) announced that the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards would come into force on January 1, 1971.
These safety standards are part of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations published in Part II of the Canada Gazette for November 25, 1970. I am quoting from the press release:
These regulations first appeared as proposals published in Part I of the Canada Gazette for August 22, together with the regulations on snowmobiles which appeared in the September 19 issue. Manufacturers, dealers, importers and others concerned were given the opportunity to express their views on the proposals. Submissions were carefully reviewed and in some cases the original proposals were altered in the interest of clarity.

May 9, 1972
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
The safety regulations include 29 standards for design and performance of passenger cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles and trailers and five standards limiting release of exhaust gases of motor vehicles and 10 applying to snowmobiles. The regulations will be subject to constant review, additions or changes being inserted to keep them up to date and in line with technical progress. The safety standards for tractors and vehicles of that type are now being studied.
Under these regulations, all Canadian motor vehicle manufacturers or dealers must affix the national safety label on any vehicle classified as built after the proclamation date of these regulations. A label attesting that the vehicle meets all federal motor vehicle standards must also be affixed. Vehicles imported for commercial purposes must also bear this conformity label and importers can be authorized to affix it. Canadian manufacturers, dealers and importers may request authorization to affix the national safety label in stipulated places by applying to the Director of the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch, Department of Transport, Ottawa.
Mr. Jamieson also pointed out that Canadian residents importing vehicles for their personal use must conform to the Act and the Regulations. He stressed that only vehicles manufactured after the proclamation date of the Act and the Regulations must meet all safety standards. Further information on importing vehicles for personal use can be obtained from the Canadian Customs authorities.
I think the act that was debated at length and passed by this parliament has served its purpose and has been instrumental in introducing a substantial measure of improvement in regulations concerning vehicle safety. We have made a beginning only in this field. Those of the present generation face great challenges; we must improve what has been done.
I commend the hon. member for his bill. I know the matter will not rest here, because the problem the bill raises is fundamental. Even if we were to pass it we would not in my opinion squarely face the problem, a constitutional one, of requiring seat belts to be used. Research will continue in this area. Without question, the value of seat belts has been proven statistically. Accidents still happen in which people strapped in their seats cannot escape from the vehicle and suffer consequently. Although these incidents are rare, they do occur.
As I have said, research will continue and standards with regard to seat belts will need to be improved. More public funds will be required in this area. Without question, we have a major job to do in terms of public authority and regulation in this field.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to say a few words on this extremely interesting bill. Incidentally, I must congratulate my hon. friend from Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) for having introduced this bill and I know very well, in fact I have known him for several years, that he always brought new ideas in the matter of public bills.-1 think it was a tremendous effort on his part and he is to be commended for that.
As regards tobacco, Mr. Speaker, I believe that he not only broke new ground, but that he was a pioneer for he was among those who had been struggling for years so that legislation on tobacco and smoking would be passed.

There is no need for me to give an account of that. We were among the first countries to concern ourselves with this problem and I believe Singapore already passed legislation to that effect. I hope that we shall follow suit before long I shall always support my hon. friend from Surrey-White Rock on those social measures that would be beneficial to most Canadians.
This bill is somewhat in the same vein as those dealing with social security. It has to do with individual safety as regards seat belts. In a rapidly changing world like ours, there is reason to believe that instead of passing measures which are but poultices, it would perhaps be better to have measures passed by provincial government in an attempt to add as much as possible funds to the budget that would be precisely earmarked for the education of the people in safety matters.
We spoke about that while dealing with smoking. We finally concluded that we had to allocate money to education because it seems that all those social security ideas are based above all on the education concept.
We realized, while considering pollution matters, that it is very well to suggest legislation to prevent pollution, but perhaps it would be even better to encourage people to fight it or to grant funds to public schools to have them teach the young people what they should know about pollution, because, basically, whether the matter is the use of birth-control pills or tobacco, divorce or any other aspect of social security, there is a lack of education.
Even if better seat belts were installed in motor vehicles, I suggest that the problem could not be eradicated, for it is a well-known fact that 80 per cent of the accidents in Canada are caused by drinking drivers. Perhaps we can momentarily protect some innocent people, but we should rather focus our attention on the basic problem which, as I say, is education.
Perhaps we should say that there will be some improvement as concerns seat belts, as stated by my colleague from Papineau (Mr. Ouellet). Apparently, North American motor vehicles are equipped with various types of belts that are not provided in European cars. I think that this point should call for an extremely interesting debate, even at the UN, where the discussion could bear on international seat belts. Since recommendations on the standardization of road signs at the international level might be acceptable, I see no reason why a belt of world-wide use could not be accepted after conclusive tests.
Mr. Speaker, one realizes quite often that there is an improvement in the equipment, although manufacturers have presently a very good one at their disposal. I suggest that we could introduce, as I said, a standardized seat belt.
It is not necessary for me to explain that, in particular when the car is a few years old, those safety seat belts are in a very bad shape. When you open the doors of the car, it often seems that a parachute has fallen there and that its strings are intermingled both on the front and on the back seat.
I should even say that those seat belts can even become a dangerous hazard, especially for young children, when they get into the car. They may stumble over them and
May 9, 1972

break a leg or an arm. Moreover, when those safety belts are not equipped with an automatic system or when they lie about anywhere in the car, they may often be the cause of accidents, especially when you get out of the car and those belts are hanging outside.
In my opinion, this bill, as a whole, is very good. I congratulate once more my friend for his wisdom, for the many sociological studies he carried out. I hope that he did not do them for the people of his constituency only but for the whole Canadian people. One cannot but praise him.
I would like to emphasize the matter of education in this area, as in those related to social security. I believe that the federal government, within its own jurisdiction, especially following the changes which have occurred in our society in the last few years, has made every possible effort to adjust safety measures, particularly as regards to motor vehicles, to this rapid change, to modern life.
On many occasions, the hon. minister has shown his concern with the problem of alcohol related to highway accidents. We should allocate funds to the prevention of the abuse which has caused 80 per cent of highway accidents in Canada.
As my friend from Ottawa-West (Mr. Francis) mentioned, we have enacted regulations on the security of motor vehicles. We have also carried out studies on warning and traffic control devices and also studies, very important in Canada and on the North American continent, on the calcium and sand which is strewn in tons on our roads, destroying the best cars. Whether a car is worth $15,000, $2,000 or $3,000 and whether or not it has received anti-rust treatment, it is inevitably doomed to the dump after a few years, eroded by rust.
That is another factor we should study more thoroughly to prevent cars becoming hazards on roads after a few years' use.
There also, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) issued statements to the effect that a number of surveys had been carried out and that we were on the right road to overcoming the effects of corrosion on motor vehicles.
We also took action about the falsification of labels on cars and I feel sure the federal government has shown its willingness to co-operate, to do its duty but as was said a while ago, the federal government cannot do everything single-handed.
Some aspects of the law involve the provinces', each one having its own responsibilities in this field, although in other spheres it is often the federal government's responsibility to act, at least in some general areas.
We have at all times passed legislation concerning the safety of gas operated vehicles, in order to check on the amount of exhaust fumes. I think this amendment was quite relevant. In fact, in pollution matters, we are faced with a problem that is to be found in Montreal and Toronto as well as in Vancouver. I think the government has done its utmost to settle it. It is in fact a very worthwhile bill and one cannot but approve a wise suggestion, even though it originates from an opposition member.
I feel it is my duty, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate my excellent friend, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.
Motor Vehicle Safety Act
I encourage him to keep on putting on the Order Paper as many public bills as he likes, as we can discuss them in a friendly manner for light will often come from the clash of ideas.
Members of this House are always free to participate in the debates. This does not imply too much, but there has been one case where owing to a private member's bill the name of Trans-Canada Airlines was changed to Air Canada.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member agree?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, having in mind the sympathy which so many hon. members who have spoken have expressed for the principle of what is proposed and the virtue they see in safety features, together with considering the constitutional questions that have been raised, I wish to direct the following question to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and other hon. members: Would it not seem reasonable, not to pass the bill but to allow the subject matter to go to committee for detailed study and approval?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent suggestion. I for one would be happy if this bill could reach the committee stage where we could at last exchange views and perhaps call for experts. I know that committees as well as members are overworked, but they would be very glad, once the committee's work is lessened, to consider this very important bill.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for introducing this bill. I hope he continues to put on the order paper many more good ideas like this one, for I feel sure they might eventually be retained.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Before I recognize the hon. member-

I would like to make a correction. It is perhaps not in order but I want to say that when I recognized the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), I should have designated him under his title, that is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and also designated the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) by his title, namely the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) to say that the government agrees to let this bill go to committee?


Mr. Jerome:: I did not get that impression.

May 9, 1972
Motor Vehicle Safety Act


William Marvin Howe: I thought that was intimated. If that is not the case, I wish to say a few words. I join all those who have congratulated the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) for bringing to the attention of this House social measures which have to do with the welfare of so many people whether they be cigarette smokers, drivers or others. His services to the House have been outstanding throughout the years in focusing our attention on areas of concern in connection with the health and welfare of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Marvin Howe: The bill before us directs attention to what is probably the greatest single problem confronting us, the reduction or prevention of death and injury on our highways. Throughout the years efforts have been made to introduce and popularize safety devices-seat belts, improved exhaust systems, more effective bumpers, and so on. All these things are good in themselves but to my mind the most important factor of all is the human element. As the saying goes, it is not the hole in the road that causes the accident, but the nut behind the wheel. We have all driven cars and been subject to little lapses of attention. We have not always paid attention to what was happening on the road. We all know that after a man has been driving for two or three hours on a super highway, he becomes fatigued and there is a danger he will lose track of things and fail to concentrate on situations presented to him.
I was interested to hear the comments of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle). I have always thought that driver education ought to be part of the curriculum of every educational system. I believe provincial boards of education should see that driver training courses are made available in our schools. There is a definite place, it seems to me, for training in driver skills because other than food and clothing there is scarcely anything a person uses more than an automobile. So it is just as important to learn the A, B, C of driving at school as it is to learn the A, B, C of finance or politics.
Some years ago the city of Kitchener instituted courses of driver education in its schools. If I remember correctly, statistics thereafter showed a marked reduction in the number of road accidents. This was because young people had been given proper training in handling vehicles. To my mind, no matter what may be done in the way of encouraging the use of seat belts, installing collapsible steering wheels or air cushions which will inflate automatically when an accident occurs, driver training is the most important factor in the prevention of accidents on the road.
I cannot understand why the federal government does not offer assistance to provinces which institute driver training courses as a regular part of their educational systems. It is likely that all of us have played some part in teaching members of our families to drive, but most of us would agree that the job is best done by an independent person who can instruct one on the rules of the highway and the proper way to handle a vehicle. I believe this is just as important as all the safety features which can be built into automobiles by manufacturers. Driver educa-

tion should be encouraged and the federal government should give a lead by assisting provinces which incorporate such programs in their educational systems.


George Harris Hees: A fine speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) rise on a point of order? The hon. member for Ottawa East.


Mr.   J.-T. Richard@Ottawa East: Mr. Speaker, I am a little worried about this kind of proposal, one which will not solve the problem at all. As the hon. member has just stated, what we need is better driving education. Safety belts have proved to be death belts, nothing else. There was a recent case in Montreal where three people died wearing seat belts. It is not a case of providing people with belts; it is a case of educating people to drive properly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I gave the floor to the hon. member for Ottawa East because I thought he was raising a point of order. I think, now, I should give the floor to the hon. member for Ottawa East for the purpose of contributing to the debate.


Mr. Richard:: I am very happy to take part, Mr. Speaker, having had very little opportunity to speak. Legislation has been introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) concerning the use of tobacco and other things-matters which in my view have to do with education and should have nothing to do with the imposing of restrictions. It is in the high schools that it would be most valuable, in my view, for our children to be given an opportunity to learn how to drive. Then, again, there is no doubt that 60 per cent of the accidents on our highways are the result of alcohol.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Eighty per cent.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Perhaps it is 80 per cent. At any rate, it has nothing to do with seat belts. Belts account for a large number of accidents.


An hon. Member:: No.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The fact that a man is tied down in his seat will not save him from fatal injury. I often wonder whether the hon. member has not sought, by speaking on tobacco, seat belts and so on, to find subjects popular and easy to explain. I am sure the hon. member realizes that the use of seat belts alone will not reduce the death toll on our highways.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hour set aside for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
May 9, 1972


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson that Bill C-5, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the amendment thereto of Mr. Kor-chinski (p. 1872) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Knight (p. 1903).
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on Bill C-5 and also to give my support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski). I should also like to state that I oppose the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight). So now everything is on the record and we know where we stand.
I suppose the legislation could be supported in principle to a limited extent in that it increases the amount of a loan that may be made, to a farmer to $100,000 from $40,000. It is time the amount was increased because a good many farmers in Canada are expanding their farming units. Some have sons, relatives or partners establishing farming enterprises and they need capital in order to make their farm units viable. So I think this provision in the legislation is at least a step in the right direction. As farm units become larger-they seem to be becoming larger, and by legitimate means-the need for good, sound agricultural credit will play a vital part in coming years.
The minister alluded to the fact that this bill was but a small part of what is called the small farms program. I would be a little sceptical about that statement. I believe the bill can be viewed separately from the small farms program. Whether the legislation is good or bad, I think the small farms program has been put before the Canadian public in such a manner that it will have a very rough and rugged journey for a good while. People in agriculture are becoming increasingly suspicious of government involvement in agriculture, as we have stressed over and over again in this House, especially when the government puts forward a proposed plan in which the farming community is not involved in any way, shape or form.
It is of interest to note that about the only small farm legislation we have is the proposed Saskatchewan land bank. I have before me an article which appeared in the Free Press Weekly, on the proposed land bank. I suppose from one point of view the Saskatchewan government should be given credit for at least putting forward their proposal and letting the farmers decide whether they approved of it. The land bank proposal is known as Bill 110. According to the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture, Jack Messer, it is proposed to establish a Saskatche-
Farm Credit Act
wan land bank commission. The article to which I have referred is dated May 6 last and is quite critical of this proposed program. I should like to put a few excerpts on the record, but first may I say that I hope the federal plan is nothing along the lines of the Saskatchewan plan. The article reads in part:
On April 24, Roy Atkinson-
He is president of the National Farmers Union.
-expressed misgivings about the legislation. He said in part, "I think the government has lost sight of the fact farmers have a desperate income problem," and in a complete farm policy package, an adequate land bank program would be one element-
Mr. Messer said flatly he looked on the program as a revival of the Regina manifesto of 1933. And he said he was satisfied the present Saskatchewan government wants to socialize Saskatchewan farms.
As I said before, I hope the federal program does not go that far. The article continues:
In fact, farmer opposition to the Messer plan is remarkably widespread and farmers who oppose the land bank proposals are from all political parties.
Mr. Atkinson was then quoted in the article as saying:
One of Mr. Atkinson's pertinent comments was "few of the things a farmer needs to know are yet in sight in the bill except a long list of all the ways he can be evicted, fined or imprisoned if he doesn't keep up his rental payments." Strong words.
In addition the land bank commission would farm land acquired by it from farmers. The Saskatchewan government in competition with Saskatchewan farmers on the land itself.
At least in that case the land bank program, or what has been alluded to as part of the small farm program, will work in that way and this is perhaps the course that the agricultural industry will take. As a member for Manitoba, which is just a stone's-throw from Saskatchewan, I hope we have the foresight in our province to stay away from any kind of program such as this.


An hon. Member:: Cast no stones.


Jack Burnett Murta: Hon. members to my left are making quite a fuss, but I do not believe they are making half the fuss the farmers of Saskatchewan will make when they feel the consequences of the legislation being brought down by the Saskatchewan government.
Whether or not we are talking about a small farms program or amendments to the Farm Credit Act, the real question which should occupy the minds of everyone in this House is not whether this is a step in the right direction-because this is only a small part of the whole agricultural situation-but, rather, what is the government doing in respect of a form of crop insurance and, perhaps more important, about some form of price insurance. Those are the questions being asked by the farmers of Canada. The critical question involves crop insurance to give some kind of stability, and price insurance to give some realistic form to the income of farmers.
I suppose we should look at our total economy when we talk about some form of price insurance or some form of realistic prices for Canadian agricultural products. We have what I like to consider as two sectors to our total economy, one being the private sector and the other that

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
sector which services the private sector. What has been happening over the past few years, as all hon. members know, is that the service sector of our economy, which is the largest, has been increasing as a result of wage demands and fringe benefits. That sector has made gains far greater than the gains of the private sector. The private sector includes the agricultural industry as well as a great many other basic industries. The private industries have had no way of absorbing this increased cost except on a personal basis, and the prices they have received for most of their products are just not high enough to sustain a realistic income. This is what we have to consider and this has to be our number one priority.
Let me refer to the prices received by farmers for certain agricultural products. These are 1971 figures representing prices to the consumer and prices to the farmer. They were compiled some time ago, but the comparison is valid. The price to the consumer for a loaf of white bread was 21 cents, but the price the farmer received was 2 cents. The price of pork per pound was between 59 cents and 95 cents, depending on where you bought it, and the price to the producer was 22 cents a pound. A dozen eggs were selling for 47 cents at that time but the price to the agricultural producer was 25 cents. A 42-pound box of no. 1 McIntosh apples was selling to the consumer in the supermarket at $5,50 but the farmers were getting $1.92. A 40-ounce tin of apple juice sold for 48 cents and the farmer was receiving 7 cents. Milk was selling at 35 cents a quart but the producer's price was 17 cents.
Using that kind of table, it is my contention that unless something is done to offset the gains to the service sector of our economy compared to those of the private sector, there is virtually no way to attack this problem other than by granting some type of government assistance to the private sector. We must find some way to slow down these gains and allow the primary sector of our economy to catch up. One might call this assistance direct payments, a two-price system or anything else you like, including a subsidy to the consumer; but this is what we must do. We must look at the situation realistically. This government has made no attempt to view this problem in realistic terms in order to find out how the farmers and others of this primary sector can obtain a greater portion of our gross national product.
The consumer plays a vital role in any agricultural program. Recently, the price for food in the United States has become one of the big election issues which President Nixon will have to contend with before this fall. Consumers must be made to realize that the farmer's share of food prices has been too small. The press in this country could have a role to play in this regard. I do not think it has done anything to explain why there was a final payment for wheat and it has done nothing to explain many other questions of this nature about which consumers read in the newspapers.
Quite often we get the feeling in western Canada-I am sure this must also be the case in the agricultural areas of the east-that all the assistance to farmers is given in the form of gifts or handouts from the government and that the farmers are skimming the cream off the top. It is up to members of parliament, Canadians in general and the
(Mr. Murta.J
press to drive this point home. There has to be a realistic move to increase farm income.
There are four or five ways to approach this problem in respect of farm income. We could charge our export customers more, but we know what happens when we do that. In 1968-69, when the Wheat Board held the price of grain at an unrealistic level, we lost sales. It is the same old story-you buy from the person who sells at the lowest price and on the best terms. At this time I believe it is unrealistic and impossible to think of charging our customers more in order to give farmers more income. We could charge Canadians more for their food. Here, again, we run into consumer reaction to higher food prices. This could be called an additional tax on the poor because it results in an increase in the price of a loaf of bread. For various reasons this is not acceptable realistically nor, at times, politically.
Some people across the country are advocating another method of increasing incomes to primary producers. This would involve a supply-management technique or controlled agriculture. If we had import controls in a supply-management technique we would have to use price controls. If we raise the price of a product within the country, we must protect that price because we sell agricultural products firstly on the North American market and secondly on the global market. If we increase the cost of food to the consumer, if we operate on a supply-management basis in agriculture, one fear I have when considering the provinces is that we would be moving to a supply-management type of agriculture for Canada. I think we will find such a step detrimental to agriculture. So I do not believe the supply-management concept will work in respect of getting more money into the hands of the farmers.
We could do what we are doing now, which is nothing; we could go on basically in the same fashion. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board says farm incomes are glorious; he says they are rising. They are rising; he is probably partially right. But theoretically when you start at zero and go to five, the increase is only five per cent, which is not enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is infinity.


Jack Burnett Murta: They started out at infinity in 1968-69. That is the situation we found ourselves in through pricing ourselves out of world markets. The real return to agriculture is not significant. Therefore in my view we have virtually only one solution, which is assistance from the federal government in one form or another. I think we have reached a stage in agriculture when it is right and proper for the industry to ask for this much at least on the short-term, because otherwise we will not have an agricultural industry as we know it now. I believe that is certain. It would seem that a more realistic approach by government must be made to agriculture. As I mentioned before, we sell barley on the world market at 68 cents a bushel. As of late it has been increased to 73 cents. There is an increase but it is still not sufficient; the farmers' costs rise far too quickly.
May 9, 1972

In conclusion I say that the $100 thousand is, I believe, a necessary step and something for which a good many farmers have been looking. I am not referring to the corporate farmers to whom the members of the NDP refer but, rather, to any farmer who wishes to expand his operation and requires additional capital. I believe this move will be welcomed in all parts of Canada.
I have one final comment. I suggest that the agricultural planners, the people whom we do not see, such as the civil servants and others who draft legislation and establish a great many policies, should ask themselves the basic question-why a cannery often pays more for the label on the can than the product inside the can. I think if we asked ourselves this type of question we would come close to the heart of the problem which has been afflicting agriculture in Canada for a number of years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be brief because the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has a 40-minute text prepared and is chewing on the end of his pipe, raring to go.
The bill before us today is to amend the Farm Credit Act. A number of changes are being made to the act. Some are rather significant. There is the raising of the loan ceiling from $48,000 to $100,000. A major change is being made in clause 1 of the bill which would give additional power to the Farm Credit Corporation. But we find that the Conservative party has submitted an amendment to the bill. In the amendment they talk about the interest rate and deferred repayment but include a provision that in order to qualify one must meet certain production standards.
On Thursday last the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) moved a subamendment which would take out the selectivity clause in respect of meeting production standards. I do not know why the Conservative party has to include production standards. What do they mean by that?


An hon. Member:: Performance standards.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member says they are performance standards. What do they mean by performance standards and selectivity? Last week in the House I recall Conservative members speaking out against selectivity when we were debating the family income security plan, and suddenly today they do a double-take and wish to include selectivity in the Farm Credit Corporation bill. This is part of the Neanderthal approach of the Conservative party. They reach back into the Stone Age and pull out something.
What are these production standards? I ask the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and other members what they are. Does one have to have a large farm or a large loan? Who will judge what the standards are, and who will police the standards? I can see the Conservative party setting up a huge, new network of government bureaucrats policing the Farm Credit Corporation.


Mr. McKinley:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to inform the hon. member who is speaking that performance means that they simply must live up to the terms of the agreement. The hon. member is now
Farm Credit Act
trying to read things into the amendment which are not there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must inform the hon. member that this is a point of debate rather than a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you had to remind the veteran member of that elementary point, about which a new member such as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) already knew. In the Conservative amendment, young farmers will qualify where they meet performance standards. I am sure many farmers would ask what the performance standards are, who would set them and who would police them. Would someone from the agricultural community, or a civil servant, do the policing? I and the hon. member for Assiniboia who moved the amendment to the amendment which would strike out the unacceptable part, which is selectivity, do not like the amendment brought in by the Conservative party. I know the hon. member for Mackenzie comes from an area similar to mine. We have smaller and different types of farms. Perhaps our farmers would not be able to meet the performance standards the Conservative party would lay down; therefore I do not wish to have anything to do with what is outlined by them.
I was very surprised to hear the hon. member for Lisgar give such high praise to the National Farmers Union. I wonder whether he or the hon. member for Mackenzie are members of that union. I am sure they must be, since they are quoting members of the National Farmers Union. I and most members of my party are supporters of the National Farmers Union, and I sometimes wonder whether members of the Conservative party are speaking out of both sides of their mouths.
As I said earlier, the bill before us deals with a number of measures to amend the Farm Credit Act. The one on which I express some reservation is clause 1 of the bill which would amend section 11 of the Farm Credit Act. It reads:
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.
Under this clause the government has a great deal of power through order in council to implement new policies with regard to agriculture and the family farm. I think this is a way of attempting to make laws through the back door. This is a plan for small farm consolidation which they call the small farm development program. I do not think this is right. When you are dealing with a plan of this magnitude, one that will affect so many people, such a plan should be discussed here so that members of all parties and all farm organizations can have their say. We should not attempt to bring in this program through the back door, which I suspect the government is trying to do by including clause 1 in Bill C-5 to amend the Farm Credit Act. This bill should be debated in parliament and I hope that when the bill reaches the committee the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will shed some light on this part of it.

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
I believe that the small farm development plan would be termed, more correctly, the small farm elimination plan. All you have to do is look at some of the statistics to see what is happening to the small farms of this country. I believe it would be worth while putting some figures on the record. We find that between 1966 and 1971, according to the dominion census which was conducted last year, the number of farms in Canada decreased by 15 per cent, from 430,000 to 366,000. In Saskatchewan, the number of farms declined from 85,000 to 76,000, a drop of 10.2 per cent. This happened right across the country.
With regard to the maritime provinces, the province of Nova Scotia, for example, showed a decrease of 37 per cent. The number of farms in New Brunswick decreased by 37 per cent, and farms in Quebec decreased by 23.7 per cent between 1966 and 1971. This tells us loudly and clearly what is happening to agriculture right across Canada. The family farm is on its way out and the government is attempting to introduce the small farm consolidation plan through the back door. I say they will have a fight on their hands.
All of us in this party have expressed disappointment at the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget last night did not include one measly item for the farmers of this country, despite the number of farms having decreased by 15 per cent in the last five years. When I asked the Minister of Agriculture a question about this last week, he rose and in his arrogant and smug manner said, "We are looking after that. Farm income is up this year over last year and that will take care of the situation, so that farmers will not leave their farms as rapidly as heretofore".
I want to remind the minister and the government that in 1970 farm income dropped to an almost all-time low. In Saskatchewan, in 1970, the average net income per farmer was around $1,000 a year. That is a serious situation and it is something the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance should take into account. This is one of a number of indicators which show we are having trouble in agriculture right across the country. To underline the point I am making, I should like to quote to the House the leading paragraph of the 1972 presentation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of parliament by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which they made a short time ago. It reads:
We meet with you today following a year when the farmers realized income fell to a new, disastrous low-the lowest in dollar terms for as long as comparisons make any sense; in real terms to 73 per cent of what it was ten years previously.
May I remind hon. members that 1961 was also a very poor year in terms of the farmer's income. The presentation continues:
The forecast for 1972, which we sincerely hope events will disprove, signals a further decline. The cost-price squeeze has achieved a new, startling and damaging intensity.
I believe that what the Federation of Agriculture is saying is entirely true. The situation is not good in rural Canada. Farmers are being squeezed out, farm income is very low-and parliament and this government must do something about it immediately. I think there is a place for a rural society in Canada, a place for the farm, the town and the village. I mention the towns and villages
(Mr. Nystrom.)
because when you drive through Saskatchewan today you find that every town with the exception of one or two has declined in population since 1965 or 1966. This is due almost entirely to the depression of the agricultural industry, because when farmers are not making money-


Mr. Whelan:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I realize when members from large urban centres, such as the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), speak they do not understand what I am saying. But perhaps he can be educated. He is a member from a large urban centre and I understand and sympathize with him.
To go back to the Prairies and to rural Canada, we find that farm income there has dropped rapidly. We find, also, that the small towns suffer, businessmen are closing their doors or laying off workers. People then have to move from the small town or village into the city. In essence, this contributes to the destruction of a life style which I think is very much part of the Canadian society: it is the fabric of our life from coast to coast. This is the kind of life that I want to protect. We in this parliament are entirely responsible for what has happened in western and in rural Canada during the last five or six years.
It is about time the government got off its bottom and did something about the situation in a positive and constructive way. They are putting very little into agriculture. Nothing went to agriculture in last night's budget. The Minister of Finance had the audacity to say that farmers will benefit because when they get old they will benefit from the pension increase, and farmers who have sons and daughters who attend university will benefit from the $50 income tax allowance. The minister also said that we passed the grain stabilization plan. We passed no such plan. That shows how much he knows about agriculture, and I know the Assiniboia constituents will remind him of it.
We must do something about increasing the living standards of farmers and the prices they receive for their commodities. They receive less for a bushel of wheat now than they did in 1949. Look at the price of farm machinery which they have to purchase to produce a bushel of wheat! It has skyrocketed. Also the farmers have been victimized because of increases in the costs of production. What has the government done about this? The Barber Commission Report on farm machinery recommended a series of measures to help farmers and to bring down the costs of production. What has the government done with this report? Nothing. It has shelved the report, which is now gathering dust. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government is more interested in farm machinery companies than in Canadian farmers. I also suggest to you that the Conservative party fits in the same bag as the government. Shake them up together, dump them out and they are both of the same cloth; it does not make any difference which it is.
We shall have to do some radical things in this country if we want do help the farmers. Reference has been made to the land bank project in Saskatchewan. I invite the hon. member for Lisgar to stop quoting the Free Press Weekly, which I suggest has not been a friend of the farmers. I
May 9, 1972

invite him to come to Saskatchewan, talk to the farmers there and find out what they think about the land bank project of the provincial government. I know that the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) finds the idea intriguing. I know that the farmers in my constituency find it intriguing, and I know the National Farmers Union does not think it is going far enough. They are not opposed to the project for the reason that the hon. member for Lisgar suggests. He is so far off base that it isn't even funny. Again I invite him to come out and talk to the farmers in my province.
Under the project, land will be purchased from older farmers who want to sell their holdings. And leased or sold to younger people who want to take up farming. I point out that the average age of farmers in Saskatchewan is 57 years. Something has to be done to help the younger fellow and this is one of the main purposes of the land bank idea. A second purpose is to make sure that land does not get into the hands of large farmers or of foreign landlords, but to make sure that it goes to the smaller fellow, the guy who needs an extra half-section of land in order to expand his farming operation. My constituents and I are interested in this matter.
Also, in Saskatchewan the provincial government introduced a piece of foreign-ownership legislation to restrict the purchase of land by foreigners. That legislation is now before the agricultural committee of the provincial legislature. It is the kind of radical step that the federal government should be considering and implementing on the national level. There is a whole series of steps that the provincial government, even with its limited jurisdiction, has taken. The federal government should be doing the same things because it has the power to do them, the authority to do them and the necessary revenues. If we are really going to help the farmers, the government will have to start doing some of these things immediately.
The farm machinery companies may not love us, some of the food chain stores may not love us, some sections of the agribusiness may not love us; but we will have to step on some of their toes in order to do something constructive for our farmers. It is the farmer I am interested in, Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative party which is more interested in promoting Federal Grain or even some of the farm machinery companies.
Now I would like to make a few remarks about farm debt. I think this is relevant to debate on the Farm Credit Corporation. We are about to raise the maximum amount of a loan from $45,000 to $100,000. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture how this provision will work in connection with co-operative farming. Is a co-operative farm made up of five, six or seven people, limited by the $100,000 maximum stipulated in this bill? Again I would like to quote from the brief presented to the cabinet a short time ago by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Under the heading "Production Co-operatives" we find this passage:
That both Canadian and provincial governments be urged to provide for production co-operatives to take advantage of government programs as though each individual member of the co-operative operated a separate farm.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture to confirm the fact, when the bill reaches committee, that its provisions will
Farm Credit Act
treat co-ops in this manner. If not, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to move amendments to serve that purpose. I wish to make another comment about the $100,000 ceiling provided in the bill. I think that the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), speaking on this provision a few days ago, said he felt a bit uneasy about the volume of debt that this ceiling could imply. I know that back in 1965 to 1968, when things looked pretty good in western Canada, many farmers borrowed huge amounts of money from the Farm Credit Corporation and other lending institutions. Then the bottom fell out of the agricultural market. As a result, farmers are going bankrupt.
There are farmers in my constituency who have debts that they do not know how to meet. I receive letters from them about this problem, and every time I go to my riding people talk to me about farm debts and wonder how they can repay these loans. I would like to inform hon. members of the House of some figures released last week by the Farm Credit Corporation, showing the percentage of farm credit loans in arrears between 1969 and 1972. From these figures we find that in 1969-70, when the recession began to set in, 11.6 per cent of the loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation were in arrears. In 1970-71 that figure went up to 18.9 per cent and in 1971-72 it went up further to 21.1 per cent.
These FCC statistics reveal very clearly that farmers are in debt and will have difficulty paying off their loans. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that many of them are going bankrupt each and every week on the Prairies and, indeed, right across Canada. I am not saying this in order to reflect on the Farm Credit Corporation but to reflect on . government policies that have brought about this situation in Canadian agriculture.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we will soon have to take constructive steps in agriculture if we are to save the farmers. We will have to do something about interest rates. We should have lower interest rates, and interest-free loans for younger farmers and small farmers who want to expand their operations in order to attain viable farming units. This should be done and could be done. We give millions of dollars every year in handouts to large companies, through DREE and other programs; but when it comes to the farmer we are adamant in charging him the going interest rate. This is not just and cannot be maintained if we are to retain the rural way of life in our country represented by the family farm.
There are a number of other topics that I could raise tonight but in essence, Mr. Speaker, I have covered the main concerns of my party with respect to this bill. Previous speakers have mentioned others. The essential and central point is that we must maintain the family farm as the basic unit of production. Over the last few years the Department of Agriculture and its task force have been talking about gradually phasing out the family farm, about consolidating farms, about readjusting agriculture and making units bigger and more efficient. I would like to remind some of these people, the bureaucrats and others who talk about agriculture in terms of GNP, net income and expenses, that we have on the farm people and a way of life that are very important. It is a way of life that must be strengthened, maintained and helped in every possible way.

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
If we are to help our farmers we must revive interest-free loans for younger farmers and those who want to expand their operations. We must put more and more money into the hands of these people. I remind economists that small farmers and young farmers are the best consumers we have in this country. They will buy machinery, they will buy food and clothing for their children, they will purchase commodities for their farms, they will increase the demand for consumer goods-and in turn we will have more jobs for people in our cities and towns. In this way the whole country will be better off.
For these reasons I urge the government to give agriculture higher priority and to provide interest-free loans to younger farmers and small farmers who want to expand their operations. We must in committee have another look at clause 1 of the bill. I hope government members can explain it to our satisfaction. If they cannot, then I and other members of my party will fight it very hard.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: -another reason for the disparity between purchasing power and prices is the recall and cancellation, before the goods are sold, of the credits that brought them into existence. .. . the credits required to finance production shall be supplied, not from savings, but by new credits relating to new production, and shall be recalled only in the ratio of general depreciation to general appreciation-
May 9, 1972

The application of this second principle prevents the flow of savings into production and redirects it back to its proper purpose in consumption. All reproduction will then function on credits created for the purpose, and these will be repaid as at present.
Mr. Speaker, we say that when the farm production is ready it may at all times meet the consumers' needs, in other words fulfil its objective. We say that there is a time-lag between the processing of a product and its consumption. This period of time is the inventory which represents billion of capitalized dollars and which are today quite a heavy burden on our producers.
In the future, we will accept that production reaches consumption but between production and consumption, between the transportation of finished product and consumption, today's producer becomes a victim to the strongest which are often able to eliminate the competitive producers. A deficiency in the financial mechanism at this stage of production plays into the hands of the stronger to the disadvantage of the weaker.
Mr. Speaker, we have only to consider the devious means used by many larger producers against smaller ones to realize that because the present system does not provide interest-free financing for all stages of production up to the ultimate one, that is consumption, a large number of bankruptcies occur among a large number of competent small producers. This, by the same token, eliminates healthy competition to the benefit of large producers who can obtain easy credit from banks and turns to the advantage of large producers but to the prejudice of smaller producers as well as of consumers.
Mr. Speaker, let us take for example the case of potato producers in New Brunswick who, come autumn, have to store their potatoes in cellars. They have a large production on their hands and a large debt to the bank. New federal credit facilities are not available for the latest production. Some time or other, the bank's manager requests the repayment of the debt. What happens then? In New Brunswick, for instance, someone who is shrewd enough to avail himself of the opportunity, can buy out, each autumn, the whole potato crop for a song because producers have to meet their loan repayments to the bank before their crop can be sold.
The same story happens also, Mr. Speaker, in other fields of production.
We need only consider maple syrup. In May or June, maple syrup producers in Beauce, because they have to pay their loans back to the bank, must sell their production to a certain dealer of the province of Quebec who is taking over maple syrup production.He buys it from the producer who has exhausted his credit with the bank and sells it in the fall for three times the price he paid for it.
If the Social Credit principle that any new production must be financed by new interest-free credit had been applied, the Maple Syrup Producers Association could have obtained interest-free credit on its maple syrup, a guaranty on its assets, its wealth, pending consumption. This way, the maple syrup producer would not be in the power of a few parasites who exploit both producers and consumers.
Farm Credit Act
Many lumber contractors sell the outcome of their labours for peanuts because they cannot wait until their production has reached the consumers. How many producers are in danger of losing their whole production! They must sell to the first buyer available. They have always been exploited they cannot sell their production higher than cost and make a profit.
Mr. Speaker, I recall being in the Maritimes where I found that fishermen who had made good catches had to sell their fish for 3 or 4 cents per pound to parasites who got better terms from the banks. The fishermen who did not have the facilities to store their catches, prepare it for sale or can it, were at the mercy of the middlemen.
Producers of wheat, apples or potatoes and fishermen, both eastern and western, do not get interest-free loans which would enable them to survive until their production reaches the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, Social credit proposes a solution which would consist in giving the consumer the necessary purchasing power to buy the production. Even if I had all the necessary purchasing power to buy maple syrup, I would have to buy it according to my needs. That is why there is a time lapse before the producer can sell his commodities. This is also the reason why in the field of agriculture as in others, that from the time a tractor is manufactured up to the time it is sold to a farmer, there elapses a period of six, eight, nine months or even one year.
What happens, then? Manufacturers borrow money on which they pay interest at the rate of 1 per cent per month or the equivalent. This financial charge is added to the price of the tractor. In short, the consumer always pays in the end. Is it the producer's fault if he must wait for consumers?
This is why we, Creditistes, are saying that when production is ready for consumption it is social and precisely because it is social social credit must finance new production in order that it may reach the consumer and prevent all those parasites in our economic system from coming between the producer and the consumer.


An hon. Member:: Free enterprise!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I am for the free enterprise system but I am against the fact that some people, because they can get loans from banks, act not as private producers but as exploiters. On the one hand, they exploit producers and, on the other hand, they exploit consumers.
It is ridiculous to see that, during the ten years I have been sitting in this House, the government has introduced at least five bills on farm credit. At certain times, today for example, they say that farm credit must be developed. At other times they say that the interest rate on farm credit must be increased or they introduce another bill whose only purpose is to get the farmer into debt rather than enable him to free himself from those who exploit him between production and consumption.
Mr. Speaker, tonight I am taking the case of farmers because we are considering Bill C-5. But this system of
i

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
exploitation between production and consumption exists in all areas of our economy. How many manufacturers of furniture, for instance, could compete with big firms, if they could get credit on their inventory! But today, what do we see? At the end of every month, when the producer signs his form 88 for the bank, the banker becomes the owner of the producer's inventory. And no matter whether the goods are sold or not, delivered or not, paid for or not, the banker tells the producer: Repay your loan to the bank. This means that he demands that the money gets back to the bank before the producer is able to sell his production to the consumer.
This is the system in which we live, anti-scientific, "antiprivate enterprise", which only allows parasites which come between production and consumption, to control, to exploit both.
There are quite a few other such examples we could give. That is why Major Douglas suggested a solution designed to finance public capital through the Bank of Canada so as to free our savings for the financing of private enterprise. That is why Creditistes are saying: We respect private enterprise. We believe in competition rather than in a system like ours in which a few individuals control our economy.
When I hear some people denounce the present capitalist system, I claim that it is through ignorance, since we are not living under a capitalist system but under a system of free economy where might is right, where some can stifle others, whereas under a Creditiste system, we would enable the small producer, by granting him credit on his production pending consumption, to enter into competition with the large enterprises. It is not the case today.
That is why we kick about prices and inflation. It is said that all prices increase. Why? Because in some sectors of our economy we have reached a point where monopolies do anything they wish with prices. They are the only ones on the market. They set the prices they want. Why? Because when the small producer who is competent, ingenious and capable starts a business, he does not have the financial means to support his inventory and continue production. Only monopolies and cartels are able to support inventories, and there is not a single political party in this House, except the Creditistes, that suggests a solution to help the small enterprises without causing any harm to the large ones, to allow small enterprises to stand the competition of the large ones.
For instance, the machinery manufacturer who supports an inventory of $500,000 starts production in January, makes his delivery in August and September and gets the money from his customers in December and January. Which means that during one year, he must finance production, delivery and collection. This is why we no longer see any small producers able to face competition. They bust before the giants, the tycoons of production.
But Social Credit proposes a solution according to which any new production must be financed by new credits. In other words, when a producer has an inventory of $100,000, he may get credit interest free so as to be able to keep on producing, while waiting for his products to reach the consumer and that he may receive some cash and pay back-


Mr. Rose:: This is an even more capitalistic system.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: This is absolutely false. My hon. friend of the New Democratic Party says that this is an even more capitalistic system. It is precisely the reverse, it is false. Absolutely the reverse, it is true, I beg to differ.
Allowing small producers to produce and compete with the big ones, keeps the big ones down and allows the small ones to live. Whereas today, whatever control you set up, as the socialists are recommending, and if tomorrow morning the government takes over production in Canada, without small producers-


Mark Willson Rose: That is what Socialism is.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: That is what you recommend. It is precisely because it is Socialism that we are in disagreement.


Mark Willson Rose: We heard you.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: They have understood nothing. I disagree. We believe in the capitalist system, but not the present system. The New Democratic Party system is wrong. We are not living under a capitalist system now.


Mark Willson Rose: We are living under a free enterprise system.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: We are living today in a system of economic liberalism where the big fellows stifle the small ones. That is why-


Mark Willson Rose: This is what the hon. member wants, free enterprise.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: No, not free enterprise, but private enterprise. This is a different thing. The hon. member does not understand the difference between private enterprise and free enterprise.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member wants free enterprise at any cost.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I think that this evening I have touched the New Democrats on a sore point, because they have no solution to suggest for the production system. Their only solution is to monopolize and nationalize.


Mark Willson Rose: This what the hon. member wants.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: No, this what my hon. friend wants; what we want is to enable more producers to survive within the framework of production. We want more producers to be able to face competition and to live on the outcome of their efforts.


Mark Willson Rose: What happens when they grow bigger?


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Nowadays we fail to recognize the merits of the small producers; we stiffle them because they do not have the financial ressources which would permit them to carry inventories and compete with big enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, according to the social credit concept, new credit extended against finished products will be reimbursed through consumption and sales-
May 9, 1972


Mark Willson Rose: We will all be big producers, like Premier Bennett!


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of competition and free enterprise, not for free enterprise-
Mr. Speaker, the Creditistes have a solution to offer in the field of finance because they have detected the problem. Without becoming socialists, we are in favour of private enterprise. We want to respect the small producers and we are offering a solution to the financial problems of today's small producers. We offer a solution for the financing of public capital as well as private enterprise and inventories which would allow producers to live in a private enterprise system.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after hearing our colleagues in the other two opposition parties tonight, I wonder how outnumbered one can get when it comes to the position of agriculture whether in Quebec, British Columbia or anywhere else.
Farm credit and its provision is, of course, a necessary part of agricultural policy. There has been no argument about that from any member of the House since the debate started. The question really is: To what ends will farm credit be applied and used? It is all very well to increase borrowing capacity to $100,000, but if this means an interest bill of between $7,000 and $8,000 a year to a farmer operating one or two sections of land whose net income is only $7,000 or $8,000 a year then, to quote the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), it is the road to bankruptcy.
If no more than farm credit is incorporated into the policies of this government or of any government, then we will continue down the road that has been deliberately trodden by the present government and the Conservative government before it, that of reducing the rural population of Canada. Unless farm incomes are sufficiently high to carry interest costs and repay principal, then the farmers are not only being led into bankruptcy but unless farm costs are held down as well, the cost-price squeeze accomplishes the government's objective of eliminating people on the land. That can be the only purpose of the present government. The practice of the government has been to denude rural Canada.
The government says its policy is to produce a viable agricultural industry. Farmers can be more efficient, says the government, if there are fewer people on the farm. If there are fewer people on the farm, then of necessity you must depopulate towns, villages and small cities. This is the risk the government is prepared to take in the name of what they call efficiency. In order to bring about this efficiency, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is prepared to give to farmers a credit of $100,000. If they live long enough to pay it back, fine. If they do not, the government will write it off and will be rid of yet another farmer.
Both the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang)-and may the Lord continue to save us-and the Minister of Agriculture have repeatedly rejected the recommendations of the task force on
Farm Credit Act
agriculture. Repeatedly they have said that report is not government policy, that the task force recommendations are only a report. But every piece of legislation that the ministers have brought to this chamber since that report was brought down has been designed to implement the task force recommendations and conclusions.
Once again we have a sneaker in this bill. Under clause 1 the Minister of Agriculture is sneaking in in his sneakers. He has yet to present any legislation detailing his so-called small farm redevelopment program. If he gets his way in this bill he will empower the Governor in Council to implement the program without this House or any farm organization even seeing the program beforehand.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you people shut up?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If hon. members behind the curtains are going to start heckling me, perhaps they would come out front and do so. The other little sneaker that the Minister of Agriculture has in this legislation is that he will be able in his own way to duplicate services that are now provided by several of the provinces, whether they be ag-rep services, lending services, grants, loans for various operations such as hog raising, and so on.
This is a catch-up operation on the part of the federal government. The federal government is behind certain provinces in the country. I am not giving all the credit to Saskatchewan and Manitoba; there are one or two other provinces that the federal government is behind and this program is the Minister of Agriculture's way of trying to catch up without bringing in legislation. He can also use the program as a club over the heads of the other provinces, or as a bargaining lever.
In this regard I was very interested to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) who quoted what the National Farmers Union had to say about the program. A couple of weeks ago I heard the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, as a result of the sale of the national grain company to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, he could arrange for the boxcars and shipping orders assigned to Federal Grain to be divided among the other grain companies.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: So here we have the hon. member for Mackenzie as the friend of the private grain companies. When the private grain trade bought up other private companies, I do not recall any Tory asking whether or not their shipping orders and boxcars would be divided up, but it is a different story with the wheat pool.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Crow-food (Mr. Horner) on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: While I do not want to constrict in any way the socialist party of Canada, surely the hon. member should stick to the question at hand, which is the lending of larger sums of money to farmers. This bill is not concerned with the grain trade and with whether or not a

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
wheat pool bought out a private industry or a private grain handling company bought out a wheat pool.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think to some extent the hon. member for Crowfoot has made a point. However, I think there is a relationship between farm credit and matters that affect the farming community generally and I think the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre is in order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Crowfoot for raising that point. If he had raised it in the middle of his own speech he would have had a point of order. I repeat the point I was making. Members of the official opposition have been running around this chamber for the last couple of months trying to be on both sides of this question. But they can no longer have it both ways. At least my colleagues to my left, who are on the extreme right, take a position. However, when it comes to farm credit, on the one hand the Tories are saying that they have to protect the family farm and in the next breath they say, "But don't let those farmer-owned and operated outfits get too big, because this will mean they won't need as much credit, that there will be less need for the Farm Credit Corporation".
I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar who spoke about small farms and I hope that he meant what he said this afternoon. Because if he is correct and if-heaven forbid-we ever have a Tory government again, then the national grain company will have to get out of the business of hog raising. Make no bones about it, Mr. Speaker, it must be one or the other.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me make it abundantly clear to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, that the national grain company and Mr. Heffelfinger are not friends of the Tory party. Mr. Heffelfinger is more of a Liberal party bedfellow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Crowfoot is entering the debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad to hear that the Tory party is not in bed with the national grain company, or Mr. Heffelfinger or with the hogs.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is exactly right.


Mr. Lang:: He didn't say that.


An hon. Member:: You have your Waffles.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are kind of proud of them because they at least say what they are.


An hon. Member:: They are pretty hoggish, too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is the ones who waffle from one side to the other that bother me. Just for the hell of it, Mr. Speaker, let us get back to farm credit. The hon. member for Lisgar quoted the president of the National Farmers Union. There is a real right-wing Tory for you and I find it amusing that if they want to be on both sides of the

question they have to quote the president of National Farmers Union.
What the Tories forgot to quote from the president of the National Farmers Union is that the whole question of farm credit and the Farm Credit Corporation is not much good unless we have a national government that will do something about farm income and farm costs. Unless that happens, it does not matter whether we have the Grits or the Tories-and we have had one or the other for over 100 years. In the last 25 years, in spite of protests by the so-called Tory cowboys from the Prairies we have lost 400,000 family farm units in Canada. That has happened since 1945 even though we were unlucky enough to have a Tory government instead of a Liberal government during part of that time. Nothing changed when we had a Tory government.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski). He made a speech today which I thought worthy of his holding an NDP membership card. I hope that statement does not cost him any votes. I am glad he said several things about farm efficiency and farm income, but I wonder why he did not ask why the farmers who increased their efficiency so much did not reap some of the benefits of this free enterprise system. Why did they lose so many family farms in Saskatchewan while at the same time productivity increased?
Unless the nation is prepared to approve subsidies directed at increasing farm income, farm credit goes down the drain. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) put his finger on the situation when he said that something had to be done about farm income and farm costs because the policy of $100,000 in loans at 7 per cent or 8 per cent interest is a policy of bankruptcy.
There must be a substantial change in policies for rural Canada. Any government of this country must realize there is something fundamental, civilized, human, decent and economic about a viable rural community. I am not talking just about farms but the towns and villages that service them, the small cities that service the towns and villages and the factories in those large cities that service the small towns, villages, farms and so on down the line.
Many countries in the world deliberately use part of their natural wealth to keep people out of metropolitan centres. Many of my friends in this House have suggested that if for no other reason than to save dollars we must maintain these people on the land. There is another reason for keeping the people on the land even if you have to subsidize them two or three years out of five. It is more civilized, justifiable, humane and it saves dollars to keep them on the land rather than move them into Saskatoon, Regina, Toronto, Winnipeg or anywhere else. And that is where they want to be.
I wish the Minister of Agriculture were here during the debate on his bill, because he is the one who refuses to do anything about farm costs. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and myself raised the matter of fertilizer costs. We pointed out that farmers in Ontario and the western provinces are suffering at the hands of a cartel. At that time he shrugged his shoulders and said that if we had anything more than hearsay, he would be glad to look into it. I asked him to look into the situation a year ago. I sent him evidence of a fertilizer manufacturer in the city
May 9, 1972

of Edmonton, Imperial Oil Company-which is another friend of our Tory-type farmers-selling fertilizer in Saskatchewan at $20 a ton more than is paid for it in Montana. I think the name of the place in Montana is Dead-wood, and that is where the Tories should be. When I wrote the Minister of Agriculture-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can you write?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My secretary wrote it by hand. When I wrote the Minister of Agriculture I sent him copies of customs certificates, purchase orders and bills of lading showing that it costs $20 per ton more for fertilizer in Saskatchewan than it does in Montana, 350 miles further away from the factory. The Minister of Agriculture, who is that great friend of the farmers-the minister who along with his colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt is going to save the family farm-wrote me a letter on August 10 in which he said:
There are a number of companies competing for the fertilizer market in Canada and the absence of any import tariff also allows competition from abroad, thus preventing any one supplier from cornering the market.
If you will pardon my French, that is a bunch of crap. There are no companies importing fertilizer into Canada, but the companies that are manufacturing fertilizer, including the one in Medicine Hat from where the Minister of Agriculture comes, in Edmonton and Calgary are selling it in the three prairie provinces at $20 to $30 a ton more than you have to pay for it in North Dakota, South Dakota or Montana.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What are the co-ops doing about that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The co-ops are doing something.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They depend on their suppliers, and if they sell it at a lower price the suppliers will discontinue the supply. If you want to put that to the CPR and other suppliers, I invite the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) to do so.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will, because I do not believe your words.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister of Agriculture can loan $100,000 to every farmer in western Canada at 7 per cent or 8 per cent-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And you will support it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -but when it comes to paying $7,000 or $8,000 interest per year on those loans, that is a different story. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will continue to follow free enterprise policies in respect of agriculture, most of which were brought forward by the Tories when they were in power.


An hon. Member:: This guy is a Waffle. Laxer will take care of you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder if Stephen Lewis knows about you. I did not say David; I said Stephen.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is why he is not here. These private enterprise agriculturalists amuse me. They say they are
Farm Credit Act
bright, individual, free-wheeling types who brought themselves up by their own bootstraps. This reminds me of the private enterprise, big-wheeling rancher who complains about the land bank in Saskatchewan while he is sitting on 80 sections of Crown land.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is that Alf Gleave?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No. Alf sold all his land, all one-quarter section of it. But the big enterprise, private agriculturalist, whether Tory or Liberal, is the one in Saskatchewan and southern Alberta who has been sitting on 50, 60 or 80 sections-it is easier to keep track of it by townships-of Crown land. It is this type of person who tells us he brought himself up by his own bootstraps. The son obtained the land from the father, the father obtained it from the grandfather and the grandfather stole it from the Indians.
These are the private enterprise agriculturalists who brought themselves up by their own bootstraps. I have listened to these fellows since I was knee high to a blade of grass. The Liberals and Tories always talk about the independent, free enterprise agriculturalists. For the past 25 years while they have been talking, we have lost half our family farms.
The Minister of Agriculture will try to sneak in his small farm development program. There will be some noise from the other private enterprise agriculturalists, but he will try to sneak this in in clause 1 of the bill without parliament having seen any legislation. It is not only a matter of the people who are trying to save family farms getting elected in the next election; it is more important that we get rid of the Tories and Liberals who have destroyed rural Canada during the last 25 years. We have had instances of private enterprisers talking about lending money to farmers at 7 per cent or 8 per cent and then killing them with rising prices and farm costs. We will support a $100,000 loan.


Mr. Korchinski:: Handled by the credit union.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You bet. I hope the credit unions get all the lending business, and I hope the private banking friends of the hon. member for Mackenzie, the loan and trust companies, go belly-up tomorrow. So far as I am concerned, farm credit should be handled and operated entirely by the co-operative movement in the three prairie provinces, and I challenge my friend from Mackenzie to argue that point with me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Challenge me.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I will.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I shall finish off with the Liberals because the Tories are still sounding like 1890. They are trying to be all things to all people. I want to mention one other item which I believe has been overlooked in this debate, although I may be wrong. Under the provisions of the bill, the maximum loan is $100,000. I wonder whether anyone has thought about this in relation to the Veterans'

May 9, 1972
Farm Credit Act
Land Act under which the maximum one may borrow is $40,000. The Veterans' Land Act requires assets as security. I ask the government why it is increasing the borrowing capacity under the Farm Credit Act and is not doing the same thing in respect of the Veterans' Land Act.


Stanley James Korchinski: And the credit union.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And why is the credit union not doing all the lending? The Minister of Agriculture, of course, will answer that a veteran who has reached the maximum of $40,000 under the Veterans' Land Act can transfer it to the Farm Credit Act and borrow up to $100,000. That is perfectly true. But surely the veteran should have some special, built-in privilege. May I correct that and say he should have some special, built-in "right". Under the Veterans' Land Act it takes too long to have a loan processed. The process is too long and the land gets away; someone else buys the land in the time it takes a veteran to transfer his application from the Veterans' Land Act to the Farm Credit Act. Why should there not be equivalent amendments to the Veterans' Land Act? Surely the veteran should be given a special right and privilege in this regard.
Other groups can increase their holdings and assets under the Farm Credit Act. Unless the government brings in equivalent or even better changes under the Veterans' Land Act, the veteran will have no choice but to transfer his borrowing power to the Farm Credit Corporation. This would take some time. Some of these veterans have been established since the end of the Second World War. They are being left out of the deal. Surely there should be an amendment in respect of their legislation which would be equivalent to or better than the amendments to the Farm Credit Act. I ask the minister or someone speaking on his behalf to reply to this matter in the House, or at least to do so before the committee.
Despite what the Minister of Agriculture said, any amendment to the Farm Credit Act will not be sufficient unless we have a national government which will do something about farm income and costs in order that farmers will be able to obtain and repay the kind of loan the minister proposes for them.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight). I assure the House that I shall not be long. I shall not delay the passage of this bill to any extent. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is some meaning to the words "where young farmers meet performance standards". We see a number of programs brought forward by the government from time to time. I refer to programs such as the Opportunities for Youth program in respect of which I believe most prairie members and Conservative members feel there are not enough criteria which must be met. It has been said that this really does not matter, that the programs have met certain standards and have passed certain boards.
We believe that the government is handing out bonuses to industry, and I call them just that. Last night, in the budget, big and small manufacturing industries received a reduction in income tax, which will do nothing other

than encourage big business and big industry to modernize their plants, put in one more machine and lay off two men. That is all it will do. We do not see all kinds of government bonuses being handed out to people in the agricultural industry.
Because of the high average age of farmers, only 2 per cent of loans made to date under the Farm Credit Act have been made to farmers aged 25 and less. I see some members shaking their head. I suggest they check the evidence and they will see that what I am saying is true. Let them look at the Dominion Bureau of Statistics farm credit analysis publication, where they will see that 2 per cent of the loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation are to farmers aged 25 years or less.
We must make special provisions to encourage young people to return to agriculture, because the average age of the farmer at present is 58. The small farm development program is ineffective, yet the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) says he will go ahead with it. A detrimental measure was proposed in Saskatchewan which in essence would nationalize farms in that province. As reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, Mr. Messer, the minister of agriculture of the Saskatchewan government, said he wants to socialize Saskatchewan farms. He does not beat about the bush.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) wants to do.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave) said they will not support our amendment. They want to socialize farms in the whole of Canada, not only in Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press:
Mr. Messer said flatly he looked on the program as a revival of the Regina manifesto of 1933. And he said he was satisfied the present Saskatchewan government wants to socialize Saskatchewan farms.
Mr. Speaker, I hear some nattering behind me from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar sold his farm, so why should he worry now? I have reason to believe that he is living in the penthouse of one of the better apartment buildings in Ottawa, so why should he worry?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre rising on a point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is a double point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I wish to correct the record. The hon. member for Crowfoot was not right when he quoted me; he was incorrect. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar did not sell his farm; he sold his tractor. My second point of order is to ask you to rule now whether the point of order which the hon. member for Crowfoot raised would not be in order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I respectfully suggest that the first was not a point of order. As to the second one, I think the hon. members are equal.
May 9, 1972


Mr. Gleave:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for complimenting me on where I live. Let me point out that he happens to live in the same place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. We are debating a serious piece of legislation which concerns the lending of money to younger people. The age is lowered from 21 to an unspecified age depending on the law in each province. The age may be 19 or 18. In fact, in most provinces it is 18. I am dealing with our amendment and the subject matter of the poor, weak and inept amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia.
As to the idle remarks of the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar who suggested that I live in the same apartment block as he does, I do not deny that. However, I live on the third floor, while he lives in the penthouse. Do I know what is going on in that apartment? I am not debating whether he sold his tractor or his farm. He knows what he sold. Furthermore, his constituents will know what he sold. They will know whether he has divorced himself from the land. If he will have a farm sale and call in an auctioneer, I would like to offer myself as auctioneer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has two or three minutes left, and I respectfully suggest that we return to the subject matter of the bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the remarks you made when I drew your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre did not stick to the subject matter of the bill when he said that the wheat pools had been bought out by the private grain companies. Then he said I was not dealing with the subject matter of the bill and raised a point of order. In fact I was dealing with the bill. Then, Mr. Speaker, you said that we were both equal. To me this lends nothing to the debate. I do not want to cast reflections upon your ruling-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Crowfoot knows that when the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre raised his point of order, I ruled in favour of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre and indicated that generally speaking when hon. members were dealing with agricultural matters they were relating them to farm credit. When the hon. member for Crowfoot was speaking, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre raised a similar point of order and I then ruled in favour of the hon. member for Crowfoot. I think hon. members were in order, generally speaking. It is a very wide-ranging debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on February 25 I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) whether he would be prepared to make public the allocation of funds under the Local Initiatives Program for each province, and whether he would also be prepared to make available at the earliest possible date information on the amount of money spent in each province and the total number of applications received from each province under this program. On a number of occasions I consented to postpone taking up this matter in the adjournment debate. The most recent occasion was last Thursday night when the parliamentary secretary asked if I would postpone raising the matter that night. I can understand why he did so: it was because the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) had another announcement to make the next day about the extension of the program.
I have taken note of some of the information that has been made available since that time both by way of news releases and answers to questions posed in the House by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and myself. It has been revealed that $152 million will be spent under the Local Initiatives Program, on the basis of present information and before the extended time and amounts are taken into account.
I think it is worth while to take note of some of the distribution of these expenditures across Canada. In analysing some of this material we find that a high percentage of these expenditures was made in the Atlantic provinces and in the province of Quebec. Some 42 per cent of the total amount available under LIP was spent in the province of Quebec and 21 per cent in the four Atlantic provinces. In both cases these figures were considerably higher than the proportion of unemployment in those provinces in relation to total unemployment in Canada. There was one answer given to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I found rather disturbing. That was the answer to the question:
What criteria were used in the provincial allocations for both municipalities and local groups?
The answer was:
The allocation was made proportionate to unemployment in the provinces to the base rate of 4.5 per cent unemployment and adjusted for out migration and native population that would not otherwise be reflected in unemployment figures.
In addition to the use of the unemployment figure itself, this of course is quite valid and in line with what some of us have advanced for some time, that account be taken of the out migration factor and of native population because they are not included in the normal labour force figures. However, I submit that these criteria do not take account of other factors in the economy, particularly of the underemployment that we have in some regions of the country.
The fact is that income levels are lower in some parts of the country than in others-in the prairie provinces, to give one example-and these lower income levels are a

May 9, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion reflection of underemployment, which means only partial employment or something different than a straight unemployment figure. This should be taken into account as well. Also, there are different characteristics in the labour forces of the various provinces. No account is taken of the fact that in some parts you have different participation factors in the labour force, particularly as a result of the rural-urban ratio of the population. Where there is a higher rural ratio this will mean a lower formal participation factor in the labour force as a whole. This factor should be taken into account.
I find that only 2.8 per cent of the total program expenditures have been allocated to my province of Saskatchewan. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that while recognizing some of the problems in other parts of the country, we have a case that must also be considered. We have needs and problems that deserve consideration. But we find that whether it is the regional incentives program, some of the manpower programs or LIP, we are not getting our fair share of the programs. We find that a very high percentage of the program expenditures are going to the province of Quebec. I have to say this, while recognizing the serious nature of some of the problems that exist in that province. For example between July, 1971, and February, 1972, 61.1 per cent of all industrial incentive grants went to the province of Quebec.
Last week we had an announcement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that the Local Initiatives Program was going to be extended until September 30. Although there are some deficiencies in the program, which have been outlined by my leader, I welcome this extension. Also, I welcome the addition of $30 million in funds to be made available, but am disappointed to learn that no new projects will be considered as a result of the extension of the program. As I understand it, the only projects that will be assisted are those for which assistance has already been given. However, Mr. Speaker, there are communities of some size in this country which up to the present have not received any assistance under the Local Initiatives Program and I submit-


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


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) I will try to supply him, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) for whom I am replying tonight, with some figures for which he asked. As of April 14, 1972, the following sums of money have been committed to applications approved under the Local Initiatives Program. These totals will vary as the projects progress, since adjustments involving contractual changes are sometimes necessary after the final approvals have been negotiated. I am now prepared to inform the hon. member that amounts allocated in each province are as follows: Newfoundland, $9,900,113; Nova Scotia, $10,395,996; Prince Edward Island-


John Stratford Burton: I already have those figures.


Ian Watson: The hon. member says he already has those figures. I hold in my hand a list showing total amounts

and numbers of applications received from each province under the Local Initiatives Program. If the hon. member wishes, I will put these on the record. The hon. member indicated that he has certain figures in his possession. However, I wonder if he would like me to put the first list of figures I mentioned on record, if time permits.


John Stratford Burton: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Watson: The following sums have been committed to applications approved under the Local Initiatives Program: Prince Edward Island, $2,047,394; New Brunswick, $9,173,511; Quebec, $62,698,549; Ontario, $22,175,018; Manitoba, $5,365,159; Saskatchewan, $4,029,126; Alberta, $8,027,544; Northwest Territories, $1,039,483; British Columbia, $13,670,599; Yukon, $428,058.
As I said, I hold in my hand a list showing the total amounts and numbers of applications received from each province under the Local Initiatives Program. The amounts are set out together with the number of applications received from those communities.


John Stratford Burton: What about communities that have not received any help?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Ian Watson: I do not think there is time for me to put on record the totals of the applications. May I indicate to the hon. member for Regina East that the special factors which he indicated as having a bearing on the Saskatchewan scene will be brought to the attention of the minister.



FISHERIES-ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURE-REASON FOR OMISSION OF NOVA SCOTIA, NEWFOUNDLAND AND QUEBEC RIVERS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint lohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about certain aspects of the ban on salmon fishing that has been referred to in this House. I am pleased to see the minister in his place. I know he has been busy. With the election scare, ministers have been running all over the country in their own private airplanes and smuggling in a little politicking, so to speak. In the interests of the well-being of the nation, I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had better declare pretty soon whether there is to be an election immediately or next fall, so that we can get down to business and know where we stand.
The Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has a better record than most for attending during the "late show". I appreciate his being here this evening to reply to the question I raised earlier as recorded on page 1556 of Hansard. The narrow business at that time was with respect to the salmon ban on the rivers of New Brunswick only. I asked why rivers of other provinces have not, except in one case, been closed. I was particularly interested in Quebec. The minister said then, as he had said previously, that parallel action was planned in Quebec. I should like to get a fairly definitive statement as to what is meant and what is to be done. According to my information, there is not to be a ban in Quebec. There is to be a slight seasonal restriction similar to the sort of restriction which was imposed in New
May 9, 1972

Brunswick in previous years before the outright ban was introduced.
We have the ironic situation in the north of New Brunswick, the Bay of Chaleur and the mouth of the Restigou-che River, where the salmon fishermen are completely restricted on one side of the river while in Quebec they will be furiously fishing for salmon without any ban. I make the contention again, as I did when I asked these questions, that the minister should apply the ban to all the rivers in Quebec or should have negotiated with Quebec and found out where we fit before he banned the rivers in New Brunswick. This also applies to Nova Scotia. There are only two minor rivers there, St. Mary's and Margaree. They could have been banned, in the interest of fairness, as well as those in Newfoundland.
While the minister is answering, if he has time he should mention some other matters that I think have been subject to half-truth and misrepresentation by the minister and his officials. First, there is the matter of consultation with fishermen. At page 1607 of Hansard, the second column, the minister said:
-we have been in touch with the fishermen, and the fishermen agree with our approach.
My information from the fishermen is that none of them was approached in the official way which was promised. The minister should either now or later detail the exact times and places when he had consultation with the fishing associations about this full closure. Second, I would like to know what pollution has to to with this business. The minister mentioned that some rivers have more pollution than others. He referred to the pollution of the Saint John River. Frankly, I cannot fit the pollution part in, recognizing there is serious pollution in the Saint John River. I do not understand how a salmon ban will change the pollution in the river.
The third matter that came to my attention the other day is that there is no record of the return of salmon to the rivers in New Brunswick from Greenland. I would like the minister to comment on that. I understand from brochures I have that as late as 1969 and 1970 the department admitted there was not any proof by tagging of the return of salmon from Greenland. There is certainly a record of Atlantic salmon from New Brunswick all over the Atlantic, which are being caught and tagged. However, to my knowledge there is no record of salmon being tagged in Greenland and returned to New Brunswick. It may be an exercise in futility unless we have more facts on that matter.
I hope the minister will bring us up to date on a matter about which I understand negotiations are still continuing. That is the matter of compensation and the fact that in the meeting last Thursday there apparently was an almost direct refusal by the fisheries people, that is, those who represent the unions in Fredericton, New Brunswick, who turned down the compensation that had been offered. I want to give the minister time to refer to as many matters as possible. I point out to the minister that this is unique in the sense that the fishermen have not asked for compensation. They are being told they should 25316-11!
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion stop fishing and there will be compensation. There should certainly be a very generous offer to them.
I have been here a long time, too long perhaps, but I do not think I have missed one year in making the suggestion that we have a massive program of study for the salmon. We are now finding that we do not have all the knowledge for this unique fish. I do not know whether the minister or the departmental officials are to blame, but he has to deal with this question on a piecemeal basis each year. First there were restrictions on the passing down of salmon rights. We were told that this would apply only to bona fide fishermen. They made plans on that. The season was then cut down and the fishermen co-operated fully in that regard. Having gone through that whole period of adjustment with their families, what little money they received was completely cut off this year. The possibility of being able to do some fishing is one thing, but they are cut off completely this year. If there is to be compensation, I urge that it be on a generous scale.


John (Jack) Davis: I should like to answer the hon. member in this way. We have been looking at the Atlantic salmon situation in terms of the entire east coast, not in terms of the individual provinces. We have been very much concerned about the large salmon, not so much about the smaller salmon commonly referred to as grilse. The principal large salmon rivers are, generally speaking, on the mainland. The best rivers are in New Brunswick and Quebec. I have stated in the House that Quebec is expected to take-indeed, I think I said "will take"-formal action with respect to closure for a period of years at least of the big salmon rivers.
As far as the commercial fishery is concerned, I discussed this matter at length yesterday with the minister responsible for fisheries in Quebec City and after an explanation of our attitude he again said he would endeavour to follow our approach as quickly as he could. A problem could arise if there were not close co-operation with Quebec with respect to those rivers, including the Matapedia and the Restigouche, which flow into the Bay of Chaleur. There must be an identical policy with respect to these rivers because Quebec fishermen are on one bank and New Brunswick fishermen are on the other.
We have offered compensation to New Brunswick commercial fishermen to cover the period during which fishing for salmon will not be allowed and we have proposed to the Quebec government that through the Quebec administration identical offers should be made to the commercial fishermen on the Quebec side of the Restigouche. There I believe there will be an identical policy on both sides of the rivers flowing into the Bay of Chaleur. The hon. member asked about rivers in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to advise the hon. minister that his time has expired.



TRANSPORT-PROPOSED LINKING OF KOOTENAY AND ELK RAILWAY TO U.S. LINE-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT MOVEMENT OF COAL TO U.S. PORTS

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on May 5 I asked a question concerning the proposed linking of the

May 9, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Kootenay and Elk Railway with the Burlington Northern line which would be used to haul coal via the United States to Roberts Bank. On May 2 the leader of the New Democratic Party asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) whether he was considering amendments to the Railway Act which would give the Railway Transport Commission authority to take the public interest into account when dealing with applications which came before it. The minister replied that he had not had time in which to read the judgment, but indicated he wanted the maximum amount of Canadian products to be moved over Canadian rails and would be glad to consider any legislation or any other changes which might achieve such an objective.
On May 3 I sought to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 to discuss the carriage of coal by rail from the East Kootenays to Roberts Bank, B.C., by the United States route. This motion was not allowed. Again, on May 4 my hon. friend from Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) asked several questions and attempted to quote what Mr. Justice Hall had said in the Supreme Court judgment. However, Mr. Speaker suggested an attempt was being made to deliver a speech. Somehow, every time questions come up concerning railroads or railroad jobs, people do not appear to be much concerned. However, in this case thousands of jobs could be involved. When we consider what the ruling of the Supreme Court could mean, it should be clear why there is real concern. One of the Canadian Transport Commissioners, Mr. Griffin, had this to say in the board's decision on this application:
In my view, the committee has a discretion and can refuse to make an order, though the matter of safety be satisfied, if by reason of the public interest, or for any other adequate reason, it appears just and proper to do so.
He went on to grant application No. 1. After the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission, the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company and Burlington Northern Incorporated appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, resulting in a five to four decision which declared that the Canadian Transport Commission had erred in their judgment. It should be realized that Crows Nest Industries Limited is a shareholder of Kaiser Steel Corporation, the parent of Kaiser. One of the incorporators of the Kootenay and Elk Railway was chairman of the board of Crows Nest Industries Limited and a director on the board of Kaiser Steel Corporation. Kootenay was incorporated as, and remains, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Crows Nest Industries Limited.
I should like to quote what Mr. Justice Hall had to say in the Supreme Court of Canada decision:
I do not find any provision or undertaking that if the applications now being sought are granted, that Burlington will necessarily continue to use the Roberts Bank facility.
I might point out that the Canadian government has put millions of dollars into this facility.
I see nothing in the record to prevent Burlington from using or creating another port in the state of Washington for the loading of this Canadian product destined for Japan. As a matter of fact, in the evidence of R. W. Downing, executive vice-president of Burlington, it is said that "the first discussions were directed toward

moving the coal through a United States port", but later it was decided to use Roberts Bank as the only port with facilities to handle unit trains.
Further on, Mr. Justice Hall had this to say:
The whole scheme would appear to me to be the classic case of a foreign conglomerate in concert with related Canadian companies so manipulating the enterprise that the export of Canadian jobs would be the result. That surely was a proper matter for the commission to consider and weigh. There is nothing in the record to indicate that CPR is unable for lack of equipment or personnel to carry all the coal going from the Sparwood area to Roberts Bank to fulfil present or future Japanese contracts and it is significant to observe that Burlington proposes to charge the same rate as CPR.
The first words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he came into office last February was that his most urgent priority was jobs, and in his budget speech last night he said this remains his first priority. It appears to me that the members of the House are not aware of the situation here. If Kootenay and Elk are granted a common carrier licence there is every indication that not only will coal be hauled along the lines of Burlington Northern to Eureka in Montana and then west either to Roberts Bank or to Seattle, they will also haul lumber from British Columbia down to Eureka and then to markets east. This lumber may have come from the Kootenays and would have gone east to Calgary, Moose Jaw, Winnipeg and then south to the Chicago market. Resources from that area could well be hauled by this common carrier down through Montana on the Burlington Northern and then dispatched in either direction.
If the government is to be consistent with respect to what the Minister of Finance said last night, it is absolutely necessary to introduce amendments, as proposed, to the Railway Act which will take into consideration the interest of the public and other considerations. Time is slipping past. The government should be concerned about this matter. I hope it will take the initiative of introducing amendments to the Railway Act, that the House will pass them and the Canadian Transport Commission will rule on the application of Kootenay and Elk and Burlington and Northern Incorporated, thus saving thousands of jobs in Canada.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, the link between the question asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) and the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) is tenuous but I will attempt on behalf of the minister to respond to the hon. member's question.
As the hon. member realizes, the legal implications of the matter to which he alludes are extremely complicated. Despite the protracted legal exercise that has already occur red, it is far from clear what, if any, additional steps the various parties will take. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) has already spoken to me, to my minister and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) regarding the very serious issues and implications involved in this controversy, and the hon. member has not ceased to make the government aware of his concern and deep interest in the resolution of this matter.
At stake in the issue raised before the Canadian Transport Commission and subsequently before the Supreme
May 9, 1972

Court of Canada by the Kootenay and Elk Railway and the CPR is the question of whether coal will be carried from southeastern British Columbia to the west coast port of Roberts Bank via a United States railway employing United States workers, or via a Canadian railway employing Canadian workers. I have no hesitation in indicating that as far as I am concerned, Canada's national interest must prevail if the matter raised by the hon. member tonight passes the hypothetical stage.
The Minister of Transport, replying in the House of Commons on May 2-this has been quoted already tonight-made it perfectly clear that he wanted to see the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion maximum amount of Canadian products moved over Canadian rails. The original application of the Kootenay and Elk Railway has been dealt with by the CTC and has been the subject of a Supreme Court decision, as the hon. member has already indicated. The parties affected by the decision are now in receipt of it and presumably are considering what steps, if any, they will now take in light of this decision. So far, to my knowledge, none of the parties has indicated what will be their next step. Until then the government will continue to examine thoroughly the implications of the submission and issues raised before the CTC.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Wednesday, May 10, 1972