1972-05-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table two documents, one in English and one in French, which in reality are progress reports on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
When the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was tabled in the House in 1970 there was much to be done in creating equal opportunities for and removing discrimination against women in Canadian society. The government set up an interdepartmental committee on the status of women to analyse the recommendations of the royal commission and to determine the best ways that the government should proceed with these recommendations. Mrs. Freda L. Paltiel was seconded from the Department of National Health and Welfare to be coordinator of the committee. This interdepartmental committee was composed of representatives from various departments and agencies. Its report was submitted to me in December, 1971. The report of the royal commission consisted of 167 recommendations, many of them falling under the jurisdiction of the federal government, some falling under the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, some joint federal and provincial and others under the jurisdiction of business and industry.
The federal government has taken significant action both administratively and legislatively with regard to the recommendations under its sole jurisdiction and in doing so has played a more important role in leadership. In the Status of Women in Canada 1972 booklet, reference is made to the work done by the federal government. But our work cannot stop with our many accomplishments. We must make more and more significant advances until every man and woman in this country will have equal opportunities in every field of endeavour. The booklet I am tabling is a signpost but not a resting place and we must continue to work together as Members of Parliament and as Canadians to ensure equality for all in our country.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to some of the highlights of the report.
The Canada Labour (Standards) Code has attempted to remove discrimination in employment. The Women's Bureau of the Department of Labour has provided an invaluable service to women who work.
The Unemployment Insurance Act provided universality as well as better protection to women in the work force. The government has provided maternity leave under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
A new family planning division has been set up in the Department of National Health and Welfare to co-ordinate federal endeavours in the field of planned parenthood.
National Health and Welfare, Treasury Board, the Solicitor General and Manpower and Immigration have created senior positions for women in their departments to give advice on programs and activities with regard to women in their mandates.
The Local Initiatives Program, among other accomplishments, has established approximately 90 day-care centres across Canada. Child care allowances are now a deductible expense under the Income Tax Act.
The bill to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act which received first reading last week in the House of Commons will provide women who have worked one year at any time in their lives the opportunity to receive training as well as training allowances for the first time.
An equal employment opportunity office has been set up in the Public Service.
The cabinet has issued directive No. 44 directing deputy ministers to take steps to encourage the assignment and advancement of more women into middle and upper echelon positions.
The Family Income Security Plan, which has now passed second reading in the House of Commons, would provide increases in benefits to low-income families and assist sole support mothers.
The government has also paid special attention to the needs of native women in its supportive training programs and leadership development.
Major grants have been given to planned parenthood federation of Canada and Serena.
The federal government has also recently helped finance the Strategy for Change conference involving women's organizations from across Canada.
Women's groups across Canada, studying the report, have received, when needed, financial support.
The government actively continues to seek out competent women for appointments to boards, commissions, judgeships and other senior posts.

May 4, 1972
Status of Women
Finally, amendments have been introduced to the Criminal Code to include equal jury duty for men and women in criminal cases. These amendments propose also to remove the anachronistic vagrancy clause as well as whipping as a penalty, which is sex discrimination in reverse.
Mr. Speaker, I shall close my remarks by reiterating that the government does not intend to stand still. We shall strive to work towards elevating the status of women in Canada to the point where discrimination by reason of sex will be a thing of the past.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to reply to the minister's statement even though the statement is late. The report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was tabled, I believe, in December, 1970, and for the life of me I cannot understand why it has taken the government until May, 1972, to give us some idea of their views on it.


Mr. Stanfield:: That is quick for them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I say with the greatest of respect that this statement perhaps indicates that we are not too far from an election because the government has now said that it has some interest in women.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I also wonder, if the minister has had this report in his possession since December, 1971, why the Women's Liberal Association suddenly met with him yesterday and immediately after that meeting we have a statement by the government. I think more people are involved with the status of women than those in the Women's Liberal Association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying that among the women of Canada, and I have said this before, are women of skill. We have not drawn on their skills sufficiently. It has not been recognized that among our women there is a reservoir of skills which certainly can play a meaningful role in the development of our Canadian way of life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I say that for our people in 1972 Canada must not only be a land of opportunity but a land of equal opportunity, and that means equal opportunity for all individuals regardless of race, creed, colour or sex.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not know why, in a statement of such importance, the minister evaded one of the most important issues facing women today, the issue of abortion. It seems to me that for one reason or other the government is deliberately avoiding facing this issue. The abortion rate is going up continually. Women are in dire financial straits. As I understand it, the government has

indicated that it will set a date when abortion can be debated in the House. Why was this not mentioned in the minister's statement?
Another area I ought to mention is the LIP program. With all due respect, it seems to me that the LIP program serves the interests of women who have reached the secondary level of education. What happens to those women who have not reached that level of education and really need help but have not been helped by the LIP program since it affects those with a secondary level of education?
I am pleased to note that the government is moving in the area of fair employment practices. That is a step in the right direction. I understand that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) intends to bring in amendments to remove bias in employment on grounds of age, sex and marriage. This step must be taken if we are to be consistent and give everyone an equal opportunity.
I am disturbed that the minister although he boasts of the family planning division which has been set up to co-ordinate federal endeavours in the field of planned parenthood, nowhere in his statement mentions co-ordination of plans with those provinces and municipalities in which competent but overworked birth control and family planning clinics already exist. One of the more important omissions is that abortion was not placed before the minister.
I should like to say a word about another area which I think deserves immediate consideration, that involving those women who belong to the group making up Canada's first citizens. They live in deplorable conditions. They seem to be the forgotten part of our culture. I hope the government will pay sufficient attention to the needs of native women and show leadership in the development of certain programs of benefit to them, particularly in the field of health care. That is an area into which we must move because there is great necessity for such programs.
I have not read the booklet the minister tabled. We shall see what is in it. I hope the statement he made was not made for political reasons. I hope the statement was made to show the government's genuine concern about the status of women.
May I pay tribute to the woman who, I think, has had a great deal to do with the thinking of the government in these matters, Miss Sylva M. Gelber, Director of the Women's Bureau, Department of Labour. She seems to have her finger on all these problems. I believe it is an extremely difficult job for her alone to bring significant points to the attention of not only members of the House of Commons but also of the people of Canada.
I believe that electoral reform must come in order that more women can be candidates for membership in this august House, not because they are women but because they have compassion, understanding, experience, wisdom and expertise that this House can certainly use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see that Your Honour is getting a little impatient. There is quite a bit more I could say. We will
May 4, 1972

keep our eyes on the government daily in order to see whether this is a genuine move. I will close by reading a portion of a speech by Miss Sylva M. Gelber on November 10, 1971, to the Canadian Federation of University Women. After having related in some detail the summary of progress that had been made in terms of women, women's rights and legislation affecting them, she closed her speech with this extremely significant paragraph:
From this short summary of the progress made in the enactment of legislation relating to working women, it will be seen that, at long last, the laws required to achieve the goal of equal and fair opportunity for women, are beginning to appear across the land. But the law is merely a tool; and a tool is of little value if it is not used. And even if the tool is used, it is only of value when it is properly used.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to respond on behalf of our party to the statement just made by the minister in charge of raising the status of women. I am glad the article in Chatelaine with the questionnaire appeared at this time. I cannot help feeling that it gave a little extra impetus to the production of this statement.
When the report of the royal commission was tabled it provided Canadian women at once with a bible of their rights and a blueprint as to some of the ways in which action must be taken for them to reach the promised land of equality. What does this statement disclose? It discloses that there have been several measures of real substance achieved. I have made reference to these before. The two most important have been under the aegis of the minister now in charge. They are maternity leave under the Canada Labour (Standards) Code and maternity benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. More recently there have been amendments to the Criminal Code with regard to women serving as jurors, the abolition of the vagrancy section and one or two other points. Within the Department of National Health and Welfare, there has been the establishment of grants for family planning across this country.
Some pious hopes have been expressed about how the government intends to encourage the appointment of more women to senior posts in the public service. However, apart from token positions where women have been so outstanding that they could not be ignored, these hopes have not been anything more than expressed. One of my colleagues has just made the rather regrettable suggestion that even at this stage there are many members-"MCPs", they might be called-not paying the attention they might at this time. On behalf of the women of Canada, I ask them to listen.


Some hon. Members:: Explain "MCPs".


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I will not compete with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in that department. As far as the major recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women are concerned, there has been no action or only microscopic action taken to this point. The major recommendation was for child care centres across the country. While this is obviously a shared responsibility with the provinces and municipalities, the federal government has a tremendous responsibility to fulfil.
Status of Women

Hon. members on my left could perhaps calm down a little so that I may be heard.

The only mention of this matter in the statement today is that under the LIP program the federal government has helped to establish 90 day-care centres across the country.
I would point out, however, that the LIP program is due to end on the 31st of the present month, and you know, Mr. Speaker, what will happen to most of these centres when the grants end. My other comment is that the Royal Commission on the Status of Women said that there is need for 130,000 day-care places immediately. So this is one big piece of unfinished business.
Reference was made to child care allowances. The recent legislation provided for only about half the amount of income tax deductions which is essential if children are to be looked after, and even this minimal concession is hedged about with demands for receipts, the keeping of employer records, and so on. There are many whose wages are not high enough to enable them to qualify for this tax deduction. The report of the royal commission calls for a guaranteed annual income for "single support" parents as the beginning of a guaranteed income across this country for all Canadians.
In regard to the Adult Occupational Training Act, I am glad to learn that women are to be allowed to qualify. The minister told us that women would be eligible provided they had worked for one year at any time in their lives. I should like to know how many women have not worked for one year at any time in their lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: In other words, will the new act apply to housewives or not? Are they considered to have worked one year in their lives? The minister nods. That is good. I hope Hansard will report the nod.
Work on education in the field of planned parenthood has been started and there are already 66 family planning centres across Canada. I would point out, though, that according to experts in the field we need 700 of these centres to give information and advice on family planning. There is also a need for information on abortion as a second line of defence against unwanted pregnancy, as the hon. member who preceded me has indicated.
As for the Family Income Security Plan, we in this party have pointed out that it will take from one-third of our mothers even the little cheque they now receive. They will have to give it to those who are living in poverty because the government has not the courage to institute a fair tax system so as to obtain the necessary revenue from other sources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: Women are sending me letters which prove they are well aware that the fair taxation potential exists. I am watching the clock, Mr. Speaker. The first speaker on this subject took six minutes, the next took seven, and I have spoken for just six minutes so far.

May 4, 1972
Labour Conditions
I am afraid the government has laboured mightily in its mountain of red tape and given birth to a very small mouse indeed compared with what is necessary. It is to be hoped that the women of this country will not relax their endeavours but push the minister and the mountain to proceed at a much faster pace toward the goal of equality for women than they have shown up to the present time. Women are grateful for what they have got but, like Oliver Twist, they intend to keep on asking for more.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the list of the government's actions with regard to the status of women is supposed to be impressive according to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey), but, as stated by previous speakers, such a list has a strong pre-election flavour.
Of course, we approve of all measures to ensure true equality between men and women in this country, but, when that day has come, there will be no need to speak about the status of women. And, as this is being done today, it is an indication that we are far from having reached that objective.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I quote part of a speech I made on that subject on March 9, 1971, as follows:
However, I feel we should do a lot more to speed up the process of emancipation and progress of Canadian women. On the basis that there is to be no difference between man and woman apart from the physiological point of view, one is entitled to wonder why practically all management and legislative activities are carried out exclusively by men.
Obviously, if the true principle of democracy were to be integrally applied in this House, half of our representatives would have to be women since the population of any country is divided somewhat equally into males and females. Fortunately, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) is here to save a small fragment of democracy.
This situation would be corrected by effecting a new distribution of the Commons seats. Canada could have some 150 constituencies represented by both a male and a female member. Then the absolute equality we are seeking would thus be achieved at the parliamentary level.
Some people will laugh at this suggestion but when we see so many men apparently lost in a maze of thoughts which are more or less constructive, I wonder whether the practical way of thinking and action which characterizes women could not bring a little more efficiency to the business of this House.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of the most urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns the results of a recent survey conducted by the Metro Alliance for Development, a Sydney, Nova Scotia-based group funded under the

federal government's LIP program which, in its report of April 21, 1972, estimates that the real rate of unemployment on Cape Breton Island was in the 29 to 31 per cent range during the February-March period of this year, an increase of 5 per cent from the same period last year.
Recognizing the tragic human and economic effects of such a persisting and drastically high unemployment rate on the morale and human dignity of Cape Bretoners, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis)-and I might add that I am sure we will have the endorsation of the government House leader, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Can-so (Mr. MacEachen):
That this House refer to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, the recent report of an unemployment survey on Cape Breton Island, conducted by the Metro Alliance for Development, in order that the four major recommendations proposed by the report may be studied, evaluated and acted upon as soon as possible, to ameliorate this most deplorable and destructive unemployment situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unananimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



NON-MEDICAL USE OF DRUGS DIRECTORATE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek leave of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In explanation thereof may I preface it by saying it relates to the revelation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police of a staggering increase in the availability, use and illegal possession of psychotropic drugs which took place during the time the drug abuse program of the federal government was in effect. It relates to the freezing of the budget of the nonmedical use of drugs directorate and the fact that the minister has ignored the views of the British Columbia and Nova Scotia medical associations with regard to treatment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he cannot argue in support of the motion he is proposing to the House. He should indicate briefly what the motion is that he proposes for the consideration of the House.


Frank Howard: You anticipated me precisely, Mr. Speaker. I had just reached that point. Because of the resignation of the director of the non-medical use of drugs directorate, Dr. W. F. Craig, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
May 4, 1972

That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be authorized to inquire into the activities of the non-medical use of drugs directorate with particular reference to the reasons for the resignation of the director-general of that directorate, Dr. W. F. Craig.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House as it has been submitted under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. I submit that the Minister of National Health and Welfare should not have been obliged to say no to that particular motion as he did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons.


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


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the participation of Canadians in companies operating in Canada. Does he intend, either directly or in co-operation with the provinces, to establish guidelines relating to the proportion of senior positions in companies operating in Canada which should be filled by Canadian citizens?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, only time will tell how the screening process will be operated, but there are many factors to be considered in making decisions, indicated in the legislation. As my hon. friend probably knows, there is
Inquiries of the Ministry
an item called participation, and the question he raises would obviously come under that heading.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer relates only to negotiations in respect of takeovers. I am asking him whether he intends, either directly or in conjunction with the provinces, to establish a guideline regarding the proportion of senior management positions in companies operating in Canada which should be filled by Canadian citizens?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the statement made the other day by the Minister of National Revenue contained a paragraph indicating that other ideas were being explored in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Oh, let's have an answer.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it the answer is that the minister has no such intention. I should like to ask either the same minister or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether it is the intention of the government, either directly or in association with the provinces, to establish any legislative requirements relating to the proportion of directors of companies operating in Canada who must be Canadian citizens?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have not examined that in my department other than addressing ourselves to responsibilities and powers of corporation directors, as was indicated in the draft competition Bill C-256 which the hon. member knows does not deal with the nationality of directors.



ROLE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK-ACTION TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP TASK FORCE

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance who may be in a more constructive mood. In view of the recommendation in the report of the task force on foreign ownership in Canada that the government review the role of the Industrial Development Bank regarding the venture capital situation for small companies, has the minister reviewed this legislation and does he intend to introduce an amendment with a view to carrying out the recommendations of the task force in this regard?


Hon. lohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing these recommendations very carefully. I am not in a position yet to tell the hon. member whether the implementation of them, if we were to decide on that, would require amendment of the legislation.



MEASURES TO PROMOTE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the finding by Statistics Canada that the level of industrial research and development in 1972 will show little real growth since 1969, are new measures being prepared to accelerate and assist industrial

May 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
research and development and, if so, when can we expect a statement to be made?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the budget of my department, contrary to those statistics, indicates that the degree of research and development done across the board in Canada with the support of my department is increasing. If my friend wants to look at my estimates he will witness that fact.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact the minister undertook to investigate a serious omission from his monthly report to parliament of a $6.1 million grant to McCain's Foods, and in view of the reported unavailability of the minister to appear before the standing committee until May 18, will he inform the House now why this information was not provided as required under section 16 of the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Mr. Horner:: That was the third grant to McCain's and they were the bagmen in New Brunswick for the Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They were the bagmen for the Liberal party in New Brunswick and that is the third grant they got from the Liberal party.


Mr. Marchand (Langelier):: I don't understand-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would request hon. members-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is true and you know it is true.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are not denying it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Regina East.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could be given the opportunity to respond to the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Are grants only for Liberals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This shouting across the floor-


Mr. Ricard:: Act like a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
(Mr. Crouse ]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is the Liberal party that broke in New Brunswick?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might wait-


An hon. Member:: It shouldn't be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will be recognized for the purpose of replying to the question when the noise has subsided and the Chair has a chance to hear the reply.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that I would go before the committee again. In my opinion it is not fair to say that I delayed because the last time I was there it was understood that it would be the last. I intend to go back and I will be pleased to give the information requested by the hon. member.


Mr. Nielsen:: Answer the question.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister agreed the last time we were before the committee to provide the information to the committee and indicated he thought he would be available this week to appear before that committee. What is the matter? What is he hiding for?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-RESIGNATION OF MR. BUREAU-STUDY OF CRITERIA BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Bernard Bureau, project officer for the Ottawa area, having resigned as a result of political interference in the selection of Opportunities for Youth projects, would the minister now be willing to submit for examination by hon. members, that is by a committee of the House, the practical criteria used in the selection of projects approved under the Opportunities for Youth program?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the criteria used in the selection of projects are those which were sent to hon. members. I am surprised the hon. member should ask that question since he has already had those criteria for two months; had he wanted to study them, he would have had every opportunity of doing so.


An hon. Member:: He was not here.



REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO ACCUSATIONS OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Due to the charges of political interference at the decision making level, would the Secretary of State undertake
May 4, 1972

to have an investigation made on behalf of the House, in order to check the truth of those facts or charges?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the truth of those facts is quite easily summed up and requires no investigation. Out of 970 preselected projects in Quebec, 39 have been rejected as a result of consultations with members from all parties.
Two types of considerations were taken into account in those consultations: firstly, to make sure that there was no project liable to be used for partisan purposes by any party whatever, and, secondly, to secure the opinion of the people's representatives in this House on the usefulness of the projects for the community.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister then explain, since he has just stated that he asked the advice of various members, why in the Richelieu constituency the only projects accepted are from Becancour while the remainder of the constituency has been neglected, according to the member for that constituency?



INDUSTRY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the very great concern expressed recently by the Canadian chemical industry regarding the future potential of that industry because of conditions existing in this country and in the world, and the need for positive government action to get that industry going again, has the government any positive suggestions to put forward to help the industry and, if so, will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline what they are?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, aware of the difficulties of the chemical industry and efforts are being made to help it. I am personally aware of two important projects now being explored. The government is providing all the support it can.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, has the minister considered the very real apprehension of the industry regarding the possible effects of the DISC program on its future, and has he been able to make any positive suggestions to the industry as to what help the government can give if this does become a real problem?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government's reaction to the DISC program, as indicated previously by the Prime Minister, other ministers and myself, will be announced in due course.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AGAINST BURKE-HARTKE BILL

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of increasing United States' use of DISC and increasing support for extensive import quotas in the United States, particularly by the AFL-CIO, is the government going to seek assurances from the United States government that it will not support the protectionist Burke-Hartke trade bill or similar measures?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Our views on the Burke-Hartke bill are well known. It is obviously the most protectionist bill in the history of the United States, so far as I can remember. It is supported unfortunately by some labour unions in the United States, and we wish that the Canadian unions would make their views known to their counterparts in the United States. Our views on that bill are very well known and one can well imagine what they are. They are extremely unfavourable.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the government taking action to upgrade the role of the Canadian embassy in Washington in explaining and protecting Canadian interests at this very crucial time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see how we can upgrade the status of the Canadian embassy in Washington. It has always had a very high status.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INTENTIONS OF CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister knows, the United Auto Workers Union has opposed the Burke-Hartke bill to which he referred. In view of the fact the minister is meeting with the president of the Chrysler Corporation this afternoon at 3.30 p.m., would he obtain from the president of that corporation during that meeting his intentions regarding the DISC legislation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Indeed I am meeting with these gentlemen, but I wish my friend would not publicize the hour. It is not fair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen are entitled to see ministers in the way they want and at least without the press at the door.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!

May 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: We are meeting with these gentlemen and, as I said, Chrysler Corporation has not to my knowledge applied for DISC company status in the United States.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the minister be in a position now to inform the House as to the intention of the General Motors Corporation in Canada vis-a-vis DISC?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will have to ask my hon. friend for some patience. I have said a number of times that I would be meeting these companies today and on other days of the week and that I will be reporting fully to the House at the next opportunity, which appears to be the debate on the budget.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Versatile Manufacturing Limited has decided to expand its operations in the
United States rather than in Manitoba, can the minister inform the House whether his officers have met the officials of Versatile Manufacturing to determine whether the decision was taken as a result of the United States DISC program or because of the taxation policies of the federal government or the policies of the Manitoba government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, Versatile has had a subsidiary in the United States for the last ten years. They have now decided to expand that operation in the United States. They have held conversations with Premier Schreyer and with officers of my department and they say that the DISC program was not taken into consideration in the upcoming expansion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister advise the House whether his officials have undertaken an investigation and have had discussions with the officers of Versatile with a view to determining whether indeed the DISC program did have an effect on the decision?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question by saying that the company officers say that it has not had any influence. I cannot swear on their behalf that it did not, but that is the information they have provided to us.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. I gave him notice of the subject matter. Can he inform the House whether his

department has received as yet the quarterly unemployment forecast from the University of Toronto Institute for the Quantitative Analysis of Social and Economic Policy, dated April 26, 1972, which projects seasonally adjusted levels of unemployment in excess of 6 per cent to the end of 1973, and unemployment as high as 6.3 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the purpose of a question is not to convey information but rather to seek information. I would think that perhaps the first part of the hon. member's question, for the time being anyway, might be to the point and the minister might be allowed to reply to that part of the hon. member's question.


David Lewis: I was almost finished, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member might allow the minister to reply to his question. If he seeks further information he may ask a supplementary question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did not know whether the hon. member was finished. I rather thought he was.
I want to thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question. Unfortunately I just received it when I came into the House. Recently my department received this forecast, which I understand is a preliminary forecast only. It is now being studied by officials in my department. I might say to the hon. member that we constantly receive the results of a variety of forecasts and we are continually analysing and comparing them with our own economic model. Whatever forecasts I give, I will give on Monday night.


David Lewis: In view of the level of unemployment forecast for 1973 as I have indicated and the level of 6.3 per cent for the last quarter of this year forecast by the institute, do these forecasts vary significantly from the forecasts made in his own department regarding unemployment levels in 1972 and 1973?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, forecasting depends on the assumptions you make, and I should like to compare those assumptions with our own before giving an answer to the hon. member's question. But it is something I might deal with.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Are you assuming an election?


David Lewis: May I ask the minister a question arising out of the fact that on a number of occasions he has said he is not in the business of forecasting, which I presume also applies to the department that advises him. If that is the case, what exactly is the forecasting unit numbering some 36 people in his department doing and how much is it costing the taxpayers to have a forecasting unit that does not forecast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that that is argument. If the hon. member is actually seeking this information, the question might be placed on the order paper.
May 4, 1972


David Lewis: I have a further short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do I gather from the minister's answer that he has made an undertaking to the House that in his budget he will deal with forecasts of the levels of unemployment in 1972 and 1973 and that since he refused to deal with my questions now he will definitely deal with them in his budget speech? Is that an undertaking to the House?


John Napier Turner: I will talk about the art of forecasting on Monday night.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-ACTION IN LIGHT OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT FORECASTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who no doubt is familiar with the alarm expressed by APEC regarding the unemployment outlook in the Atlantic provinces. Is he aware of the disappointing capital investment forecasts to which APEC has drawn attention, and does he propose to take any action in this regard?


Jean Marchand: I think that the House will be glad to learn that Michelin is expanding, as it has announced today, and is going to create about 1,200 new jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to a previous question with respect to the 1,200 jobs referred to by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Two years ago he referred to 1,200 miners being employed in a colliery that will not be open for another two years. Are those the same 1,200 he is talking about now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIRPORTS


Right Hon. I. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I know he will not make a false statement, like the Minister of Supply and Services-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


John George Diefenbaker: -who went outside the House yesterday and said he was wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise on a question of privilege but in view of the interruption of that inconnu in the back seat I want to say this. Yesterday the Minister of Supply and Services said the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had suggested the removal of the Canadian coat of arms-


Mr. Sharp:: He never said that.


John George Diefenbaker: -in the interests of security. That statement was false, because he went outside the chamber to appear on television and said he was not referring to that when he answered the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Transport about the situation in connection with the Pickering airport. Has he received a request from John J. Robinette, counsel for the People or Planes Committee, suggesting that as the location of this airport is a very controversial one and "the first and basic question which arises in the minds of most people is whether a second airport in the vicinity of Toronto is needed at the present time," and suggesting the setting up-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: -the appointment of a commission-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, they are ringing bells. They will be wringing their hands in a few months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In that letter, he suggested that a commissioner be appointed under the Inquiries Act, "to inquire into and to report upon the question" as to whether such a second airport is now needed. Has he received such a request and what action, if any, is going to be taken thereon?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received the request and it is presently being considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert on a supplementary.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I like this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The louder they howl, Mr. Speaker, the more you realize they are here only for a short time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I come back to the second part of the question. The minister is usually very facile and very truthful in his answers. Is any action going to be taken thereon, or is it going to be considered?

May 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the only answer I can give to the right hon. gentleman who is well known for longevity in more ways than one, including the length of his questions-I had a job getting the kernel out of this one-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Was it sweet?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can only report that I received the letter yesterday or the day before, certainly early this week or late last week, and I have not had an opportunity to look at it in detail but I will be discussing it with my officials. I can assure the right hon. gentleman of one thing, namely, that there will be a reply to the letter.



HOUSING


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I
ask a question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs?
In view of recent news reports, would the hon. minister confirm or deny that his department is presently discussing with the provinces the matter of amending the building regulations administered by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in order to reduce interest rates and enable more low income families to buy houses?


Hon. Ron Basiord (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I have confirmed in the House, there are discussions going on with the provinces which I expect will lead to amendments to the National Housing Act designed to assist low-income people to buy houses.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-SUGGESTED APPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE OF UNION AND COMPANY OFFICIALS INVOLVED

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary to a previous question. Because of the urgency of the matter I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council if he would consider recommending to the House that the proper committee hear the union officials and company officials who are involved in the DISC program?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the suggestion and discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. What progress has he made or is he able to announce that he has succeeded in obtaining a suitable additional vessel for the Newfoundland route in replacement for the Patrick Morris so that the possibility of having to transfer the John Hamilton Grey to that service will be eliminated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the second part of the question is not correct in the sense that this would not be the way in which we would proceed except in an absolute emergency. In other words, I have assured Prince Edward Island that the John Hamilton Grey will continue in that service on the same basis as last year. With respect to the first part of the question, there are people from my department and others now searching the market, and there is a reasonable prospect that we will get a rail car ferry as opposed to a roll-on, roll-off for the Newfoundland gulf service.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What government department-I presume either Indian Affairs or Public Works-will be letting the contracts for the proposed new highway up the Mackenzie River valley, and what detailed surveys, if any, of the route have been carried out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Subject to verification with my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I believe the surveys are going to be conducted under the direction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if any consideration has been given to placing the Royal Canadian Engineers in charge of this project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe consideration has been given to that. I will gladly make the suggestion to the Minister of National Defence.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State

May 4, 1972

for Urban Affairs in his capacity as the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission. Has the National Capital Commission made a contract, or is it considering the making of a contract, with the Pinkerton Agency, a subsidiary of an American firm, for providing the services in the national capital area now provided by the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to make inquiries along that line.



NATIONAL HOLIDAYS


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
As we near July 1, would the government consider changing the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day-

-so that Canadians will have a national holiday, multicultural and bilingual, to symbolize national unity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member will be pleased to hear that the government intends to introduce shortly a bill concerning civic holidays-in a very few days, I repeat-and I am pleased to see that the applause raised by the question of the hon. member makes us expect that this bill will very quickly be passed by the House.



EPIDEMIC OF INFLUENZA AT REPULSE BAY-NUMBER OF DEATHS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent question that I have been trying to ask for two days of the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning an influenza-type disease that has already stricken a third of the population at Repulse Bay and caused two deaths in that community. Would the minister inform the House whether there have been any further deaths as a result of this epidemic and what his department is doing to check the spread of the disease and alleviate the suffering that is apparently going on?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when we found out about the outbreak-I think it is influenza according to our latest information-we sent three doctors into the area and one nurse. One of them is the director of our epidemiology
Inquiries of the Minister
section. We have done a house to house survey in the area. Not knowing specifically what strain it was, we ordered a special vaccine from Washington. I expect to have a complete report later this afternoon when one of the doctors returns to Ottawa. I hope very much, as I know the hon. member does, that we have the situation under control.


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister overlooked informing the House whether there had been any further deaths in addition to the two already reported.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am only aware of the two that were reported. I understand that one had a heart condition, which was undoubtedly exacerbated by contracting influenza, and there was the other one to which the hon. member referred. They are the only ones I am aware of.



SUGGESTED SUMMER OPERATION OF MEDICAL SCHOOLS TO OFFSET SHORTAGE OF DOCTORS-DISCUSSION OF SHARING OF COST WITH PROVINCES

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the increasing need for general practitioners now acknowledged by the minister himself, has the minister held discussions with the provinces in order to share the necessary financing required to operate medical schools through the summer semester?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is not just a question of more doctors and the expense that is involved in training more doctors. Many recommendations are included in the joint study undertaken by the federal and provincial governments to find solutions, to alleviate the problem. One of the solutions is to develop paramedical personnel who can do just as well a lot of the routine work that doctors do, without the heavy expenditure of public moneys for their training.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to ask the minister if he would refer to the speech he made in Napanee in which he said that we were short of general practitioners.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I have a supplementary to the previous question. In view of the high rate of unemployment among general PhDs, I wonder if the minister would consider adopting a program whereby a PhD could convert his degree to an MD?



FISHERIES


Frank Howard: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister been able to establish the precise date when he will meet representatives from the Pacific North Coast Co-operative Association in Prince Rupert with respect to the cannery proposals for that area?

May 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to, but I hope within the next few weeks.


Frank Howard: Is the minister aware that about eight weeks ago he promised the co-operative he would meet them within six weeks, and he is now projecting it weeks and weeks into the future?



CRIMINAL CODE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Following yesterday's publication of an Information Canada bulletin stating that the number of so-called therapeutic abortions in Canada has tripled during 1971, compared with 1970, can the minister say whether his department has made an investigation to determine whether all these abortions were therapeutic, or whether they were the result of the practice of abortion on request?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that it is not the function of my department to police the manner in which the law is being applied in this particular area. Having said that, I would advise him that we have officials looking into and compiling of statistics generally with respect to therapeutic abortions in Canada.



BRIDGES


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has his department yet made a decision on a road plan with the municipality of Richmond in British Columbia for the access system to the Hudon Street bridge and Dinsmore bridge alignment to Sea Island?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes to the extent that we have rearranged the design and have submitted it to the Richmond town or city council. The only thing I am not certain about is whether we have total approval from the council as to the design.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt very much whether the question should have been allowed in the first instance. There may be an element of national interest and urgency which escapes the Chair, but the question having been allowed perhaps the hon. member might ask a brief supplementary.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Will the department now release the municipality from the restriction on release of the plan so that it may be discussed generally by the citizens?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If such restrictions exist, and they may for some purpose of which I am not aware, I will look into it and be glad to do that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the statement made by the counsellor of the Danish Embassy in Ottawa that there exists no scientific evidence that Danish fishing for Atlantic salmon is the cause of the recent decline of the salmon population in the spawining rivers, can the minister advise if he shares the contrary view expressed by the Minister of Fisheries and if this view is being presented to the government of Denmark either through the embassy in Ottawa or in Copenhagen?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously, unless I shared the view and unless the whole of the government shared the views of the Minister of Fisheries, we would not have a very good case. We do have a good case. We believe there is fishing for salmon on the high seas that does affect the catch of salmon throughout the world and the survival of that species. This is the point of view we have urged upon the Danish government and why we believe they should co-operate with us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are two minutes left before the end of the question period and perhaps we should try to limit supplementaries.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he has conveyed to the government of Denmark the invitation issued by the Minister of Fisheries to the people of Canada to avoid the purchase of Danish goods?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, the Minister of Fisheries was expressing a personal view. He prefaced it by saying that he did not advocate any change in Canadian government policy. If my hon. friend would like to emulate the Minister of Fisheries in this sort of appeal, we would have no objection.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries when he intends to meet the Newfoundland salmon fishermen to
May 4, 1972

discuss compensation, similar to the meeting he had with New Brunswick fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Shortly, Mr. Speaker. I might add that our officials will be down there tomorrow to discuss the terms of compensation which would apply, as the hon. member knows, only to the Port aux Basques area.



POLLUTION


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister share the view expressed by the spokesman for the Danish Embassy as to the importance of an immediate and effective clean-up of pollution in Canadian salmon rivers on the Atlantic coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the Minister of Fisheries spoke equally strongly on that question. I hope we will have the co-operation of the provinces in cleaning up those streams.



INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING PROCLAMATION OF ARCTIC WATERS POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of the Environment to tell us why it is that the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act had not yet been proclaimed after almost two years and he said that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would be making a statement. I wonder whether the minister is ready to do that now?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, only the legislation applying to inland waters of Northwest Territories has been proclaimed. The Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act has not been proclaimed as yet because if we did so now, without having first settled all aspects of the problem, we should have to close down the port of Churchill. I do not believe the people in Manitoba would be happy about that.
* *
*



TRANSPORT


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company looks upon the recent Supreme Court decision as a green
Inquiries of the Ministry
light to proceed with its proposed railway to join up with the Burlington-Northern, can the minister tell the House whether he has decided to bring in amendments to the Railway Act which would give the Canadian Transport Commission the authority to take Canada's public interest into account when deciding upon applications such as that made by the Kootenay and Elk Railway?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question a few days ago in response to a question asked by the leader of the hon. gentleman's party. The whole question of that judgment is now being examined. It is a very lengthy document, and I am still waiting for word as to just what the actual, legal interpretation is.


Randolph Harding: In view of the urgency of this matter, can the minister indicate when he is likely to make the decision known to the House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the two issues are that closely related. In other words, I understand that there is ample room for appeal or some further action with regard to the decision of the Supreme Court. That may take some considerable time. I would take it that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. I feel sorry for a number of hon. members in the back rows who have not had an opportunity to ask their questions. I invite hon. members in the front rows to reflect on the situation of hon. members in the back rows-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -who from day to day find it difficult to obtain what I consider to be their fair share of questioning time in the question period. I might perhaps be permitted to recognize quickly the hon. member for Sainte-Marie for a brief question before calling orders of the day.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I was getting discouraged, as I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport. It concerns the Ste. Scholastique airport, and particularly the serious accusations brought forward by the Liberal member for Argenteuil in the national assembly of Quebec to the effect that the major part of the $40 million grant for assistance to municipalities in that area has been diverted and used for other purposes.
Could the Minister of Transport clarify the matter and tell us to what extent this allegation is accurate?


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that this question was put yesterday-

May 4, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry

If I am wrong, perhaps the minister might reply briefly to the hon. member's question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have made some inquiries. At the moment we are simply going on the news report, not having seen any transcript of what was said. Speaking in terms of federal allocations for the Ste. Scholastique airport I might say that to the best of our knowledge and ability these have been spent for the projects for which they were designated.



STE. SCHOLASTIQUE-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Since the minister was not in the House yesterday, he was unable to answer the question put to him. I should like to ask him another one, namely whether he intends to report to the House in the near future or to make a statement concerning the increase in the construction costs and the expenditures for the Ste. Scholastique airport, which will go beyond the estimates of $180 million?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, other than to say that the published report to that effect is not correct. The budget estimates have not been exceeded by anything like that amount and are quite within the normal differences that one would expect on a project of this size.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice the hon. member for Lisgar, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and the hon. member for Selkirk, among others in the back row, who are still waiting for an opportunity to ask their questions. Perhaps we might consult tomorrow and try to give them an opportunity to ask their questions early in the question period.


Mr. Rowland:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not raise it earlier because I did not want to disrupt the question period. I should like to raise it while the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is still in the House because it is related to his reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Vegreville, I believe. The minister implied, whether intentionally or otherwise, that Premier Sehreyer had indicated that the move of Versatile Manufacturing Limited to North Dakota was in no way due to DISC. I think Premier Sehreyer said precisely the reverse, and I wonder whether the minister would care to correct the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, this is the same type of question which was asked yesterday by way of a point of order. I suggest to hon. members that it is not in order to seek to obtain information in this manner by way of a point of order. I would have hoped that the question could have been asked during the question period, if there had been time to recognize the hon. member. I appreciate very well that he cannot be held responsible for not being

recognized. Perhaps the minister might give that information tomorrow during the question period.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader the usual question about what business the government plans to place before parliament in the coming week. Perhaps he would be good enough to be particularly specific about the business for tomorrow and also about the business for Tuesday and Wednesday on the assumption, which I hope is correct, that the budget debate will not be resumed until Thursday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-5. Tomorrow, whether that bill is completed today or not, we will begin with Bill C-195, the adult occupational training act, and return to the farm credit bill if Bill C-195 is completed tomorrow, followed by Bill C-7, the explosives act. For next week, I should like to designate the business tomorrow and would indicate to my hon. friend that it is proposed to resume the adjourned budget debate on Thursday, May 11. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that under Standing Order 60 an order of the day be designated, so that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) can present the budget statement at eight o'clock and also in order that the House may indicate, through a special order, that the debate on whatever government business is before the House on the afternoon of next Monday shall be adjourned so that we may begin consideration of the order of the day at eight o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the question, I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who rises on a supplementary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary with reference to the business of the House. In view of the urgency indicated yesterday by the Prime Minister with respect to the foreign takeover review bill, can the government House leader say when it is intended to call the debate on the second reading of that bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had considered calling it for tomorrow, but I have deferred that decision in order to give members of the House an opportunity to examine more fully the profoundly of that bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since that does not take any time at all, can the minister say whether the bill will be called next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance at the moment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister is not in any hurry to get that bill through.
May 4, 1972


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


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I have requested a number of times more copies of Bill C-7. We have experienced difficulty in obtaining this bill from the distribution office. I wonder whether it would be possible to get a few extra copies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that that question ought to be asked in a different way, by communicating either with the Clerk's office or with officials of the House. The hon. member's request has been noted.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it would be out of order for me to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to clear the air. In view of rumours-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks to ask a question by raising a point of order. Again, I suggest to hon. members that if the hon. member for Simcoe North is given that opportunity by the House a number of hon. members who have not even had an opportunity to ask a first question today should be given the same opportunity and privilege. I will inquire whether the House agrees to the hon. member asking a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House. It has just come to my attention that there is a rumour circulating to the effect that Director General Craig of the non-medical use of drugs directorate has resigned. I wonder if the minister could make a statement to clear the air.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I inquired whether there was unanimous consent to pursue the question period more than ten minutes after it had expired and there is not consent. Is the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville rising on a point of order?


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek your guidance. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will not be here tomorrow and, as you know, we are trying to get him to appear before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion. I wonder if he will appear today, on Monday or Tuesday, or as soon as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling orders of the day may I, as suggested by the government House leader, inquire whether an order shall be made for the consideration of the budget business at eight o'clock next Monday. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. Orders of the day.
Farm Credit Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, May 3, 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).
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue my remarks on Bill C-5. Clause 1 of the bill gives the Farm Credit Corporation carte blanche to carry out every wish of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) by order in council. This has to do with the implementation of the so-called small farm adjustment program.
I stated last evening that I read an article in the May 8, 1971 edition of the Calgary Herald headed "Olson seeks to reduce the number of small farms". This is the whole aim of this program. Under this legislation, the Farm Credit Corporation will be handed the job of proceeding with the eradication of many of the small farms. The minister shakes his head in a negative manner. I wish to quote from the article briefly:
Agriculture minister Bud Olson is trying to sell to farm organizations and the provinces a sweeping plan to reduce the number of farms in Canada.
I underline the word "reduce". There is nothing clearer than that. The article continues:
Already, the plan has run into opposition from the provinces and farm organizations.
The plan has been in existence for over a year, and no province has accepted this legislation. The Standing Committee on Agriculture has not held up the plan. Why has it not been accepted? It is basically because farmers do not like a plan that will eradicate many of them. The article continues:
It would also leave the country with a more efficient agriculture industry, something Ottawa wants badly.
There have been some denials of that interpretation. We wonder how far this is going. It is interesting to note that the minister in charge of this program is a former member of the social credit party. His parliamentary secretary, who spoke yesterday, is also a former social crediter. He said yesterday, as recorded at page 1880 of Hansard, and I quote:
We cannot expect drastic changes because too many production units are involved in farming.
There it is. He, too, thinks there should be a reduction in the number of farmers. When looking at the arrears on loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation, I asked the manager of that corporation if he could relate those people who are in arrears to the size of their operation. I asked if most of them fell within a particular segment of the industry and whether he could categorize them. He said there were people in arrears with large, small and middle size farms, and that no pattern was evolving. If there is no pattern evolving in the arrears on loans made

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
by the Farm Credit Corporation, how can it be predicted that if we got rid of all or most of the small farmers we would have a more efficient agriculture industry? We wonder where the idea for this plan came from.
When researching the problem of solving that question, I came across Volume 5 No. 5 of the "Canadian Farm Economics" published by the Department of Agriculture in December, 1970. If one considers that this program was introduced on March 8, 1971, the date chronologically falls in the right area. This article was written by two people in the Department of Agriculture at that time. This article, which appears at page 13, is headed "Adjustment Policy". That is exactly what this program is called. It points out that a certain percentage of commercial farms have the potential to become viable and a certain percentage of farms lack that potential. The article reads:
Hence the need for accelerating the transfer of people out of agriculture, provided that people want to leave agriculture, and provided that there are off-farm opportunities for them.
The program deals with exactly that. I go back to the newspaper clipping from the Calgary Herald of May 8:
-two major programs-a land transfer plan and counselling services. The farmer's first contact with the program would come through a special adjustment counsellor. He would help a farm family sort out the opportunities both on and off the farm.
If the farmer decides to stay, a farm management specialist would step in to help him develop a sound commercial farm. If necessary, the help would include credit to help buy more land. The farmer who decides to leave would either get training for a new job, or simply go into early retirement.
This is what it is all about, get the farmer out of farming. It is interesting to note the number of difficulties and changes of opinion. I have a newspaper article which appeared in the April 15, 1972 edition of the Montreal Gazette. It is headed "A Chance for Youth, Small farming need not fade from our scene". I will not read the entire article. I agree with that concept. I repeat, Mr. Owen, the manager of the Farm Credit Corporation, when asked about the arrears situation, could not identify that particular problem as related only to the small farmer.
I wish to read from page 5 of, "Federal Farm Credit and Related Statistics", published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics with regard to arrears and difficulties in agriculture. I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture said things were getting better. What does the manager for the Farm Credit Corporation have to say?
About three million dollars were loaned for housing, down from ten million three years earlier. With more difficult economic conditions, expenditures for farm housing tend to be postponed more than loans for other purposes.
In other words, he recognizes that the past few years have been difficult for agriculture.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) suggests two things. Those suggestions correspond with those made in the article headed "A Chance for Youth". They correspond with what the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) said yesterday, namely, that the average age of farmers is 55 and we should be encouraging young people to become interested in farming. There will be a special forgiveness clause for a young man getting into agriculture and a postponement of the payment of interest on loans taken

out. In my opinion, this will help many of the agricultural conditions.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean quoted from one table in this publication. It appears at page 37 and is with regard to the increase in farm values over the past 20 years. He caught my interjection that farmers live poor and die rich. What I meant by that was that a farmer works and contributes to the value of his property. He improves the property, that is the fences and buildings. Naturally, over a period of 20 years, the property should increase in value. It is only natural to think that, as a result of these improvements and inflation, the land value will increase over a period of 20 years.
The hon. member referred to only one table in a publication that is filled with statistics. It is the only table that projects any increase in prosperity in the agricultural scene whatsoever. What will happen to that increased value in 20 years, now that this government has implemented a capital gains tax? There may be a similar increase in land value in the next 20 years, but with a capital gains tax what will happen to this land, some of which may be owned by the Farm Credit Corporation? With a capital gains tax, what will happen if a father attempts to pass the farm on to his son? He would also like to pass on the debt, but that would be very difficult.
Agriculture is in a very difficult situation today. The minister suggested that things are pretty good. Table 37, which appears at page 62 of this publication, outlines gross and net incomes of farmers by province. I am not going to read the figures for every province, only the total for Canada. From 1961 to 1966, the average was $1,462,000,000. In 1967, the figure was $1,475,000,000. In 1968, it was $1,700,000,000-I am rounding these figures off-and in 1970 it was $1,200,000,000, or, more accurately, $1,233,000,000. These figures give us an idea as to the extent to which farm income has declined. Is it any wonder farmers are in difficulty?
What has been the situation in connection with arrears in loan repayment? The hon. member for Mackenzie put on record yesterday some figures which had been presented as evidence before the committee, showing that the farmers of Alberta were in arrears last year in the repayment of loans to the extent of 21 per cent. In 1970, the figure was 15 per cent. So, there has been an increase in the amount of arrears in one year by something like 25 per cent. Alberta is a prosperous province. The cattle industry is supposed to be doing well. Why should there have been such a marked increase in the amount of arrears on loans? The same pattern appears in the case of Saskatchewan and in the case of Manitoba. If conditions had been so great, why has difficulty arisen in connection with repayment?
One can look at other tables in this publication. On page 58 we find table No. 32 consisting of indexes of farm prices of agricultural products and prices of goods and services used by farmers. There has been a generally downward trend in farm prices since 1966. In that year, the index of farm prices stood at 307,-in 1970 it was 296. It is slowly declining. What has happened to the cost of the services and goods the farmer must use? In 1966, the

index stood at 343. In 1970, it was 412. So, on the one hand, the farmer has to meet ever increasing costs, while on the other the prices he receives for his products have failed to rise correspondingly. It is all very well to say that some kind of subsidy is required. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a statement, reported, I believe, in the Calgary Albertan of February 3-this was after the great speech he made in Montreal announcing that hog raisers would benefit by $5 million.


Mr. Olson:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I note that someone here is listening. I always appreciate that. The Prime Minister said this: "It is becoming less and less acceptable for the consumer to bear the cost of the farmers inefficiency." Well, the Prime Minister has made many memorable statements, but this is one which no farmer should ever forget. It is comparable with the question he asked in Winnipeg: "Why should I sell your wheat?"


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That was not quoted correctly, either.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That was an astonishing statement to make-that it was becoming less and less acceptable for the consumer to bear the cost of the farmers inefficiency. How does the farmer compare with other producers in terms of efficiency? Table 31 of the book from which I have already quoted outlines the situation, under the heading "Output per person employed in agriculture". In 1961, the basic index figure is set at 100. By 1969, it has risen to 166.7. Compare this with productivity per person employed in commercial non-agricultural industries. Again, in 1961, the index figure was 100. By 1966, output per person had risen to 121. So the farmer is obviously not so inefficient. The only conclusion one can reach is that his performance has been above par compared with that of the rest of the economy. The government, however, fails to recognize this fact.
I turn, now, to another aspect of this subject. Why do the loan accounts of small farmers in the three prairie provinces show larger arrears than is the case in any other part of Canada? Where are the small farmers? According to table 28 there are 130,000 small farmers in Canada, whose holdings have a capital value of less than $20,000. Nearly 41,000 of these farms are in Quebec. I listened with interest to the hon. member from the Social Credit party who spoke yesterday. He did not really expand on this subject, but I wonder whether the farmers in Quebec really believe that if there were 40,000 fewer of them the rest would be better off. I doubt it. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) told the House it was not fair to say that 7.5 per cent of the farmers in his province were in arrears, because only 6 per cent of the farmers in Quebec received loans to begin with-no one really borrowed. This is not, in fact, the case.
In 1970 5,700 loans were made in the Province of Quebec and, in 1971, another 5,700 were made. That is a substantial number of loans in one province. The farmers there are borrowing money, too, but for one reason or another the agriculture industry is less profitable on the prairies than it is in the rest of Canada. This is the only conclusion I can draw. One must take land prices and land ownership into consideration. According to one of these tables
Farm Credit Act
between 88 per cent and 90 per cent of the farmers in Quebec and Ontario own their own land, whereas in the prairie provinces the figure is close to 60 per cent. The others are renting the land they farm. It is only natural, I suppose, that the Farm Credit Corporation would make most of their loans in areas where land is being rented. I should like to think that this is so, and, in fact, this has been the case. About two-thirds of the loans are made in the prairie provinces, but one must remember that two-thirds of the production comes from there-including the prairie provinces and Ontario.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: And Ontario?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And Ontario. Why have difficulties over repayment arisen? It is well known that the prairie provinces are major grain growers. We have excelled in our ability to grow grain. The sad thing is that the final, realized price for wheat last year was the lowest in the last ten years; the final realized price for barley last year was the second lowest in the last ten years. And when one takes into consideration the fact that barley production was subsidized to the tune of $11 million by the government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister pounds his desk.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not by choice.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As my hon. friend from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said, the minister did not really take this action by choice. We on this side of the House know that if the great stabilization bill had passed the $11 million would have come out of farmers pockets.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There would have been $40 million more.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It would have been about $40 million less. If the minister would like to debate this subject with me at any time, I will take him on in any hall and in front of any cameras and microphones in Canada. He cannot be the winner of that argument because the figures will prove him wrong.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will take the hon. member on right here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, bring in the bill again.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The farmers will not let you go through all that again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I went back through the records for 22 years. I could not find a year in which farmers received less per bushel for oats than they did last year. I felt I should not be required to go back more than 22 years to make my point. The least for wheat, the least for barley, the least for oats. Is it any wonder that the farmers in the three prairie provinces who are major grain growers are in arrears in repaying their loans? It is no wonder that the arrears continue to grow rather than diminish. The arrears amount to $6 million in Saskatchewan, $6 million in Alberta and $2-3/4 million in the province of Manitoba, mainly because less money is loaned there.

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: After I am through. Let us take a look at where these non-viable farms are which are causing some of the trouble, and which represent the reason for bringing in the great small farms adjustment program. In another table at page 60 of this same publication, we see the percentage of viable farms varies from province to province. In the province of Quebec, only 30.3 per cent are viable compared to 55 per cent in the province of British Columbia, 51 per cent in the province of Alberta, 50 per cent in the province of Saskatchewan and so on. The next comparable figure to Quebec is 35.7 per cent. One could read figures at length from this book to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the farmers on the prairies under today's situation are in a much worse position than they have been in any other period of years one might mention.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1972.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is boasting about 1972. In his speech he said that conditions are improving up. They have to be improving because they had been down so low. We have to improve our record because arrears on loans are increasing. If the minister is suggesting that incomes will be higher or better in 1972, I say to him and through him to the manager of the Farm Credit Corporation, that I hope the manager of the Farm Credit Corporation will not foreclose any more mortgages than should be necessary. I want to see the farmer have every possible break. I know that at page 8 of the small farms adjustment program, it is suggested that the government will get into the land business. It nails down four points as follows: a listing service to provide relevant information to prospective buyers and sellers; incentive grants to encourage prospective vendors to sell; special credit facilities to encourage prospective purchasers to buy and, finally, the authority to enter the market directly and purchase and resell farms as the need arises.
So, we will have the federal government competing with the Saskatchewan government in that regard. I hope they do not force land prices to rise to such an extent in that province that the farmer cannot pay, so then these wealthy governments will reap their money from the taxpayers and spend it in a glorious way. Surely, this bill is a glaring example of what the government is not doing. It is creating a situation in which the age limit is being reduced from 24 to 18. It may be 19 in some provinces, 18 in others and 21 in others, but only 2 per cent of loans made by the Farm Credit Corporation have been made to farmers under age 25. Therefore, I do not believe the reduction will mean that there will be very many more loans. Then, they have increased the amount that may be borrowed from $40,000 for a single individual to $100,000. If a person cannot meet the payments on $40,000, why should we assume he would be able to meet the payments on $100,000. The rejuvenated Social Crediter has forgotten about the high interest rates charged for Farm Credit Corporation loans, which have been better than 8 per cent for two years.

I listened to the minister on Tuesday evening. He balanced the problem. He asked whether we should refinance, whether we could do it this way or another way. He came to no conclusion. The minister did not have an answer. He said we could do as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation does and adjust the interest rates every five years. This bill, however, does not include such a provision. I read over again what he said yesterday. He went back over the same problem and came to no conclusion. The bill glaringly omits dealing with the obvious problem that 13,000 loans were made by the Farm Credit Corporation at interest rates above 8 per cent. The government or the Farm Credit Corporation, if my memory serves me right, do not intend to give the farmers an opportunity to refinance even five years from now.
I am firmly convinced that when inflation hits in Canada it will be at the rate it is in Brazil, but I did not know that the minister was prepared to point this out. He said on Tuesday night that next year interest rates will be back up to 8 per cent, 9 per cent or 10 per cent, and that really he might be doing the farmers some harm if he gave them an opportunity to adjust interest rates in five years. Why do we not have a clause which would allow the interest rate to be adjusted every five years as is the case with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? When you borrow money to buy a home, the mortgage always contains a clause in respect of refinancing. However, this minister does not want this because he believes interest rates will be higher and we had better remain where we are at 81 per cent.
At one time the minister campaigned across Alberta saying that a 2 per cent interest rate was all that was necessary. The position of the Social Credit party was that 2 per cent on loans was all that was necessary, and that high interest rates represented an evil. Now, the minister will not even allow the farmers the right to refinance, and he holds the rate tightly at 8f per cent. Then, in a recent speech as reported in the Regina Leader Post of March 13, 1972 the minister said:
Free trade is a great thing when it works, but unfortunately there aren't enough constraints within the free trade system for us to accept that this is the way marketing will be.
In that speech he stated that there must be restraint built into the marketing system, and he now shows the country what he calls a marketing system. It is something like the small farm adjustment program. No one knows what is in it. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) questioned the manager of the Farm Credit Corporation when he appeared before the committee. He was dealing with one particular aspect, I believe the special credit section, and the manager of the Farm Credit Corporation said that he believed it had been dropped. On another point, the manager said that he was not sure but he believed that had also been dropped.
So, we do not know what clause 1 of the bill really means when it says that 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. We do not really know what that clause means. No wonder the minister has not sold this program to any province. No province has signed the terms of the small farm program because they do not understand what this means. Perhaps
May 4, 1972

the minister had adjusted the program too often. When he finds that his program has failed to gather support, he brings out another one such as the systems marketing project, or something like that. Perhaps I used the wrong title.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Project 75.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Project 75. There must be some advertising agency dreaming up these titles. In any event, what does Project 75 or a system marketing project mean? The interpretation I put on this is that a federal government employee will follow the product from the time it is first produced until it gets to the consumer to make sure everybody gets the best deal, a square deal, an up and up deal and everything else.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is a wrong conclusion again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says I have come to a wrong conclusion. I wish he would explain these programs. There is one devious thing I have noticed about the members of this government, and the Minister of Agriculture is no exception in this regard, they all by-pass the normal procedures of Parliament in respect of most of their important legislation.
The government wants clause 1 accepted, so that they will never have to come back to Parliament. They can do things by order in council, designating a farm corporation and handle this thing and that thing in that way. The government will never have to produce a bill again. Perhaps this is necessary because the government has so much trouble drafting bills which meet with approval. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) followed this practice with Operation Lift, and we have seen what it has done in respect of farm credit programs. The Government includes $1 items in the estimates and the estimates have to be passed by May 30 no matter in what state the examination of them is in the committee. Parliament has to pass them, and the member has to scurry around to find out what are the exact interpretations.
The people of this country, whether they be farmers or otherwise, are deeply concerned, frustrated, angered and annoyed at what is happening. Can you blame them? I do not think you can. We want more information as to what the government intends to do with Project 75, with the small farms adjustment program, with interest rates and now with the Farm Credit Corporation.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), and I should like to compliment him on some of the issues he brought forward. I do not wish to deviate from the debate, but I was interested to hear the hon. member challenge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), to a debate in respect of the Farm Income Stabilization Plan and the benefits thereof. He suggested the minister would not win, and I think he is correct. However, I suggest the hon. member would not win either, after the stand his party took in respect of that bill last fall.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I make you the same challenge.
Farm Credit Act


William George Knight: When one examines the bill and the amendment, one finds it much like the sugar coating on a bitter pill. In dealing with the amendment, I suggest that the question of interest rates is one that is always before the farmer. This is a very important aspect, as the hon. Minister of Agriculture should know, being a former Social Credit member. The amendment refers to providing for partial repayment of interest when a young farmer meets performance standards. It appears that the Tory party, in moving this amendment, intends to introduce a kind of selectivity to the program. This is the very kind of selectivity they attacked last week in respect of the Family Income Security Plan.
What is a performance standard? Is there going to be some kind of bureaucracy set up to go out and examine farms to see who is up to date in performance standards? Who is to make the judgment? Is the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) going to make the judgment as to performance standards? I should hope not. That part of this amendment is selective, and is at variance with statements by members of the Conservative party in this House last week concerning other bills. This amendment to include a performance standard brings in a certain element of selectivity.
If you look at this bill in terms of its different amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act, you will see some changes which may possibly bring it up to date, especially those relating to the amount allowed as the borrowing level. If you look at the bill you will see certain changes suggested which, on the surface, do not appear to be of great concern.
I suggest it is the underlying motive behind the changes which is important to the farmers of Canada. I need only refer to part 1, the amendment to Section 11 of the Farm Credit Corporation Act, which gives the corporation 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 is assigned to it pursuant to any other act of the Parliament of Canada. What is the significance of that amendment, and what lies behind it? This amendment allows the government to bring in a small farm consolidation plan which it does not have to have approved by the House of Commons. This is what is behind the amendment, and it should be questioned very seriously in committee.
There are other amendments of concern, such as the one in clause 3 which would enable the corporation to make a loan under the act where in its opinion the uses of the proceeds of the loan would facilitate the efficient operation of the farm mortgaged. Under the present act, the corporation must be of the opinion that the loan is necessary for the efficient operation of the farm to be mortgaged. That sounds like nothing more than a play on words by the government. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take the opportunity of explaining in this House and In the committee the over-all meaning of that clause.
If you carry on with an examination of the clauses you will see there are some changes which may have some merit. Let me refer to clause 2 which proposes to amend the legislation as it relates to corporations. The explanation is that this amendment will provide that loans may be

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
made under the act only to individuals who are Canadian citizens or landed immigrants. However, it would also provide that loans may be made to farm corporations only if they are controlled by shareholders who are Canadian citizens. The real question that arises as a result of this amendment to the Farm Credit Act is who is going to be allowed to borrow funds to buy farm land, and whether or not those loans will be allowed to such non-farmers, if I may use that phrase sarcastically, as the National Grain Company and other elements of the grain business.
The report of the task force in respect of the farm adjustment resources mobility plan suggests there should be consistency in allowing loans for that kind of corporate farming, not a father and son arrangement or an arrangement between two brothers who incorporate, but corporate farming on the basis of land owned by large multinational corporations which allow the land to be farmed by employees. The fundamental question is whether the family farm, as a viable economic unit, will be preserved.
There are other changes on which I should like to comment. There is the provision which states that the total of outstanding loans made to a farmer under the act shall not exceed $100,000. If the Minister of Agriculture speaks again, he will perhaps explain section 17(1) in terms of its effect on any ventures in co-operative farming and whether or not the limit of $100,000 in terms of our modern society is sufficient. I wonder whether perhaps some changes should not be made to that limit when there are three, four or five farmers involved in a co-operative venture. Possibly the minister will explain that.
We see a change regarding the valuing of land according to productivity. It seems to me that these changes do not merit too much discussion. All these amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act, as I have stated before, essentially act as an umbrella and as an opportunity for this government to bring in for the coming seven years the small farm consolidation plan. When we questioned the chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, he did not give us the details of the plan. But the amendment to section 11 allows the Minister of Agriculture to bring in the small farm consolidation plan. I wonder how many individuals have been called in by the Department of Agriculture when they were preparing the small farm consolidation plan. Undoubtedly, the minister has received some good advice from the public relations people regarding the manner in which he should bring this plan forward. If we look at the description of the farm adjustment and resource mobility plan, we will see that there is reason to fear the effects of the small farm consolidation plan.
The Farm Credit Corporation was set up in the beginning to assist farmers in borrowing sums of money in order to maintain a viable economic unit. But once the amendment to section 11 is passed, if it is passed, the scope of the Farm Credit Corporation will be fundamentally changed. It will deal with the socio-political aspects of farming under the amended legislation and it will deal with the nature of the lives of the people affected by in the small farm consolidation plan. When that plan is in operation, I wonder how many bureaucrats the Department of Agriculture will have to hire to implement the plan and to

talk to the farmer who will have to move to the cities. When one looks at the unemployment figures one realizes that there is very little that the farmer can do in the city. How many sociologists, psychologists and new members of the Department of Agriculture will have to be hired to facilitate farmers in adjusting to a new way of life? Where does all this fit into the role of the Farm Credit Corporation as it was established originally?
Under this legislation the land transfer system, the concept of amalgamating several small farms into one large one, is taken into account. The small farm adjustment program does not take into consideration the economic and social effects it might have on the agricultural economy in Canada, both in the east and in the west. No real imagination is used with regard to the collateral needed in order to go into farming. There is no projection of the idea that young people who grew up on farms, for example in the province of Saskatchewan, who have had to go into the cities and take jobs there because, as a result of the policies of the federal government, farming brought them no income, would now like to return to farming. The province of Saskatchewan has made a number of moves in this direction, controversial though they may be. The first move was to bring in the system of land transfers to assist these young farmers in farming.
The whole concept of the small farms consolidation plan had its source in the task force report. Let there be no question about that. Last fall, the grain income stabilization policy came from the same source. The amendment to section 11 of the Farm Credit Corporation Act carries out the recommendations of the task force. The farm adjustment and resource mobility plan contains some fundamental aspects of importance to many people whom we in the House of Commons represent, including the constituents of the Minister of Agriculture in Medicine Hat. It concentrates on increasing the mobility of the land resource, enabling some farmers to increase the size of their farming operations and enabling others to get their assets out of farm real estate so that they can take advantage of non-farm income, employment or retirement opportunities. It involves a package of four programs. These are: a listing service to provide the relevant information to prospective buyers and seller; incentive grants to encourage prospective vendors to sell; special credit facilities to encourage prospective purchasers to buy; and, finally, authority to enter the market directly to purchase and resell farms as the needs arise.
I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture took into consideration the real significance of such a proposal, and the fact that it will not be put on the statute books of Canada but can only be implemented by the passing of the amendment to section 11. I think that is important. It may be good for the Department of Agriculture, in terms of a good public relations job to introduce the program in this way, but it is detrimental to the people involved if they are not allowed to have an open, formal discussion of the suggestions of the Department of Agriculture.
What is the direction of this policy? I think that is a fundamental question. When one sits in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and discusses the problems which farmers face in Canada, one finds that the officials of the Department of Agriculture, perhaps unconsciously
^***********
May 4, 1972

and unknowingly, continually discuss the problems of farmers and people in farming communities from what I would call a restricted point of view, in the same way as we examine Farm Credit Corporation loans. Let them examine the problems in depth. There is never an examination of the whole question of an incomes policy and the costs of production. As was mentioned by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), the government has had possession of the Barber royal commission report on the price of farm machinery, but has taken no action on it. At the same time organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have made representations on an incomes program that would ensure a reasonable return to farmers, that would help keep them on the land, and that would facilitate and encourage young farmers to get into farming because they know they will get a reasonable return on the labour and capital they invest.
But within the department we have the Canadian Grain Commission, the Farm Credit Corporation, the Deputy Minister and others discussing this whole matter in a restricted manner, in terms of farmers and of farm units, without touching the whole question of an incomes policy. When we examine this we see it is nothing more than economic talk without social consequences, just as we have seen in the task force report on agriculture. That task force report has become the gospel of the Department of Agriculture, and the minister and the officials are the disciples. What is needed, as I have already suggested, is the development of an incomes policy for the farmers of Canada.
In this connection I need only refer to the brief which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted when it met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Agriculture, as follows:
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. 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.
This must be stopped. This is the clear message from grain producers, from livestock producers, from egg and poultry producers, from milk producers, from producers of horticultural products.
The brief went on to state something related to a farm income policy which the minister should take into consideration and that would be far more beneficial than his small farm consolidation plan. I quote:
Whereas it is necessary in the interests of the nation as a whole to maintain an efficient and viable agricultural industry;-
I might point out that one in five firms employing people who are not farmers depends on the primary products it gets from agriculture.
Whereas the revenues obtainable from the market place are currently insufficient for the survival of primary food or agricultural production;
Therefore it is imperative that supplementary income payments shall be paid by governments on all products which are necessarily required from the agricultural sector, in amounts when coupled
Farm Credit Act
with such revenues received from the markets, that will in total maintain solvency for the industry.
That is the kind of farm income policy that the government should be considering. I have already shown the kind of attitude that members of the government seem to have developed. They follow the charts up and down in terms of farmers and economically viable units, whereas if they had any real concern their attack on the problem should deal with the income of farmers and their costs of production. There are some alarming figures which indicate what has been happening. Other hon. members have referred to the amounts of arrears of farmers in the different provinces in respect of Farm Credit Corporation loans. In the province I represent, in 1971-72 the amount of those arrears totalled 21.1 per cent, up from 18.9 per cent in 1970-71, and from 11.6 per cent in 1969-70. Those are critical and telling figures respecting the income problems of farmers.
There are other telling figures which relate to clause 11 of this bill which will allow the minister and the Farm Credit Corporation to implement a small farm consolidation plan without incorporating it in legislation. The 1971 census of agriculture shows that the number of farms in 1971 was 15 per cent fewer than the number of farms in existence in 1966, a mere five years ago. In 1966 in the province of Saskatchewan there were 85,686 farms. In 1971, there were 76,970 farms, a downward variation of 10 per cent.
When the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) spoke on this bill he lambasted the provincial government of Saskatchewan for trying to tackle this problem, a problem which has not been tackled by the federal government. It is the first province in the Dominion of Canada which has gone so far as to suggest a land bank commission and a land transfer system to allow more young farmers to get on the land. Considering that, Mr. Speaker, we should not pay any attention to the nonsense the hon. member uttered. Further, the government of the province of Saskatchewan is the first government in Canada to be prepared to took into the whole problem of foreign ownership of farm land. Representing the constituency of Assiniboia, I well realize the problems in connection with farm land being bought up by American buyers. This brings me back to the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie.
I have already said that I am quite concerned about the manner in which a concept of performance standards, of some kind of means test for young farmers, is introduced by that amendment. For that reason I wish to move a subamendment, seconded by the hon. member for Batt-leford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "where young farmers meet performance standards," and by substituting therefor the words "for young farmers,"
If accepted, the amendment would then read:
That Bill C-5 be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the government should give consideration to the introduction of legislation to amend the Farm Credit Act by incorporating the incentive principle-already approved by this House in other legislation-to provide for partial non-repayment of interest for young farmers, for deferred interest payments on all loans during an initial period, for equitable adjustment of interest rates for the benefit of borrowers; and, as
1904

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
well, to provide for open-end loans which will allow additional borrowing without refinancing costs.
That would take out the means test which the Tory party has suggested.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. Does the hon. member want to speak to the amendment or-

At this time the Chair is considering the amendment moved by the hon. member. After reading all the precedents that have existed in this House, and also in the United Kingdom, the Chair can find no precedent for the acceptance of an amendment to a reasoned amendment moved on second reading of a bill. On the other hand, looking at the wording of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) and its impact on the amendment which has been proposed, at first glance the Chair would be ready to accept it. Unless hon. members would like to express their views as to the acceptability of the change made by this subamendment, I would be ready to put the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is moved by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom the words "where young farmers meet performance standards," and by substituting therefor the words "for young farmers,".


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the measure now before us, Bill C-5, will apply to a great extent to a large number of people in my riding, therefore, I ought to state clearly my position in this regard.
First of all, I would like to mention that this measure, which affects a large number of Canadians, is worth being examined, reviewed and corrected, so that farmers get as much as possible out of it; and my hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) introduced an amendment designed to ecourage young farmers to this end.
If we are to expect that one day farmers as well as agricluture will continue to develop in the country, it is fair to assume that unless enough people are available to take over in this sector, it will be impossible to expect any improvement in our farmers' condition.
The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would like us to agree with him completely, to believe him without question and to pass as soon as possible the measure now before us.
However, the past behaviour of the minister leads us to be extremely cautious, because his attitude toward farmers invites us to ask ourselves questions. One must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that it is the present Minister of Agriculture who reduced by $10 million in 1970 the budget of the Canadian Wheat Board. One must not forget that it is this same minister who penalized milk producers for overproduction.

Therefore, for all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to urge the House to proceed very carefully and to scrutinize in every detail the measure now before us. I am sure we all want farmers to get the best terms possible. As a matter of fact, when we were in power, we gave proof of what I am now saying.
One must recognize also that this government also took measures in order to improve the farmer's lot. There is much more to be done however, and it is up to both government levels to co-operate.
The main reason for my taking part in the debate this afternoon is perhaps more precisely related to that cooperation between the provincial and federal governments in the agricultural field.
One knows that according to section 95 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction in agricultural matters is divided between the provinces and the federal government. I was somewhat shocked yesterday by the diatribe which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard) aimed at the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, the hon. Mr. Toupin.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: He deserved an answer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I need not say here that I do not hold a brief for him. I am not known as a staunch supporter of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, but I see in him and in his successors a contracting party to the jurisdiction in the agricultural field.
First of all, the attack the Parliamentary Secretary made against the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec was groundless, for he accused him of statements he never made. In fact, he mistook this for a committee report on the state of agriculture in Quebec. In fact, Mr. Speaker,-


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary on a question of privilege.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe just stated that I attributed to the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Quebec statements which are groundless. I am afraid I was sitting in front of my TV set when I very distinctly heard the said minister, the hon. Normand Toupin, state that, because of the federal government policy, it was impossible for the Quebec Department of Agriculture to establish a global policy. That is why I rose yesterday to set the record straight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Chair finds it very difficult however to recognize that the question of privilege raised by the parliamentary secretary is well taken. If an hon. member should use this device every time his views or his interpretation differ from those of another hon. member, the House would be constantly debating questions of privilege or points of order. I think this is more a debate or an argument which can better be clarified at a later stage in this debate.
May 4, 1972


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed with my comments by adding that the sharp criticism which the hon. parliamentary secretary directed against his government and probably against his minister when Bill C-176 was being debated has led him to adopt a more conciliatory attitude and that his statement surely purports to cover up this criticism. Unless he was asked by some ministers to make these comments-


Marcel Lessard: This is absolutely false.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -since the higher authorities are unable to muster enough courage to criticize a liberal provincial minister.
At all events, I have noted that the hon. parliamentary secretary has attacked a provincial minister who is party to an agreement for setting up a general agricultural policy that would be viable and profitable to the industry; it is an attack that does no credit to the hon. parliamentary secretary.
In fact, what does that report call for? And I shall ask my hon. friends opposite from the province of Quebec whether they are in disagreement with the report submitted by Mr. Toupin to his Quebec cabinet colleagues. Here are the main general goals:
1)	Integration of the agricultural sector in the general economy;
2)	Effort to bring farm incomes into line with those of employees in other sectors of the economy;
3)	Regionalization and diversification of resources;
4)	Mobility and redistribution of resources;
5)	Increase in Quebec's self-sufficiency on the agricultural plane;
6)	Improved management of the offers of agricultural products and more balanced sharing of markets;
7)	Maintaining of a socio-economic infrastructure in rural communities;
8)	Increased programs for research and technological and vocational training.
This is what the Quebec Agriculture Minister, following the approach initiated by his predecessor, hon. Clement Vincent, wants to obtain for the farmers of his province. And it is amazing to see a federal representative from the province of Quebec, who happens to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, indulging in an outburst against the provincial Minister of Agriculture.
His predecessor the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) would never have thought indeed of making such statements since they only add fuel to the fire and because it is a well known fact that there are differences of opinions, as well as of interests between the two levels of government and that they can only be settled through goodwill, understanding and co-operation. This is why the arrogant attitude shown by the parliamentary secretary is unbecoming to a member from the province of Quebec representing the farming people.
I beg his colleagues for the province of Quebec to behave in such a way that his words may not undermine good feelings between the two levels of government because, there again, the first people to suffer would be the farmers and such is not the purpose of our being elected. In the circumstances, the parliamentary secretary
Farm Credit Act
should be the first to promote the interests of the farmers instead of sowing the seeds of discord at those two levels of government.


Marcel Lessard: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The parliamentary secretary is rising on a question of privilege.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has now resumed his seat. He apparently wanted to impute intentions to me when he said that I was against the policy outlined in the white paper of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson).
It was not at all the reason for my intervention yesterday. It is about the Quebec Minister of Agriculture's statements regarding his inability to bring in a policy because of the federal jurisdiction. I have the support of all my colleagues in that connection.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to resume his seat.
The Parliamentary Secretary's question is not one of privilege under Standing Orders and the procedure of the House. As I said earlier it is more a matter of debate and I do think that hon. members will be able at a later stage to express their views thereon.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) pointed out yesterday, this bill includes certain aspects with which we agree.
Granted, it is now easier to obtain the credit required to develop Canadian agriculture. Still, we must, as members of the opposition, point out what I would call the silences, the absences, the oversights with regard to introducing real reforms intended to solve at long last the problems of agriculture in Canada.
Some time ago, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself tacitly recognized the existence of problems, and even recognized the absolute necessity of not staying put and of solving, from the ground up, the basic problems of the agricultural industry.
Again as the hon. member for Bellechasse said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to give the farmers greater credit facilities, but we must consider above all the means of making farming profitable to the man who devotes himself to it.
We must assure to producers a fair income comparable to the average income of those in other professions.
Mr. Speaker, when we have to face such facts and a government recognizes its deficiencies, we wonder why it does not bring in some amendments to solve all those problems. I agree that it is easy to criticize, to make suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, the government gets some real assistance in that field, especially from all Canadian farming unions, among others, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture as well as the CFU in Quebec.
25104-61*

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the views of those who live the day to day problems of agriculture should be considered when legislation is drafted.
May I quote a few suggestions contained in the brief which the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted last April 10. It says:
An adequate adjustment and development program should ensure-
-here follows a list of different things such a program should ensure-
That governments set up, in co-operation with representatives of agricultural associations, a land purchase program that would enable farmers aged 55 and over who wish to retire, to sell their property which could probably be used to consolidate adjacent farm land surrendered to the Crown or transferred to development organizations for further development or distribution.
That a land transfer program allow present farmers to acquire the additional land that will become available and that the greatest possible number of people be encouraged to remain in the rural community.
Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a problem of migration from the farms, especially in some regions of Quebec, and I have not yet gone through the statistical data of last year's federal census. But at first glance, and according to reports received last week, I noticed, for example, that in the Champlain riding which I am honoured to represent in this House, there was a decrease of 7,000 people. Champlain being mostly a rural riding, it shows once again that the state of agriculture compels a great number of producers to abandon the industry.
The price support policy is not, in my view, a way of ensuring better food for the people. This, I think, is forgetting about the most essential problem, that of feeding individuals.
Here is another point that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture stressed, and I quote:
That support be given to those federal policies aimed at improving the opportunities offered by agriculture and providing other possibilities for those who wish to leave this industry for other sectors of work.
Indeed, many people are facing enormous difficulties; these are concrete problems that we experience daily.
The quotation goes on:
That the Canadian government be urged to establish a retirement plan to help the farmers who want to leave their farms but whose income is not sufficient to meet their needs.
Such is the situation of dairy producers, for example, in Quebec, who have worked for 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30 years to produce a food that is essential to life, that is milk and its by-products. These people come to the end of their working life and do not have enough money for an honorable retirement. That is a shameful situation in a country as rich as ours. I go on with the quotation:
That every effort be made to avoid the creation of new structures or new departments duplicating present federal or provincial departments.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is referring to the famous conflict mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), and I am referring to the harsh words spoken yesterday against the Quebec

Minister of Agriculture by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard).
Mr. Speaker, it is useless to cover one's face, and to shut one's eyes; one must admit that there is a conflit, that the orientation now given by the Quebec government to agriculture does not agree with that of the federal government.
We are dealing with a problem and it is not by accusing the Quebec government of mismanagement of public affairs that we shall come to a solution. It is obvious that in a country as large as ours, where you find areas as different as Quebec and the western plains, the role of the federal government is then that of a coordinating body. The federal government should aim at a better distribution of the goods and farm products in all parts of Canada. That should be the major objective of any federal government rather than attempting to interfere in areas which may appear to be within its jurisdiction under the Constitution, but which in fact, for all practical purposes, because of the duplication of departments and agencies, lead to injustice.
This may be one of the main reasons why the Quebec farmers think-and they may be wrong-that the Western farmers have a better deal.
The fact that they think so, Mr. Chairman, is detrimental to the very existence of our country. The federal government should make every effort, through appropriate coordination to avoid such conflicting views.
In order to emphasize this point, I should like to read into the record a letter which a Quebec farmer sent to the newspaper Terre de chez nous in which he described one of the problems I have just mentioned. I quote:
Quebec Farmers Pay more than Foreigners for their Grain
Why must livestock breeders in Eastern Canada pay more for their grain than Westerners? The federal government has refused until now to comply with a request by minister Toupin supported by the UCC, which would force the Canadian Wheat Board to adjust rates so that livestock breeders in the East and in the West be treated as equals.
Even foreign countries that import feed grains from Canada pay less than we do. Are we going to put up with such injustice much longer? First of all a Minister of Agriculture for Eastern Canada should be appointed. There was some mention of this in Mr. Pearson's time but it did not materialize.
Mr. Trudeau has announced that a five-dollar subsidy would be paid to hog producers, but this payment applies only to hogs that are sold slaughtered, whereas in Quebec a large proportion of hogs are sold live at auction. This deprives many producers of a substantial income to which they should be entitled. Let us hope that the federal government will comply with UCC's requests and make all hogs eligible for this subsidy.
Mr. Speaker, this letter from a farmer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the House must now proceed with consideration of private members' business.
May 4, 1972



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Income Tax-Suggested increase in exemption for retired persons or granting of tax credits in budget; the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk)- Indian Affairs-Request for statement on action to protect rights in relation to James Bay hydroelectric project; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Manpower-Local initiatives program-Funds allocated, amounts spent, applications received, by provinces.

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, private bills, notices of motions (papers) and public bills.
As no private bills are listed on today's order paper, the House will proceed to the consideration of notices of motions (papers).


Mr. lerome:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is disposition among the members of the House to stand those items which precede motion No. 8, standing in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), it being resumption of the debate on that measure. I believe the records will verify that at the conclusion of the debate during the last private members hour, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) was in the midst of his speech. Possibly he might conclude his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the proposal of the parliamentary secretary that motions 2, 3, 6, 36 and 38 be stood and that the House proceed with Motion No. 8 on the understanding that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (mr. Perrault) will conclude the debate. Is this agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Conclude his speech, surely.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Conclude his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Manitoba Garment Industry



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Summerour and Associates Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding the "Analysis of the Manpower Utilization of the Manitoba Garment Industry".
Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: In effect, Mr. Speaker, this request for the tabling of a report in relation to the Manitoba garment industry expresses the concern of the mover of the motion with respect to the present position of the textile and clothing industry in the great province of Manitoba. This is the largest manufacturing industry in Manitoba, and the Department of Manpower and Immigration has made special efforts, both through immigration and through training in industry to meet the employment demands of that industry. As I stated earlier, between April 1, 1967, and June 1, 1969 alone, the cost of such special measures approached $300,000, a not inconsiderable sum of money. This is the background for our consideration of the motion under discussion.
In 1969, the Department of Manpower felt that additional efforts were warranted. It invited the industry and the Manitoba department of industry and commerce to join with it in a study to determine the extent and causes of the high labour turnover in the industry. It was the view of the federal government that the relatively high labour turnover and the chronic labour shortage should be made the subject of an investigation. This view won the support of the then government of Manitoba and of all those concerned with the industry-the companies involved and the trade union movement. So a committee was formed representing the two levels of government and the industry. It was known as "The clothing committee." The industry itself arranged for some 20 firms to participate in the study, and more than 200 present and former employees agreed to be interviewed in depth.
This is the crux of the matter. Certain terms and conditions were agreed upon at the time the clothing committee was established. An understanding was reached involving both levels of government, the industry and the workers. It was an understanding that any information supplied would remain confidential as between those involved. I do not think the hon. member who moved the motion before us is aware of this background. On the basis of this assurance, this guarantee, workers and employers provided full, frank, and, in some cases, extremely subjective opinions on questions of staff training and working conditions. Most of the interviewing was carried out by officers of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
The firm of Summerour and Associates, one with a world reputation in this particular field, was retained to provide technical advice on the structure of the study, to assist in the analysis of data and to recommend training and selection techniques for the resolution of difficulties

May 4, 1972
Manitoba Garment Industry
which might be identified. The consultants fee was shared between the province and the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the total cost was $7,050. It was a condition of the contract that all results, including the final report, would be confidential to the clothing committee and its corporate members.
What has been the outcome? What improvements have been noted since the production of the report? The expansion of the Manitoba garment industry has been such that it has not been necessary to invoke the provision of the displaced textile workers adjustment assistance regulations. In other words, there is work for practically any displaced person who wants it in the textile industry of Manitoba and in the garment industry of Manitoba. The value of production has increased by more than one third since that study was carried out; exports have more than tripled and are now estimated to reach at least $16 million a year. Recently, a new plant has been opened, one of the most modern and efficient in the world. This reflects great credit on the workers of Manitoba. It reflects great credit on that province and on the industry there. It says a great deal for the initiative which all have taken collectively.
The industry is a highly competitive one, and the fact that a Canadian province, situated where it is, could become so highly successful is, as I say, a credit to that province and to Canada. The expansion has taken place primarily into high quantity and high quality lines. This has resulted in a demand for increased skills at all levels. It is this growing demand, rather than turnover of staff, which is creating the current shortages in certain occupations. Some orders with respect to workers needed for occupations where labour is not available in Canada are being directed to our offices abroad, but this is only done when the Canada Manpower Centre is convinced that working conditions in the plant concerned are acceptable by general Canadian standards, that Canadian workers cannot be recruited in sufficient numbers and that suitable employment will be available to anyone recruited in this way. Naturally, all people so recruited must meet all other admission standards under our immigration regulations.
The following are some of the steps taken by the industry to improve worker opportunities since the clothing committee undertook this study in depth of the garment industry of Manitoba: one, establishment of personnel departments or the assignment of this function to a particular individual; two, establishment of good selection standards; proper applicant interviews and in-plant training systems to help employees maintain productivity; three, general improvement of work areas; establishment of adequate rest and recreation areas; provision of inplant music; generally improved personnel relations; four, organization of a personnel management course in cooperation with University of Manitoba; five, organization of a management improvement course in co-operation with Department of Manpower and Immigration; six, establishment of an industry school for sewing machine operators to provide vestibule training for new entrants.
I should like to say a few words, now, about the positive thrust of manpower and immigration activities which these efforts reflect. Our department employs the services

of an aggressive, enthusuastic staff of 255 men and women serving Manitoba. Operating from 12 urban areas, staff members visit and serve people in a total of 114 communities. In the year 1971-72, they found work for almost 36,000 Manitobans. I was sorry to hear the leader of the New Democratic party attacking the Department of Manpower in the House the other day for failing, acocord-ing to him, to provide the right jobs to people who have been trained to fill them. The record of success in many provinces has been an excellent one. The figure of 36,000 I have mentioned amounts to an increase of some 8,000 over the previous year. In the same period the employed labour force grew from 349,000 to 359,000. So Manpower and Immigration found work for about 80 per cent of this increase.
During the same period the number registering for employment dropped by 4,000 in spite of the growth in the labour force. This illustrates the success achieved in increasing job opportunities during a difficult economic period. In the same fiscal year 1971-72, the department purchased 757,270 training days from the province on behalf of clients. This was at a cost of $3,712,000 for training and $6,472,000 for allowances. A further 80,000 training days were purchased from employers under training in industry contracts and this cost an additional $807,000. The word should not be "cost". The word should be "investment". Some people are critical of the program of the department of manpower but those members of parliament in all parties here realize the value of it. If we can turn out additional number of people with skills, such as unemployed people and, yes, taxpaying citizens, we will attain something in this department and these achievements are being reached every day. All in all, about 10,000 persons acquired improved or new skills as a result of these expenditures. During the winter just past, another 3,000 trainees were placed under the Canada manpower on-the-job training program at a further cost of some $3 million, while 201 projects under the local initiative program found work for 3,000 more at a cost of some $5,365,000.
The garment industry, which is under discussion in this particular debate, has received its share of trainees under these programs as suitable firms were identified and over 1,400 persons have received training as operators since 1968 by training in industry, while a further 670 persons found employment this winter under training on the job.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that a number of recommendations made by the clothing committee which I discussed earlier were made to enable the industry to introduce programs and policies. I have just given some examples of how many firms have implemented these policies and these recommendations to reduce turnover through improved training and personnel policies. Should severe labour difficulties again arise in the sector, should the Department of Manpower and Immigration again consider it advisable to assist in such recruiting or training measures, its participation will be directed toward programs undertaken on behalf of those employers adopting the recommendations from the clothing committee. Because of the nature of the study; the type of information sought and received; and the commitments made to
May 4, 1972

participants, neither the industrial nor the provincial representatives to the clothing committee, representing the government of Manitoba, will agree to the publication of this report. We concur in this stand.
In brief, if the House were to approve this motion it would result in the government breaching a contractual agreement with a provincial government and a major Canadian industry. It would violate a promise to the working people of Manitoba who participated in the study and were given an assurance that what they said would be held in confidence. We will never betray that trust given to us by the workers of Manitoba. This could cause them painful embarrassment in many cases because I assure you some of them were very frank in some of their comments. It would destroy the usefulness of an effective economic tool which conceivably could be used to employ a lot of other Canadian workers in the future. In other words, this is a technique which has been highly successful in removing many of the problems from the garment industry in Manitoba. It is a technique which can be used in other provinces. If we were to break trust with the workers of Manitoba it would no longer be possible for this government to go to any workers in any part of Canada and say, "Place your trust in us, tell us all your problems", because at some future date all their remarks may be placed on some public record to their severe embarrassment and even perhaps to their economic danger.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the question be put at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is negatived on division.
Motion (Mr. Orlikow) negatived.



POST OFFICE


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all letters received by the Postmaster General or any other members of the
Postal Service
government since January 1, 1971, complaining about postal services and the replies thereto.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when this motion came up for consideration yesterday, the parliamentary secretary declined to accept it on the ground that it was physically impossible to gather all this correspondence in one central location as the correspondence is spread throughout the country. He also said that the cost would be enormous and asked under the circumstances that the hon. member withdraw his motion. I raised slight opposition to the interpretation of my motion because I do not believe it is quite accurate in terms of the wording of the motion before us today in which I ask for copies of all letters received by the Postmaster General or any other member of the government since January 1, 1971, complaining about postal service and the replies thereto. Actually my motion was quite specific. I was not talking about complaints which came into the local post offices across the country. Rather I was attempting to zero in specifically on complaints which came to the Postmaster General or to the other members of the government. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) talked about gathering all correspondence in one central location and stated that the correspondence is spread throughout the country.
I believe Ottawa is the seat of government, and any one who would be affected by the motion I have before the House would be located in Ottawa. This, I believe, would considerably narrow the terms of the notice of motion at least from the standpoint of the interpretation placed on it by the parliamentary secretary. Therefore, once again I should like to ask the government if it would give us copies-this covers only a period of a year-of the letters of complaint received. If that should be too large a task, as I suggested in my remarks yesterday, perhaps we should be given a sampling of the mail since I imagine much of it would be repetitious. It perhaps could be broken down into groups of topics. In this way the government could give us some idea of how the public feels about the rather disastrous deterioration in the mail service over the past three or four years in Canada,
I should like to mention some of the topics which come to my attention. I am sure all hon. members can verify this. One of the most active areas of correspondence, and even in this regard there is considerable delay, is that related to complaints we receive from our constituencies concerning the decline in the quality of postal service, which used to be one of the best to be found anywhere in the world, while at the same time skyrocketing costs in the past four years have increased the cost for class A mail by 100 per cent. Nobody in these days of runaway inflation objects to the idea that an increase in costs demands an increase in the price of stamps and so forth.
The real complaint arises from the fact that while the cost of mail service is increasing the quality continues to decline. Perhaps the major complaint concerns the inexplicable delays in mail delivery from time to time. There are occasions when a letter within a large city will take as long as three or four days to travel from one point in the city to another. There have been examples of a piece of

May 4, 1972
Postal Service
first class mail from Vancouver taking as long as two weeks to be delivered at a point in eastern Canada. On other occasions, the mail fails to arrive at all. I brought to the attention of the minister through correspondence the question of mail travelling from Canada to the United States failing to reach its destination. One of the explanations given is that when the five-day week occurs during holiday periods, such as over Christmas and New Year's, there is an unusually long delay because the two successive long weekends bring mail delivery almost to a standstill in many parts of Canada.
Because of this problem, the postmaster has been musing out loud that perhaps the six-day mail delivery should be restored to the urban parts of Canada as it was restored in the rural parts. I want to seize this opportunity once again to emphasize that members of the official opposition and of other opposition groups would have no hesitation at all in recommending to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) and the government that the six-day mail delivery system should be restored. We are all completely dependent upon mail services. The business life of Canada is particularly dependent upon it as it is the basic, fundamental means of communication. Surely, a government which places such emphasis on technological innovations in the communications field, such as a satellite which, at a cost of some $90 million, is going to be placed in synchronous orbit with the earth some time next fall, and a government which ventures off into this sophisticated and rarified atmosphere of modern communications in Canada, could give us mail service which is somewhat better than the old pony and cart days. Sometimes I think the mail service today is slower than it was before the advent of trains and all the other modern means of transportation.
Basic to this is obviously the restoration of six-day mail delivery. Instead of wondering whether it should be restored, I urge the Postmaster General to re-institute this service immediately and he will receive the gratitude and plaudits not only of members of the opposition who have been advocating this but the public of Canada. I am sure such a move would help to restore the level of morale among the employees of the Post Office Department who, over the past few years, have been venting their spleens against the maladministration of the Post Office Department by rotating strikes, working to rule and other techniques of that kind.
If the parliamentary secretary to the responsible minister could give me some samples of this sort of complaint and representation from every part of Canada, we might really have a cross-section of public opinion on this problem of delays of mail delivery and non-delivery. I have received complaints from my own constituency, and other colleagues in the House have passed along complaints from their constituencies. I am sure the pattern is repeated in every part of Canada. It is for this reason I am anxious to have a sampling of the protests from the public outlining this particular problem.
There is one area in respect of increasing costs of postal services I should like to emphasize today. Here again, I am sure the protest has been loud and long from the public. Not only do I refer to the general increase in the cost of postal services, such as the 100 per cent increase in
{Mr. Dinsdale.]
respect of first class mail, I have in mind a specific area about which I should like to get further background information. I refer to the briefs, representations and protests that must have come from charitable organizations in Canada which have depended on a special postal rate in order to realize success in their appeal for funds. I could mention many groups.
At the time the Post Office Act was amended to remove this special postal privilege there were voluminous protests from groups such as the War Amps of Canada, the tuberculosis Christmas seal drive and so forth, all of which depend upon a nominal postal charge to communicate in a massive way with the people of Canada. Protests were made at the time the subject was debated in the House. The Postmaster General indicated he would give very serious consideration to these representations and, if he found that real injustice had been caused by this rather arbitrary adjustment upwards in postal rates, he would take the necessary action. I am sure it has been long since demonstrated that real hardship was created by this substantial increase in the rates which had formerly been given to charitable groups.
I know, for example, that War Amputees are having difficulty carrying out the mass mailing of automobile licensing tags. They have tried to find alternative methods of delivery through private facilities. In some cities this is possible, but in the more isolated parts of Canada it is impossible to get the service they had formerly. In larger cities where distribution has been carried out by other than the postal service, this represents a substantial decrease in the revenue of the Post Office Department because it has been found that private entrepreneurs can distribute these items at a nominal cost and still realize a sufficiently large profit.
I am sure that one of the reasons the Post Office Department in recent years has been showing increasing deficits is that they have lost revenue of this type. Because of the interruption of services due to rotating strikes, and so forth, they have lost to private carriers the business that was carried out almost exclusively by the Post Office Department. It is business they will never recapture because private operators are able to supply the service at a considerably lower cost than the Post Office Department.
Here are some of the facts concerning the deficit picture as shown in a parliamentary return. There has been in recent years a substantial increase in the deficit. From 1961-62 to 1967-68, first-class mail realized a profit. The highest profit was $30.3 million in 1970-71. Even with the increase in the first-class postal rate, there has been a deficit in recent years. For example, in 1971-72 the deficit was listed as $15.1 million. Fourth-class mail showed a modest profit until 1966-67. This is mail the distribution of which requires a minimum of effort, minimum handling, such as the mailing of literature, and so on, by charitable organizations which work on a mass mailing basis. As I say, fourth-class mail showed a profit until 1966-67, but since then there has been a deficit for each year.
When we go to other classes of mail we find the same picture. The deficit is closely related to the declining ser-
May 4, 1972

vice, resulting in a loss of business which used to be handled by the Post Office Department. This amounts to running so as to stand in the same place. The department hardly maintains the same position, because in order to meet the deficit resulting from loss of revenue due to declining service there has to be an increase in the cost of postal service, which results in further loss of business. Obviously, it is a losing game.
I should like to receive further background information. I can well understand that the Post Office Department has become so inefficient that, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, voluminous protests are coming in from all parts of Canada. However, I am willing to take a reasonable position on this matter and suggest that the government deals with just a sampling of the protests that have been received.
There is another area of Post Office problems that I am sure has generated many letters of protest. I refer to the failure of the government to come to grips with the complaints of its own employees. In 1969 I received from the Fort William-Port Arthur and District Labour Council a letter which outlined some of their problems in this respect. Another letter came from this group, dated March 30, 1972, which makes complaints about the working conditions at the Thunder Bay post office. I am sure hon. members representing these areas have received copies of these letters, because the correspondence mentions that they were sent copies.
Obviously, labour relations present serious problems to the Post Office Department. The most recent negotiations took place in 1970. They went on for month after month without settlement, and eventually-


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may continue with the uanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you I thank the members of the House for their courtesy. I shall not trespass unduly on the time allowed but will try to bring this part of my statement to a conclusion and leave the matter there for the time being. As I was saying, labour relations within the Post Office Department have been most unsatisfactory for the past two or three years. In the most recent negotiations in 1970, no action was taken to improve the salary situation until the employees engaged in a period of rotating strikes which caused considerable disruption to the postal service of Canada, along with all the other problems that I have outlined briefly this afternoon.
We are in the same situation in 1972. The contract has run out. It is now a month since the employees have had a contract. It was admitted in the House the other day by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) that no specific offer had been made to the postal union members, notwithstanding the fact that they are operating without a contract. It appears that the same delay and procrastination will result in a repetition of what occurred
Postal Service
in 1970. The government will not be prodded into taking positive action until the employees are forced to protest, perhaps in the form of rotating strikes, in order to bring to the attention of the government and the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) the difficulties under which they are working.
I have received a few letters from several local labour councils on the matter. Again, I do not want to be unreasonable but I am sure that from all parts of Canada similar complaints must be reaching the Postmaster General. Therefore, I think it is a reasonable request that some of these letters be made available so that members of the opposition might have an idea of the broad spectrum of public opinion on the deteriorating efficiency of the Post Office Department. I repeat what I said at the outset of my remarks, that we are not asking for correspondence received from isolated districts. This is a reasonable demand, Mr. Speaker. I hope the government will provide members of the opposition with the information necessary to carry out an intelligent appraisal of the problem.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad commentary on the disastrous deterioration on the front benches of the official opposition when we see them bring forward a silly motion like this, what I would have described as a tongue-in-cheek motion, asking the government to produce the kind of criticism, comments and letters which the hon. member seeks. To give him his due, he tried to protect his motion by saying in effect, "That isn't what I have said and it isn't really what I am looking for."
The situation, Mr. Speaker, is that other hon. members of this House have on the order paper motions for the production of papers which were put forward sincerely in the hope that they would have an opportunity to debate and vote on them. These motions seek papers that hon. members are genuinely interested in having produced, but today we have this motion for the production of letters which the hon. member seems to think are as important as other motions which have appeared on the order paper.
When President Johnson left the White House he gave an address in which he outlined the three great problems facing the United States: first was the war in Viet Nam, second was the race relations problem, and third, dealing more with the financial area and the question of efficiency, was the Post Office. It is recognized throughout the world that there are problems in this area. To suggest that we have a poor post office system is not in accordance with the facts. If the hon. member is so critical of the post office staff, I suggest he should attempt to learn what the post office does on the positive side and not be content to rely on the few letters of complaint that he receives.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They are voluminous, according to the parliamentary secretary.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: If the hon. member did a little research and asked people to write about the good service which the post office provides, he would find the correspondence to be much more voluminous than the few complaints he has
1912

May 4, 1972
Postal Service
received. Part of the problem is that he has not undertaken enough study to know what the Canadian Post Office
does. No less a person'than Peter Harrison, commenting on a CBC radio program on December 17 last, gave the other side of the picture. Apparently he did considerably more research than the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) when preparing his motion. I think his radio comments bear repeating.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: We cannot get any information from the government in order to know.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There is no shortage of information available. Apparently Mr. Harrison was able to get full information, and he is not even a member of this House. In his radio talk he said:
It seems to me that the Canadian postal service is always being maligned by people who haven't got the slightest idea of how mail is handled or how it's paid for. The closest they've been to a mail handling operation is when they bought a stamp, and supposedly that gives them the right to spout absolute nonsense at the drop of letter.
Let's have a look at the Canadian postal service for a minute. From the latest figures for 1970, the government spent approximately $532,000,000 on postal service. Revenues were only $432,000,000. Therefore there was a deficit of about $100,000,000.
When the hon. member was quoting statistics he did not bother to point out how much the postal workers were making from 1962 to 1967. Their low wages gave the Post Office Department a better profit picture then than it has now. Mr. Speaker, I think we should be paying these people what they deserve, without trying to make a profit at their expense. Mr. Harrison pointed out:
Labour costs were $311,000,000 and the post office handled five billion-I repeat five billion-pieces of mail. There are about 10,000 post offices in the country and about 44,000 postal employees, 16,000 of those are letter carriers. An interesting point to note is that out of 10,000 post offices 65 of them account for approximately 80 per cent of total revenues. The rest only contribute 20 per cent, but are kept open because the Post Office Department is a service-oriented organization and everyone has the right to a mail service.
If we listen to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I believe he is suggesting that we should close down all these other post offices, forget about service and concentrate on making a profit so that the Post Office Department can end up in the black. I do not think his party would advocate that the people served by these other post offices should be deprived of service, albeit they are not paying in full for it. I continue the quotation:
As for the deficit, that comes out of the taxpayer's pocket in the form of a subsidy.-
The two complaints most often heard are the high postage rates and the speed of service. Canada has the cheapest postal service in the world on an hourly earning basis. That is, we handle more mail cheaper than any other country and do it at a lower postage rate. That's why we have a deficit. People who complain about high postage rates don't know what they're talking about. There were almost no rate adjustments between 1930 and 1968, and no organization can afford to pay today's prices for services at yesterday's revenues. We don't expect private industries to do it, so why expect the Post Office to do it?
Raising the postage rates puts the burden of supporting a postal service directly on the individuals or businesses that use it, and if the rates are not increased the deficit will increase and this puts the burden on all taxpayers whether or not they use the service. It's about $12 per family in Canada now and, frankly, how many people do you know who use an extra $12 worth of stamps in a

year? At an extra penny apiece that's 1,200 stamps. The average individual in Canada only buys 28 to 30 cents worth per year. So it boils down to "How do you like your poison?-a penny or two on each stamp or extra dollars on your tax bill!" Think about that one before jumping on the postal department again.
As far as speed of service is concerned, it's getting better all the time. The Post Office Department has been breaking its back to organize what is essentially a labour-intensive, out-moded method of mail handling into a streamlined service. The program is designed to reduce the number of times that a piece of mail has to be handled and to mechanize operations wherever possible. A one-day assured mail service has been inaugurated between major Canadian cities and its success rate in meeting the one-day time limit is between 90 to 98 per cent. That's better than any other government department that I can think of-
I do not know whether I can use the word that he uses here, Mr. Speaker, but he says that it is a "blank" sight better than a lot of private industries.
A new postal code has been devised so that mail can be machine-sorted much faster but that effort will be stymied unless of course the public takes five minutes to memorize their code. All of this has happened in the past year and it required a lot of effort on the part of all postal employees. What do they get for it? A kick in the rear instead of a pat on the shoulder for a job well done. If people are really in such a hurry to get their mail, or to send it out, perhaps they should or could send in constructive suggestions to the Post Office Department on what to do when there is an ice storm, all aircraft are grounded and the mail doesn't move. I'm sure the department would be happy to receive them instead of the usual "Ah, Ah! My letter didn't arrive in 24 hours." Let's give the Post Office Department a little time to improve further ahd if you have to take out your frustrations on something why not try the revenue department on the slowness of income tax returns?
That is a positive view expressed by Peter Harrison, who is hardly known as a friend of the government. It is not the kind of ill-informed criticism of the Post Office that we get from those who do not take the time or effort to make constructive criticism of a department that is doing a fantastic job under difficult circumstances.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) would make an admirable lawyer for the defence. I will not argue with some of the statistics that he quoted in defence of the Post Office Department. On this side of the House it is our purpose to draw attention to things that sometimes do not work very well, and hopefully I can do this in a constructive fashion to satisfy the hon. member.
I should like to speak for a moment about a newspaper in my constituency, the Kindersley Clarion, which serves not only the town of Kindersley but the surrounding small villages and farming area. People use it to advertise social events and business or commercial enterprises of interest to people in the area. It is a weekly paper published on Wednesday night or Thursday morning. In order to be of any use to the people in the district in regard to weekend events, it has to be in the mail by Friday.
As I understand it, communities east and west of Kindersley receive the newspaper at the proper time. When it moves off the route to communities north and west, for example Hanley, then it frequently arrives late-and if it does not arrive by Friday it is not of much use. Since there is only one paper serving an area such as this, obviously the people want to get it. When we consider the distances involved, it could be delivered by pony express

which is not even going too fast. This is the kind of service that we would like to see improved.
I have written to the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) about this matter but have not had a reply from him. I am not really interested in why the paper arrives late at these places, but I want something done about it. As I understand it, the mail formerly sorted at Rosetown has to go to Saskatoon and then come back to these communities. It seems to me that if this is an improved service, a new venture by the Post Office, they should look again at the speed with which the mail moves. When it formerly had to go to Rosetown and come back by another line, it moved fairly rapidly-but that is not the case now.
It has been suggested to me that these little newspapers do not arrive in Calgary until the following Monday or Tuesday. This is much too slow, I receive it in the House of Commons on Monday or Tuesday, and if the Post Office can deliver it here they should be able to deliver it to Calgary which is much closer. I look to the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton to see that the mail is delivered in a better fashion. I am no technician with regard to Post Office facilities but I have great respect for most individual postmen. If we are going to introduce changes such as I have indicated, I think they should give the same service as was given previously, and not less. This, I contend, is what we are trying to achieve.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with much interest this afternoon to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) when they spoke of complaints concerning the postal service.
I want to take a few minutes to say that the people I represent are extremely concerned that there be an efficient postal service and that it be continuous and reliable. One of the genuine threats that concerns me and the people of the Ottawa valley is that of labour disputes which, under certain circumstances, might lead to strike action by those responsible for mail delivery. This, of course, places an undue hardship upon people who conduct their business through the mail and those who receive old age pension or family allowance cheques. This concern of many people was mentioned by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris at the end of his speech and I think it is very valid. All of us must encourage the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and others to negotiate in good faith with Post Office employees and attempt to head off any breakdown in the mail service.
I think it is worthy of comment that the mail service has been expanded and improved in some areas in recent years. In two towns that I represent, Arnprior and Perth, house to house delivery has been inaugurated in recent months, with the general approval and appreciation of residents.
From time to time when I look at the economic balance sheet of the Canada Post Office and notice the deficits and the steps taken in recent years to bring some semblance of balance to the department, I wonder if there might not be some advantage in turning mail delivery over to private enterprise. It is true we have a parallel
Farm Credit Act
with the bell Telephone Company which has almost a monopoly in their type of communication. It is also true that many people feel that Bell has increased rates exorbitantly. But many of us wonder if it would not be worth while to consider turning postal deliveries over to such an enterprise and setting up a system that could be administered efficiently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hour set aside for private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[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 of Mr. Korchinski (p. 1872) and the subamendment of Mr. Knight (p. 1903).
René Matte: Just before recess, Mr. Speaker, I indicated how all these conflicts of jurisdiction between the federal and the provincial governments may prove a great obstacle to the development of Canadian agriculture. When we talk about these problems, we should not minimize them, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard) did.
For indeed one can read, in some farm papers in the province of Quebec for instance, many such headings as the following: "The Catholic Farmers' Union and the feed problem: Ottawa recognizes the unfairness of the situation but fails to correct it." This appeared in the February 9 issue of Terre de Chez nous, page 4.
In the same issue of this newspaper one can read and I quote:
The assistance measures to producers announced by Prime Minister Trudeau have been received rather cooly by the people first concerned in Quebec.
On May 3, 1972, Le Devoir printed an article entitled "Quebec agriculture suffers mainly from conflicts between Ottawa and Quebec". This newspaper was referring to the comprehensive farm development plan introduced by the Quebec government.
It is obvious that there is a conflict. Let us not ignore it but rather let us find the true solution.
As I said earlier in my remarks, the farm organizations are at least in a position to supply parts of the solution
1914

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
and more attention should be paid to them. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture recommended that a special effort be made to avoid the establishment of new structures or of a new department overlapping the present federal and provincial departments.
The problem is real, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to these conflicts.
The governments should establish a policy and procedures to enable young people to improve their skills in farming techniques. And after they have proven their ability and honesty they should be given the possibility of diversifying their production and purchasing viable family farms.
Many young people are prepared to devote themselves to agriculture but this should be made much easier for them. Thanks to the amendments to the bill some real gaps in the act will be filled and I commend the minister for that.
But we should go a little further, and a telegram received this afternoon from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, concerning Bill C-5, recommends that loans to co-operatives or to family farms or other operations should be granted up to $250,000. Moreover, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture also states in its telegram from Mr. Munro, that it would like the interest rate on these loans to be set at 5 per cent. These are measures likely to really help the farmer.
When the government is willing to improve even more legisltion in this area, it will have, as my colleague from Bellechasse emphasized it yesterday, to introduce such legislation as to provide an adequate income to the producer. In order to get a sufficient income, it will be necessary for all Canadian producers to really come to a mutual agreement in order to promote all endeavours in every region in Canada.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is proceeding with its study of Bill C-5 entitled: "An Act to amend the Farm Credit Act", it is with pleasure that I am taking the floor to participate in the debate with members who have already expressed their views.
As I represent an agricultural constituency, it is very important that the House takes the decision of introducing these amendments as soon as possible.
These amendments aim mainly at increasing the ability of the Farm Credit Corporation to meet the needs of some long-term credits to build up viable farm operations, and endowing it with the necessary power it requires to carry out the tasks and functions that may be assigned to it in the administration of other programs.
The powers now enjoyed by the corporation enable it to fulfill its aim and objectives-granting farm loans, implementing the act and controlling farm credit transactions. These amendments will allow the minister to use all or part of this expert staff to administer other programs such as the land transfer program, which is part of the small farm development program.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is allowed to subscribe an amount of $56 million to the capital of the

corporation, and to lend the latter 25 times as much as its capital-i.e., $1.4 billion.
As well as the specific purposes for which loans can be granted, the act allows a loan to be made for any purpose necessary for the efficient operation of the mortgaged farm. This provision of the act has been given a rather narrow interpretation because of the word "necessary". In the revised text, the phrase "that will facilitate" is substituted for the word "necessary", so that it will be possible to grant loans for any justifiable purpose related to the buying, operation, maintenance, or development of a farm.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) understood that it was urgent to introduce those amendments in order to allow certain farmers to expand their farms and to establish young farmers there-be they their sons, relatives, or other people interested in agriculture.
The present ceilings on loans to individual farmers are $40,000 under Partll, and $55,000 under Part III of the act. The proposed amendments sets at $100,000 the maximum amount that can be lent to any farmer, alone or jointly with others, or in respect of a single farming enterprise. It was felt that with the years, the present maximum had become inadequate insofar as the amount of $40,000 was minimal when one knows that nowadays a farmer owns an enterprise which requires a huge investment.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and the government of Canada have understood the needs of Canadian farmers.
The size of individual farms keeps increasing as agriculture turns from a labour-intensive to a capital-intensive industry, while the purchasing power of the dollar has been diminishing in the past few years. There is no other source of farm mortgage credit for specific amounts or periods of time. The limits set on loans granted private farmers in 1964 are therefore too low to meet the needs of many of them, especially those who want to take advantage of modern techniques.
We see therefore that the government is anxious to help the farmers to settle down on farms and make them profitable. That is why that change will allow our farmers to streamline their operations and earn a decent living off the farm.
The idea of tying in the ceiling on loans with the number of farmers rather than with the size of the operation has proved unfair to private farmers who hire hands or get help from their sons who are minors, compared with those who work the farm on a co-operative or partnership basis.
Although this legislation would authorize the corporation to make loans for the development of mortgaged lands including a secondary non-farming enterprise, it is not authorized to take into account the non-farming income producing capacity of the land when it is being estimated for the purpose of determining the amount of the loan. The present amendment will take into consideration such evaluations so that the amount of the loan would be in keeping with the actual mortgageable value of the property. It will also enable a good many farmers to better utilize their resources without depending entirely on agriculture.
May 4, 1972

The amendment before us authorizes the corporation to make loans on the security of farm lands in respect of which a third party retains the use of any buildings, provided such use does not exceed his lifetime nor the lifetime of his spouse.
This amendment would enable the farmer who retires to remain with his spouse on the piece of land where he has lived for many years, instead of being compelled to move into a neighbouring village or an unknown region, as was the case previously.
Special situations may arise in connection with programs such as the development of small farms, where a farmer who retires and sells his property can, if he so wishes, retain the use of his buildings for a period of time not exceeding his lifetime or that of his spouse. The buyer of such a farm who is eligible for a loan might wish to finance his purchase through a corporation's loan.
For the time being, the legislation does not authorize the corporation to make loans to farmers under 21 years of age. It seems that the age of majority tends nowadays to be lowered as has already been the case in some provinces. By deleting any mention as to minimum age, the corporation will be guided by provincial legislation spelling out the minimum age when a person can apply for a mortgage loan.
This will allow farmers, whatever province they live in, to establish themselves on a farm at an early age. It will all depend on the age the province will have set for majority. It is well known that now the province of Quebec has set the age of majority at 18, whereas in other provinces it is 21.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Minister of Agriculture and the federal government are anxious to assist young farmers in their establishment.
In some cases it is reasonable to grant collective loans to individual farmers, to a farmer or to one or more qualified farm corporations, although the act does not specifically authorize such loans in those special circumstances. The amendment will allow the granting of such loans in reasonable circumstances, under Part II of the legislation.
A farmer can mortgage part of his land as collateral security for a loan granted to another farmer, which generally involves a father putting up security for his son. This would not limit his entitlement to a loan in his own name under Part II of the legislation. The same provision will henceforth apply to loans granted under Part III.
Mr. Speaker, section 33 provides that if the debt of the borrower under Part II exceeds 75 per cent of the appraisal value of his farm land, he must obtain the approval of the Corporation before being eligible for a farm improvement loan. Experience has shown that this requirement was useless. The section has been amended to allow the father to put up security for his son, in order to establish him on an economic farm.
The proposed amendments will improve the Farm Credit Act, so that it may meet present agricultural needs.
The consultations held with farmers who are members of the appeals courts of the Farm Credit Corporation in each province have given rise to suggestions which in
Farm Credit Act
addition to the proposed general amendments were examined with the advisory committee made up of farmers representing the Canadian farm orgnizations. Furthermore, the Corporation has extended consultations with the branches of the Department of Agriculture, and particularly with the Economic Branch.
Mr. Speaker, surveys have been made in order to find out exactly what Canadian farmers want and I think that their problems have been considered, and that we have tried to bring, through new amendments, a contribution and an instrument in addition to what was already available to them from the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the amendments contained in Bill C-5 should be taken under consideration by all hon. members. The Canadian farmers are waiting for these changes in order to make their farm operations more profitable. Through all these amendments, this government can truly control the situation, help people who want to settle on farms, make the latter profitable.
It is known that presently Canadian farms are no longer operated with manual labour. They have become industries due to investment their owners have to make to compete on markets and they are provided with a new tool to operate economic units.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act. I suppose the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would say the opposition's criticism is that the amendments do not go far enough. Before I take on the minister, though, may I say I am very glad to see that the Waffle ranks in the New Democratic Party have been reconciled with maple syrup, or have been reconciled to the benefits of farm credit for the younger farmers of the land. I say this because when the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) commented on the amendment which my hon. friend for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) proposed yesterday to give further encouragement to younger farmers, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar told us, as reported in Hansard on page 1872, "I can hardly go along with the amendment, but perhaps after full discussion I might be able to consider it."
I was glad the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) earlier today moved a subamendment to a reasoned amendment. Frankly, while you, sir, were in the chair, with all honour to the position you hold, you set parliamentary precedent by accepting a subamendment to a reasoned amendment. The reasoned amendment was so well considered that I could not understand how Your Honour could accept the subamendment. The fact that you did is no reflection on the Chair but is a reflection on the Waffle-maple syrup movement in the NDP trying to reconcile reality with politics and the fact that they are now joining us in seeking to help the young farmers of this land, not only to the benefit of the minister and of other Canadians but to the benefit of all those in western Canada. I was very glad to hear this subamendment so that my friend from Assiniboia could finally join the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar and they could march hand in hand down this chamber and show Mr. Watkins and Mr. Lewis how to get things done on the farm.

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
However, I agree with three-quarters of what was said by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau). He speaks with experience in farming in la belle province which I cannot match because I come from another part of the country, a belle province called Nouvelle-Ecosse. While we do not have farms quite as large as our hearts, in some cases our minds are even larger. Therefore I can reconcile anything my good friend from comte de Frontenac said tonight because I am in complete agreement with what he said about the younger farmer. He also supports the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mackenzie in which we of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are asking these amendments go further than the Minister of Agriculture at the moment has gone.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You mean you want to kill the bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am coming to that. However, before I come to the Minister of Agriculture, that lonely depute from the flatlands of Canada which is the heartland of Canada, I want to talk about my friend from the belle comte de Frontenac because he agrees with what we say on this side, which is that the younger farmer must be encouraged and given some incentive to put his back to the plow and produce returns for all Canadians. I know my friend from the comte de Frontenac would agree with deferred interest on long-term loans and with an equitable adjustment of interest rates. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned this in his speech the other evening. Why should a young or even an old farmer be penalized under one of the few interest laws of Canada which nails him to a contract from which he cannot escape?
If a person makes a contract with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or takes out a mortgage with his friend the mortgagor, after five years he can start to adjust the interest rate if he finds he is in a downward market, interestwise. I hope the Minister of Agriculture does not try to poke fun at the seriousness of my statements, because the minister in the last part of his speech said that he felt confined, constricted and almost mentally castrated because he could not do anything with the section on frozen interest rates of Farm Credit Corporations loans.
I say that if there is any one meaningful amendment which ought to be brought in by this minister, it would be an amendment providing an escape clause for farmers who have built themselves into a long-term contract. If these farmers were dealing in the commercial market or in the housing market under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation they could escape the frozen high interest rate, but under the present Farm Credit Corporation infrastructure they cannot escape from their long-term contract with a readjustment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You are taking away my valuable time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Is the hon. member not aware that the Farm Credit Corporation has always had a provision by which any loan can be paid without notice or bonus, so no one is locked into a contract. The situation is contrary to the

comment of the hon. member that the only way it can move is up, unless it is paid off.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am aware of what the minister says, but the fact is that if you start to renegotiate you must pay a bonus or penalty in renegotiating the loan, with all the legalistic fees incumbent upon any mortgage. At one time I practised as a lawyer in the city of Vancouver and was involved in land mortgage work. Frankly, this is one part of the priesthood of law that I cannot quite reconcile. I do not believe I would be able to do so even if I were not a member of the opposition.
If I were a member of the government I would have second thoughts about doing CMHC work and/or Farm Credit Corporation work because the poor mortgagee, the citizen of Canada under the CMHC Act, or the poor farmer of Canada under the Farm Credit Corporation Act, is paying through the nose for the legalistic services for what he has already paid. As a lawyer, I say that this minister, who is not a lawyer and who supposedly has had good legal advice, has not done one thing to correct the abuse in respect of the mortgage laws of Canada.
I am digressing, Mr. Speaker. There are serious questions involved in these amendments. Quite frankly, so far as those of us from Atlantic Canada, especially Nova Scotia, are concerned these amendments are just catching up with the practice in farm financing which we have in Nova Scotia. The Farm Credit Corporation is not the number one reservoir for funds. In fact, it is almost the court of last resort. If we needed any justification to consider amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act so that it could be more meaningful and contribute more constructively to the problems of farm financing, we would merely have to take partially the minister's word and more particularly the more detailed report of Federal Farm Credit and Related Statistics published in 1971, in which at page 5, among other things it says:
Lending in 1970-71 dropped 28 per cent from the previous year from $158 million to $116.5 million and continued a trend started two years earlier resulting from economic conditions, higher interest rates and higher land prices. The average size of loan, however, was somewhat larger and a higher proportion of funds was used to refinance existing loans.
I shall stop there and continue in my own language. We are to have higher loans and higher financial charges with which to finance the farm. That is what the hon. member for Mackenzie wishes to avoid in respect of the farmers of this land. The report continues with these words at page 5. If anyone has any doubt about the validity of the amendments-and they do not go far enough-this is what the Farm Credit Corporation has to say about its own act:
There was a further reduction in the proportion of loans used for land purchases. In 1970-71, one-third of the funds was used to purchase land, compared with 42 per cent a year earlier. About three million dollars were loaned for housing, down from ten million three years earlier. With more difficult economic conditions-
What else do we want other than more loans and more financing when economic conditions become difficult? But what happens? Now everything is down, including loans for those who need it; and the value of the farm is down. The minister's statistics show that it goes up, but the real value goes down.


An hon. Member:: Funny money.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My friend from Moncton says "Funny money". I did not hear the 2 per cent speech of the Minister of Agriculture. In fact, someone said earlier tonight that there was a program called Project '75. I should like to ask this minister, with all the kindness I can muster with my Irish hat, why we do not have a Project '72, letting the interest go down? This may just happen to help the farmers of this land more than all the amendments made to the Farm Credit Act.


An hon. Member:: What about the good parts?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will come to the good qualities of the minister later. I should like to refer to a very meaningful paragraph in this pamphlet which says that with some difficult economic conditions, expenditures for farm housing tend to be postponed more than loans for other purposes. About two-thirds of the loans went to the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario, where about two-thirds of the commercial farms are located and two-thirds of farm products are produced. It says that in line with the general trend, the number of loans to incorporated farm borrowers declined 18 per cent in 1970-71, with a decline in volume of loans of about 25 per cent. The average size loan to incorporated farms declined by $4,400 and amounted to $26,500 per member compared to an average of $28,400 for all farms.
I could continue to read much more, but the point of this paragraph and many others in this very interesting and revealing pamphlet is that some people somewhere decided that the Farm Credit Corporation was not fulfilling the purpose for which it was conceived. I know the minister is sincerely concerned about the problems of agriculture in this land, but from time to time I differ with him on how to solve, resolve and tackle them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard), for whom I have great personal endearment, should not interrupt my speech, because if he does I shall recall a speech he would like to recant today. When he goes back to la belle province this weekend he may talk to one of his political kindred souls who may say to him he had better get down to Liberal philosophy in Quebec rather than follow the Social Credit philosophy in which he at one time believed.
As I started to say earlier, we in Nova Scotia realized the difficulties many years ago. The Nova Scotia farm loan board was the first body to be involved in farm financing. It is my understanding that as long as you can show evidence of some potential of performance you can get $100,000 from this board. This is what we are talking about regarding this national act. This is a sad reflection on the psychology, philosophy and mentality of those within the federal Department of Agriculture. At long last we are catching up with the little province of Nova Scotia in adopting a maximum level for individual farmers of $100,000 per farm. That is in fact what the important amendments before us attempt to do.
Farm Credit Act
The amendments suggest that we should not worry just about the individual farmer, we should try to develop something that seems to have gone out of fashion in this permissive society. This is a society in which we are supposed to be born in a cradle, rocked in a cradle and spilled from the cradle into the grave without having to produce anything, showing no initiative or enthusiasm and requiring no incentive. The members of this party believe in something else. I question sometimes some of the things hon. members believe in, and they very often question what I have to say. I have no compunction about questioning what they say and they have none in questioning what I say.
We belong to the Progressive Conservative party which at the moment, but only for the moment, happens to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The members of this party have one thing in common: we belong to one of the most independent breeds you can find. I know the Minister of Agriculture would love to be part of that breed because he is independent, as indicated by his exercise of independence in moving from the far left to the middle right. He did not move to the far right but to the middle, comfortable and easy right.
This Minister of Agriculture was pointed out to me, as a new member when I first came here, as a man with parliamentary acumen. It was easy for him to walk from the far left to the easy middle right and not take up the challenge of the opposition. This helped to dilute some of my respect for him, though I give him credit for sagacity and parliamentary sense. It is much more difficult to move from the far left to the government side of the House than it is to move from the far left to the seats of the mighty. Pierre Burton wrote a book entitled "The Comfortable Pew", but there is nothing more comfortable than the easy and comfortable seats on the other side of this institution.
It was a disappointment to me when this Minister of Agriculture, who does have a lot to offer in this Parliament of Canada, moved from the soft seats of the Credi-tistes to the easy seats of the establishment rather than take up the challenge of the opposition. This minister has not accepted the challenge to make changes. We want to change the Farm Credit Act to make it meaningful to the young farmers of Canada. It must become meaningful if there is to be any life left on the farmlands of this country. Let us give the Minister of Agriculture all the benefit of the doubt in respect of these Farm Credit Act amendments, because I believe in his sincerity. I question some of his purposes but I do not question his sincerity.
One of the fundamental problems in any debate in this chamber concerning this topic is that we are confined by Bill C-5 and its amendments to the Farm Credit Act. This measure was supposed to provide easier access to the credit pools of the Farm Credit Corporation, particularly for farmers who need financing. What is the sense of debating this bill in isolation, when at the last session of Parliament we passed something called a tax reform bill which instituted certain tax changes and penalized the productive farmer? When we look at the details of the basic herd as defined in that change, which is a rather complicated equation to anyone from the east or the west, we find a different situation.

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act


Some hon. Members:: What about apples?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not talking about apples; I am talking about the nuts and bolts that make this society work. If there was ever a piece of legislation that indicated the 'complete futility of this government, I suggest it is the one before us-because we have the Farm Credit Act amendments today, we had tax reform yesterday, and the farmer will be left on dry land tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: And the minister had his funny money before that.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My friends may think I am trying to be funny.


An hon. Member:: You don't have to try; you are funny.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My friend suggests I do not have to try. I can be funny when I want to be, and I can also be serious. If the hon. member does not get the seriousness of my message, he will get it next election day.
He will not be re-elected just because he comes from the beautiful, bountiful province of Ontario which so far has not instituted succession duties. There are some members in this chamber who come from Alberta, the succession duty haven, and there are many other members in this chamber who come from other provinces whose respective provincial governments are walking right into the vacuum left by this federal administration and the so-called tax reform bill which is nothing more than tax conformity which will detract, deform and potentially destroy farming in this land if both the provincial and federal governments do not do something.
What good is it to get a 2 per cent mortgage under the farm credit legislation after the family has contributed to increasing the value of the farm? The housewife often becomes the bookkeeper and the four or five children are active participants in the growth of the farm, but at the end of it they have to pay a capital gains tax which we all say philosophically is just.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I like the clapping and I agree with those who clap. Not only do we have the capital gains tax but this government does not have the common sense that God gave the geese to fly over this land, to integrate federal tax reform with the provincial tax laws. So the government of Canada can be the knight in shining armour, not the King for Assiniboia-he is not a bad fellow but he has a lot to learn, if he gets a chance to learn.
The point I am trying to make is, why should the federal government be the knight in shining armour and say to the public of Canada, "We think that succession duties may have a retrograde, adverse, negative influence on the social and economic development of the land, so we will withdraw and leave this field. But because we want to be just and we live under the umbrella of the just society"- whatever that may mean-"we will institute a capital gains tax"? They could not get many economists or

philosophers to debate the capital gains tax. I regret that this party did not take a strong stand with regard to the capital gains tax as it applies to the farmers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The only time I hear these timid lions roar is when an opposition member speaks. They roar because they do not dare speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am sad because we did not take a stronger stand with regard to the capital gains tax as it applies to farmlands and the transition of the farmland from the farmer to his son or blood relatives. We all chickened out. The fact that the capital gains tax was left in a vacuum enabled each individual province to come in with its own succession duty act.
There is nothing the Minister of Agriculture can do, no matter how well mtentioned he may be, to help restore agriculture as a vocation and as a challenge to the young people of Canada unless he can get together with his provincial counterparts, not only ministers of agriculture but ministers of finance, and discuss with them the tax laws so that something can be done to redress the grievances that cloud the lands of this country. They prohibit, restrict and work against young people who wish to work on the farm, work which is so necessary for the development of this land.
I say to you that we can have all the amendments to the farm credit legislation in the world, but how can we develop farming if the federal government pounces, with the capital gains tax, on the sons and daughters who helped make the land productive and on the other hand provinces such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and other smaller and poorer provinces in the country try to grasp any tax dollar, not fully assessing the long-term effect which the short-term grasp will have?
It will have a very detrimental effect. I know some farmers in the Annapolis Valley who are thinking of moving and setting up dummy corporations in Alberta to avoid succession duties which will mean the final termination of long-term farming in my province. I am not so sure about what is going on in other provinces. All I know is that so far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, in my province over a period of ten years there have been 484 loans, 388 under part II and 96 under part III, which is the part which gives some incentive to the young farmers, for a total of $8,351,000, which is a pittance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree with whatever you say, but this ia a pittance and smaller than a pebble in a great, big pond in the totality of farm credit loans. It shows in a graphic way how inadequate Farm Credit Corporation financing is for those of us who live in Nova Scotia-and that province, with all due respect, is a little more productive, farmwise, than some Atlantic provinces. When you compare that sum with the total for the whole of Canada, $1,550,642,000 over a ten year period, it is a pittance.
There is something further that I would like to ask concerning where we are going in the farm world. What is
May 4, 1972

the direction of the national policy, not only regarding the federal Department of Agriculture but the Department of Finance and the various provincial finance departments? When both succession duties and the capital gains tax are imposed on farmers there starts a flow, not only of people from the country to the city but a flow of capital because those left on the farms move into the cities and take their share of the estate with them. Because of succession duties and debts after the farmer's death, one child stays on the farm while the other children move into the city with their share of the inheritance. This compounds the problem of migration from rural areas to the city and I do not believe it is in the interests of the country. You have people and pocketbooks, in effect, moving from rural areas to city because of the conflicting and paradoxical tax laws.
I now come to the small farm adjustment program. It is probably a well intentioned piece of legislation prepared by the Minister of Agriculture and his department, but is it not ironical that the minister is developing a program to take the marginal farmer out of the mainstream so that larger farms can become more economic and more efficient? What happens to those who work in a marginal unit? Are they to be added to the welfare rolls in the cities? We already have fantastic migration from country to city which is most likely inevitable; but the minister, in his well intentioned manner, is developing a program which will accelerate the process. It will not dilute it or cure it. The minister is inadvertently-this is the kindest word I can use-accelerating the process.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is not right.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Has there been any survey made by his department, by Statistics Canada or by any other organ of the federal government to assess what will happen to the workers now working on this "X" number of marginal farms in Canada? I only have to look at the book I referred to earlier, Federal Farm Credit and Related Statistics, which was published in 1971. I refer, as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) did the other night, to the interesting table that gives the value of farms across the country. The minister described how the small farms adjustment plan would apply primarily to farms with a value of between $3,000 and $20,000. In my own province there are over 6,000 farms in that category, and in the province of Quebec over 40,000. There are like numbers in other provinces.
I hope the minister will reply to my question. Has there been any study done by his department, by Statistics Canada or by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to show what will be the effect of eliminating these marginal farms and the workers on them? It just so happens, perhaps through an accident of history or perhaps due to a fact of circumstance, that the reality of the situation is that on those farms there are a great many good citizens of Canada who have a marginal chance to participate in the full mainstream of Canada. What will happen to them? Are they going to end up-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is a development program, not an adjustment program.
Farm Credit Act


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he read a series of essays by Paul Goodwin, an American sociologist. I am not so anti-American as some on the government side who may say that there is not an author in the United States who is worth reading. He wrote a series of essays, Mr. Speaker, for the Massey lectures, subsidized by the CBC and published in a book entitled, "The Moral Beauty of America." He points out that we in the western civilization who think we have all the answers and believe that our guidelines should be based on technology and efficiency should use the old railway crossing guide of stop, look and listen, because this may not be true. This may not be all for the good.
It may not be for the Minister of Agriculture and myself, who may be very temporary in this world, to stop all this. It is our children who will fully assess what I say tonight and what will be the result of our policies, perhaps inadvertently. I do not say that this legislation is deliberately designed to give a bad result. If it was so designed I would be far happier because I could point out that it was misguided. But I do not feel any confidence in the design; I do not feel any confidence in the plan.
I say to the Minister of Agriculture that this is something that is not within his scope, but he plays a part in it. Paul Goodwin has said that a case can be made out to keep the small family farm even if programs must be brought in to help stimulate it or, depending on your semantics, to subsidize it, rather than transfer that problem of production into the city where slabs of cement will confront the person from the farm so that he will have no recourse, because of his lack of training, but to go on welfare and add to the dilemma on that side of the coin.
Without going into the whole matter of the ecology and environment, I say we had better stop, look and listen to see just what our policies are doing. Mr. Speaker, I thought you were about to rise to call me to order because my time is running out. Before I sit down I want to quote from a very eminent North American. However, before giving this quotation I wish to say seriously that there are two subsidiary problems here concerning credit to the farmer, or lack of credit. There is the completely demoralizing effect that the combination of capital gains tax and succession duties has on the progressive, viable farmer today. As a result, he does not know where he is heading. Yet to give credit to the Minister of Agriculture, on the other side of the totem pole, on the lower side of the scale he has a program that he hopes will help to develop and assist the marginal farmer.
I suggest that you cannot talk about farm credit in isolation. You have to talk about making the marginal unit viable. You also have to talk about the most productive units in the country. From my part of the world we do not contribute, in net dollars or in percentage terms, the largest proportion of farm production but in our way we produce what we feel is a rather respectable share. Let us consider how succession duties will affect us. At page 37 of the booklet to which I referred earlier there is a table showing farmland values per acre, by province, over a 20-year period from 1951 to 1970. In Nova Scotia the value per acre started off in 1951 at $112, rose over the next three years to $114, by 1968 had risen to $190, in 1969 to $204 and in 1970 to $214. The value, in terms of dollars,

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
may have gone up because of inflation and certain other problems, but the individual farmer still has only 30 to 35 acres per farm, or in some cases 100 to 150 acres per farm. I think the Minister of Agriculture begins to appreciate the problem but I do not think the government as a whole appreciates the effect of the double whammy of capital gains and succession duties on these farms.
There are many other things I could say, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to conclude by quoting something said by a very eminent North American who has his own difficulties tonight. He was in this chamber less than a month ago. It is President Nixon who said it. This statement is to be found in "Rural Canada 1970: Prospects and Problems." I was most interested that President Nixon, who is not noted for his rural philosophy or rural beginnings, should say this. Probably it was prepared for him by a speechwriter, but he had enough conviction in it to express the words. They are to be found at page 84 of the book as follows:
We will carry our concern with the quality of life in America to the farm as well as the suburb, to the village as well as the city.
I expect he was paraphrasing another eminent Anglo-Saxon, Winston Churchill.
What rural America most needs is a new kind of assistance. It needs to be dealt with, not as a separate nation, but as part of an over-all growth policy for all America. We must create a new rural environment that will not only stem the migration to urban centres but reverse it.
I would like to put in summary what I have tried to say tonight. I hope I have a chance to repeat it in more detail at other times during the life of this and other Parliaments. This House of Commons is the repository of the common denominator of Canada. People think we are a pale reflection of the personalities of Canada, but we are the repository of the common denominator of Canada because at the moment we are the representatives of Canada. Those who succeed us will demonstrate all the failures and foibles and all the perfections that we in this chamber have shown. But if there is anything to be remembered when debating any farm bill it is that we should not debate farm credit in isolation, we should not debate apples in isolation, we should not debate wheat in isolation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Oranges?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We do not have oranges, as far as I know; but the fact that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) mentioned them relfects his knowledge of the farming community of Canada-he knows nothing about it. We do not have oranges, Mr. Speaker. We have enough problems in this country with the crops we produce, let alone products we import from abroad. We bring tomatoes from Mexico, oranges from Florida and California; but we do not have enough coming from the West Indies, where we should have a viable trade. I come from eastern Canada where the natural flow is north and south and I do not understand why we cannot do something about trade in that direction.
To return to the serious matter I was discussing before I was diverted by the ranting of the elephant without horns, if anything serious is to be taken from what I have said

tonight-and I hope there will-then in this chamber we must stop debating policies of isolation. We must decide, if there is a national farm policy, whether it is integrated with the provincial policies in farming or in finance.


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


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act. First of all, I should like to compliment the chairman and staff of the Farm Credit Corporation. In my opinion they have done an excellent job across Canada over the years, and I know they will continue to do the job to the best of their ability by looking after our farmers under the legislation passed by Parliament.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about a little praise for the Minister of Agriculture?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and I heard the interjection of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). I appreciate, of course, that niether of those hon. members has ever had anything to do with the Farm Credit Corporation and put through any of those-


An hon. Member:: High class mortgage loans.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: He is objecting to cheap feed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) seeks the floor on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. My good friend has indicated that I have had nothing to do with the Farm Credit Corporation. I want him to know that during the Diefenbaker years I was one who used to process a lot of mortgages-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How much were you paid?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at what has happened. I knew it would happen as soon as I stood up. The last speech was rather dull and I knew-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am somewhat amused, however, that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley did not say there had not been a substantial number of loans go through his law firm in the past. You know, Mr. Speaker, we cannot have this conflict of interest. I know that my good friend from Hamilton West stood up, and rightfully so, and said that at no time did he have anything to do with mortgage loans going through the Farm Credit Corporation, but the other hon. member has not said that.


An hon. Member:: He was living in British Columbia.
May 4, 1972


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) rises on a question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) was trying to bait me. He has succeeded. In the practice I carried on in Nova Scotia there was no such thing as Farm Credit Corporation loans going through the small office I ran. However, I moved to British Columbia and joined a large law firm in which at that time the former minister of labour, now Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, was one of the senior partners. Because of the British Columbia complexion of that minister of labour in the former Pearson government, Farm Credit Corporation loans went through that office; but I had nothing to do with them in my practice of trial law, working with people and not the easy-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, now we get down to the bill-


George Harris Hees: You had better start all over again.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I was only trying to give the hon. member an opportunity to express to the people of Canada what was obvious to me, that he would not take advantage of the farmers of Canada and put these loans through his office at the rates lawyers charge in Canada. He and the hon. member for Hamilton West happen to belong to that fraternity, and even though I know they do not make any money out of farmers I do know, on the other hand, that they are not poor. I know farmers rates go up substantially because of the legal rates charged, and I issue that challenge to either of them-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Hamilton West rises on a question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind the hon. member giving a speech, but surely he should have some knowledge of what this act is all about. If he has not, I will start now and set it down for the edification of all hon. members. We who are lawyers know that the fee schedule under the Farm Credit Corporation is away below tariff with respect to any county in which lawyers practise.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is for the edification of the hon. member for Bruce who does not know-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member is misleading-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must say, with respect to the hon. member-
Farm Credit Act


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -those-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West knows that when the Chair asks him to resume his seat, he should do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think all hon. members should follow that rule.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Hamilton West. I know too, Mr. Speaker, that all of us have to take the word of hon. members of this House. However, while we have to take it, the farmers of Canada do not have to believe what he said a few minutes ago. They know that one of the reasons why costs are so high-


An hon. Member:: They know.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -is that legal costs in Canada are high. Mr. Speaker, in paying my compliments to the Farm Credit Corporation and the staff which supervises all farm loans across Canada, I want to emphasize that in my experience I have found them to be very knowledgeable in every way. I do not know what the agricultural industry in Canada would have done without the Farm Credit Corporation, when we consider the thousands of loans that are administered to help the dairy farmer, the cattle farmer and the vegetable farmer. I say that they have done an excellent job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Every now and again we have to modernize, Mr. Speaker, and this is exactly what the government is doing now through the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson). In the past, loans have been for "X" number of dollars, but through inflation and higher costs it is obvious that loans have to be increased. In previous years loans were given to farmers at about 30 years of age, but the act has reduced this age to be in accordance with the provincial laws.
Mr. Speaker, I listened all afternoon and all yesterday afternoon to members of the opposition talking on this bill. I listened with interest to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. Hon. members opposite have been opposed to this bill. Where does the Federation of Agriculture stand on this bill? Where does the National Farmers Union stand on this bill? It is for it almost 100 per cent. The only people who are against the bill are those in the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Few will deny that agriculture has not had a fair deal in the last 25 years. The lack of a fair deal can be blamed not only on the present government, not only on the preceding government but on all governments, Conservative and Liberal, which have been in office since the last war. I do not think any member of the House can hold his head high and say that we have done a good job for agriculture. Nonetheless I remind you, Mr. Speaker,

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
that there has been a turn-around in the agricultural industry and conditions are not nearly as bad as they were three or four years ago. When I hear my western friends-and I have many on the other side-criticizing the government about lack of grain sales, I simply ask: When did they sell more grain than was sold last year by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is responsible for the Wheat Board?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The answer is, never in the history of Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And never at lower prices.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend from Annapolis Valley shows his ignorance. As a lawyer he is a professional, but as a farmer he is an amateur. He suggests the wheat was sold at low prices. Would we have sold more if we had sold grain at prices other than world prices? Surely mv hon. friend from Annapolis Valley is not suggesting that we should sell grain at prices lower than world prices? He is not suggesting that we should sell grain at prices higher than world prices; of course not. We must meet the conditions of the market and that is exactly what the minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt did. Actually, he was given the salesman of the year award for his sales.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: By whom?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This award was not given by the people of Canada, but by western farmers, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I remember criticizing the Minister of Agriculture during the past two years with respect to the government's dairy policy. I criticized the government over the sale of cattle because the price was not as high as it should be. I criticized the government because tobacco sales were not as they should be. Yet I say to you tonight, Mr. Speaker, that the government has done an excellent job. The price of cattle is an example of that; it is almost at its highest level in the history of Canada. If we are to condemn the government for certain things it has done, let us at the same time give credit where credit is due; and it is due in connection with this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It has done a good job in the dairy industry, too. I remember, when first starting in the dairy business in 1947, that the price of fluid milk in Ontario was $3.75 per hundredweight. What is the price today? I will not ask the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, because he would not know the answer. The price has doubled.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It has doubled in price.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Yes, it has doubled in price, Mr. Speaker. And the legal fees of my hon. friend for Annapolis Valley have gone up tenfold in that time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I criticized the government in the last year or so because the price of hogs was in my opinion deplorable. I was one of those who criticized the Minister of Agriculture over this. I can now say to him that I apologize to some extent because he is the man responsible for the present that the government has given to the farmers and hog producers of Canada; he is responsible for the $25 million subsidy to the hog producers, which they need and deserve.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
*


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: To my hon. friends from the west who are conversant with the grain industry-I see some in this chamber-I simply put this question: When was there a two-price system for grain in this country before this government introduced such a system?


An hon. Member:: Never.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, that system was introduced by this government. It was introduced under our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Prime Minister whom the opposition condemns. Yet you fellows never had it so good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is not a two-price system; it is a two-sided coin.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, we all agree that much could be done to improve agriculture. We agree, for example, that hog prices are not as high as they should be, that dairy prices are not as high as they should be and that grain prices are not as high as they should be. Last fall, several months ago, we introduced a bill into this House that had taken between 18 months and two years to prepare. It was Bill C-176. The farmers of Canada asked for that bill.


An hon. Member:: The farmers of Ontario.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: it was introduced in order to bring about effective national marketing in the whole of Canada. It was to give the farmers of Canada an opportunity to sell their products, to run their show, to curtail production if necessary, and so on. After all, General Motors does not continue producing thousands of cars after it has sold a certain number. Massey-Ferguson does not attempt to supply thousands of tractors after the market is saturated.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How many agencies are there, Ross?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The point is that under Bill C-176, the bill bringing in a national marketing plan, this government offered the farmers of Canada an opportunity to run their own show, that is, to produce them, manufacture them
May 4, 1972

where necessary and sell them. What was the only party in Canada that was against national marketing? The Conservative party was that party. That was the only party against the legislation, even though the National Farmers Union and the Federation of Agriculture supported it.


An hon. Member:: No.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The fact is that the only party in this House that was against this legislation was the Conservative party.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: They had the wisdom to try to change the bill.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, they were against it even though the Conservative party of Ontario, their strongest base, supported the bill. They were against it even though every major organized farm group in Canada supported it. They were against that bill because they thought they had a political animal in their hands.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We were critics. We fought a reasonable battle.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Now they have a tiger by the tail, a real tiger.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: How many farmers are for it? How many farmers have an agency, Ross?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, it is not a case of how many agencies there are now, but how many agencies there will be in future. A chairman has been appointed and several board members have been appointed. We are going to look after this program we know perfectly well that the hon. member's party cannot do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), one of the chief agricultural experts in this House. I have listened to him for a long time. It is too bad that my hon. friend has not been listening to him because he would have learned something. He spoke about the forgiveness clause introduced by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski), and the postponement of interest.
I also listened to the previous speaker. He said it is too bad the farmers of Canada have to pay 8 or 8} per cent interest. There is not a single member, whether he be Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat or Creditiste, who does not agree that the interest rate for farmers is too high. We also agree that interest is too high for housing, business and everything else. The government of Canada must borrow this money and someone must pay the interest.
I was somewhat amused when listening to the hon. member for Mackenzie yesterday afternoon. He brought in an amendment suggesting that interest should be postponed or reduced. I was amused by the hon. member for Crowfoot and, indeed, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley when he suggested the interest rate should be
Farm Credit Act
reduced. One of the things the Conservative party has done is stick up for the views of the Auditor General of Canada. At every opportunity they have castigated the government because they feel the government has not been fair to the Auditor General.
I refer to that part of the last report of the Auditor General of Canada which deals with the Farm Credit Corporation. This is the man the Conservatives have been sticking up for over the past two or three years and trying to shove needles into the present government. This is what he said:
It has been pointed out previously that the statutory lending rate of 5 per cent on loans to farmers has not provided sufficient income to cover the interest paid on borrowings from Canada and administrative expenses. Although the statutory rate was abolished with effect from November 15, 1968, annual losses will continue to be incurred with respect to outstanding loans totalling $746 million at March 31, 1971, which still bear interest at the statutory rate of 5 per cent. Since 1963 these losses have been recovered from annual parliamentary appropriations provided for the purpose in order to present further depletion of the reserve for losses. However, this policy does not provide for the building up of the reserve to an amount equivalent to the capital of the corporation as is contemplated by the Farm Credit Act.
This report says it is not right that the farmers of Canada should be subsidized by the other taxpayers of Canada under our legislation. This criticism is by the Auditor General of Canada whom the Conservative party endorses at every possible opportunity.
In conclusion, there is no one in this assembly, particularly those who come from agricultural areas such as myself, who feels that the farm areas have had a square deal in the past. There is no one who does not feel that the interest rate on farm credit loans should be lowered. On the other hand, we have to face the facts of life. The fact is that the average farmer does not want to be subsidized; he just wants a square deal.
In my opinion, Bill C-5 gives the farmer a square deal, an opportunity to borrow money when he cannot borrow it anywhere else, an opportunity to get into business and an opportunity to be able to pay it back under reasonable terms. For this reason I intend to support this bill. I do not intend to support the amendment of the hon. member for Mackenzie because there is too much socialism involved in it. He is asking us to cut down on the expense. We cannot do this, and the average farmer does not want it to be done. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this bill presented by the Minister of Agriculture because it is a very good measure. Under no circumstances, can I support the amendment of the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly on this bill to amend the Farm Credit Act because I believe that improvements to the act can greatly assist our farmers, particularly our young farmers starting on their careers. Yesterday the spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) proposed an amendment which I intend to support and which I hope every member of this House, on reconsideration, will decide to support. I shall read that amendment:
-that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the govern-

May 4, 1972
Farm Credit Act
ment should give consideration to the introduction of legislation to amend the Farm Credit Act by incorporating the incentive principle-already approved by this House in other legislation-to provide for partial non payment of interest where young farmers meet performance standards, for deferred interest payments on all loans during an initial period, for equitable adjustment of interest rates for the benefit of borrowers; and, as well, to provide for open-end loans which will allow additional borrowing without refinancing costs.
I believe that the measures outlined in the amendment will make it possible for the government to treat the farmers of this country in the same manner as industry is treated, enabling them to obtain the capital they need to carry out their day to day operations. I believe it is only fair that this should be done because today farming is very much an industry. It is an industry which requires capital on the most generous terms possible to permit successful farming operations to be carried out.
As we all know, industries receive forgivable loans based on satisfactory performance in order to enable them to get started. I believe that our young farmers should receive the same treatment. New industries are permitted to defer payment of interest on loans during the initial period. This is also done to enable new industries starting up to get into operation, grow, expand, be successful and employ people. I believe that our young farmers should receive the same kind of accommodation. I also believe that it makes economic good sense to provide open-end loans to permit additional borrowing without incurring refinancing costs.
It is because I feel so strongly that the measures outlined in the amendment which I mentioned a few moments ago will do the kind of job for our farmers, particularly young farmers starting out on their careers, that I very strongly urge all members of this House to support the amendment which has been proposed by the official opposition, and by so doing join with the party to which I belong in helping the farmers of this country to operate in the future in a more profitable and effective manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I have read with considerable interest the amendments which are proposed to the Farm Credit Act. A number of members have commented on their experience of the working of the Farm Credit Act. My experience has probably been somewhat different from theirs because I once had occasion to take out a loan on some farmland. It is now repaid.
I should like to make some observations about the Farm Credit Act based on my experience. I am aware that some of the officials concerned are with us this evening, but were they not present I would say the same things. I have found the officials of the corporation to be, generally, educated people aware of the problems of farming. I have found them to be fair minded. I do not think they would knowingly help a farmer into trouble by arranging a loan which they felt he would be in no position to repay. I believe most of them would do their best to work out a package which a farmer could handle. This would be my general observation in connection with the corporation

officials I have spoken to and those with whom I have become acquainted in Ottawa.
I should like to make one reservation, though, and I would call the minister's attention to it. During the period 1966 to 1968 when we were selling a lot of grain to China, Russia and other places, not only were farmers affected by the enthusiasm which those sales generated in western Canada and in Canada as a whole, but FCC officials were, it is possible, also carried away by it as a result of which they granted loans to buy land at prices which have proved very awkward for farmers to manage. The officials might say that they did not lend as much money on this land as did some private corporations. I have in mind certain insurance companies which lent money in amounts and on terms which have placed many farmers in a difficult position.
I draw attention to this aspect because I believe we may witness a similar situation in the future. Logically, the price of land has to increase, but I believe we should be careful about how much money we pour into the land market. More attention should be paid to the productive value of the land, bearing in mind good years and bad years. I do not think it does anyone a service to lend $100,000 in circumstances where the borrower has no means of paying it back. I draw this to the attention of the farm credit administration with the best intent in the world. I know what the circumstances are. My initial experience of attempting to borrow money was that I could not get any. And after I was in a position to borrow, I had trouble paying the money back. I think one can go too far both ways; one should treat these matters very carefully.
I should like to make one or two observations in connection with a question which I directed to the Farm Credit Corporation through the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) a few days ago. I asked what percentage of farm credit loans are presently in arreas compared with the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. As I recall, we have seen a jump in Saskatchewan, for example, from 11 per cent to about 21 per cent. In some of the other western provinces there has been a jump from 14 per cent to about 24 per cent. This indicates that at least a portion of our agricultual industry is in trouble. The Farm Credit Corporation should not be blamed for this. There may have been the odd bad loan, but the situation really has to do with the agricultural policy of the government plus other factors such as lack of markets in the rest of the world.
I cannot help thinking that had we been more aware of the importance of marketing we might not today be in this awkward situation in western Canada. For example, had the Canada Grain Act been introduced ten years ago we might have retained some of the markets we lost to Australia and Russia, the first countries to introduce the protein grading system. Where were we at the time? Take the case of Syria and certain other grain importing countries. We did not sell any grain to those countries between 1952 or 1953 and a relatively short time ago. In effect, we neglected one aspect of our agriculture, and despite the best efforts of those administering the act we are now considering, failure to take into account the whole picture means that the farmer who is caught in the middle finds himself in acute trouble.
May 4, 1972

Consider, for example, the final payment on grain which might in certain circumstances bring $8,000 to an individual farmer. When this payment drops to roughly one-sixth of that sum, or down to nothing, it is a good indication of the trouble we are in. This is what has happened to the grain community in the part of the world from which I come. This is the kind of payment upon which many people depend. When it drops to nothing, the consequences can be imagined.
We recognize that farming has changed. I do not wish to quote a lot of statistics; much has been done along these lines already. It used to be, in my part of the country, that if a man wished to rent a farm he rented one third of the crop. Today, with the advent of quotas and government subsidies, the man who owns the land might as well say, "Give me $1,000 a quarter and all the other problems are yours." We see a change from one type of tenure to another.
In Saskatchewan there is a great deal of pressure to establish a land bank. I wish to speak about this matter for a moment because it is related to a clause in the bill pertaining to the small farm development project which the Farm Credit Corporation is to administer. As I understand the discussion between the federal government and the provincial governments, particularly the government of Saskatchewan there has been some argument in this regard. I also understand the proposed small farm loans administration would be in the hands of the Farm Credit Corporation, the counselling and farm management policies which formerly were in the hands of the provincial governments. If this should be done without the co-operation of the provincial governments, we would have a duplication of such facilities. I am concerned about this. I feel that the federal and provincial governments should not compete to give farmers, at least in my province, the logical advice they ought to receive, particularly the small farmer who in most cases would be a beginner.
The provincial government is to establish a land bank or rental scheme for the younger farmer establishing himself on the farm. I believe there could be some conflict here. My suggestion to the province of Saskatchewan, to the federal government and to the other provincial governments which might be involved in similar small farm programs with the federal government, is that we should not have competing views in this area. I suggest to the minister that he should not give up easily in his attempts to work out a solution with the provincial governments.
I suppose, being an opposition member and being politically allied to the Saskatchewan government, in this case I could argue that the federal minister is wrong; but I do not wish to do that. I believe only the farmers would be the losers. I suppose the taxpayers in Saskatchewan and federally would also be the losers. While I am not aware of what might be going on in other provinces, I would think some of the discussions would be in similar vein. So I suggest that the minister continue his efforts to find a solution with the provinces, rather than insist upon establishing a program which would do some of the things I have mentioned.
Farm Credit Act
I am also a little worried about the $100,000 loan maximum provided in the bill. I am aware that the price of farmland is going up, but I wonder about adding fuel to the fire. As I indicated earlier, it would seem to me that we have occasionally helped farmers pay more for land than they logically should have paid, particularly when one considers the return from such land. Some farmers now are in a position in which they are hardly able to pay the interest, let alone anything on the capital, not to mention operating expenses.
Some individuals attempt to solve their problems with the help of someone whom they believe is in the know and has more technical knowledge in respect of farm credit and farm management than they have. When we consider the desire of many individuals, not merely farm boys, to have a farm of their onw and establish a business where over their lifetime hopefully they can make a go of it economically and add to the well-being of mankind, I think we should be a little careful. It has been suggested to me by some thinkers in the agricultural policy field that if we allow farmers loans of $100,000 this will increase the price of land. I believe this is true even under the old loan ceiling.
If we approve this extension, I believe the Farm Credit Corporation should exercise judgment in respect of how much it will allow an individual to borrow. Sometimes I think some of the suggestions we have made to help individuals have not reflected on the people who borrow the money. Too often they have resulted in a higher income for those who sell the land. While I believe the farmer or person who owns land has a reasonable claim to a fair and equitable price, I do not believe we should encourage this by subsidization, if you like. I suggest we should exercise a little judgment in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may call it ten o'clock if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 1, as reported in Hansard at page 1764, I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in the following terms:
In view of the many urgent appeals being received from senior citizens for the alleviation of their situation, is the minister giving consideration either to increasing the income tax exemption levels for retired persons or granting tax credits in the budget he will be bringing down next Monday evening.

May 4, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The answer of the minister was one I might have expected.
He said:
Mr. Speaker, I have noted the hon. member's representation.
I realize it is against the traditions of Parliament for a Minister of Finance to indicate in advance of bringing down a budget what provisions that budget will contain. Nevertheless, it is also one of our traditions that we have the right to press upon the minister changes to which he should be giving active consideration. Therefore I urge very strongly upon the new Minister of Finance that in this his first budget he show some consideration for our older and retired people.
It is a fact that what our retired people need most is an increase in their pensions. They also need a provision for their pensions to be escalated annually at least to the extent of the rise in the cost of living. I realize that these are matters which come under the aegis of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). Nevertheless, the Minister of Finance, when he brings his tax proposals before the House, has it in his power to do something to relieve the position of many of our senior citizens. What he can do is raise the income tax exemption level for retired persons or, in my view better still, provide them with tax exemptions so that retired persons whose incomes are modest will not have to pay income tax on those moderate incomes.
As all hon. members are aware, because I believe all of them are receiving such letters, a number of organizations as well as individuals are writing, suggesting that the income tax exemption level for those 65 years of age and over should be $3,000 for single persons and $4,500 for married couples, with a provision for these levels to be escalated annually. This suggestion comes in particular from various associations of superannuated women teachers and superannuated teachers generally as well as from other groups and individuals.
The government can say, of course, that in this year, 1972, certain changes have been put into effect, namely, that the age at which a special exemption is allowed has been fixed at 65 rather than at 70 as it used to be. It can also point out that the amount allowed as an extra exemption for retired people has been raised from $500 to $650. But in light of the needs of our senior citizens and in light of the fact that costs continue to rise, I suggest that for these people on fixed incomes there is a rationale and a case for their being given special income tax treatment.
I hope, therefore, that the noting of my representation, which the minister indicated the other day, will result in active consideration of the claims of our senior citizens. I have observed in editorial comments in various newspapers, over the radio and on television that it is being suggested that whatever else the minister is able to do next Monday night, he ought not to forget our retired people.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will realize tonight that he has a chance to make a name for himself and a chance to be reported across this country if he will even say that he personally, as one who is close to the Minister

of Finance, will press him, when he brings down his budget next Monday night, to make tax changes that will alleviate the plight of many of our senior citizens.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out that during the oral question period on Monday, May 1, he inquired whether or not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) was considering including certain items in his forthcoming budget. At that time the minister took note of the member's representation and, as the hon. member has indicated, he feels strongly about this area.
It is certainly well within the rights of the hon. member to urge strongly upon the minister certain action in this area. However, I know the hon. member will appreciate that because of traditional budget secrecy nothing further can be said at this time about what is or is not included in the budget which will be brought down by the Minister of Finance next Monday evening.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ACTION TO PROTECT RIGHTS IN RELATION TO JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes of the time of the House tonight to speak on behalf of 5,000 or 6,000 Cree Indians who live in the James Bay area, the area which will be affected by the proposed hydroelectric power development.
My remarks tonight arise out of a question which I put to the minister on April 26. I asked whether he would outline the position of the government. I asked how he intends to participate in the action which the Indian people themselves have initiated. The minister's reply was that his officials had met with representatives of the Quebec Indian Association the day before and that he would announce his policy after considering the proposal of the Indian people.
Another factor which has led me to make a few comments is that the minister has been somewhat devious in dealing with this matter. On April 26 he said he had received a proposal from the Indians the day before, which was April 25. In the debate in the House of Commons on April 28 he said he had not heard about the proposal until just a day or so prior to that debate. Also, he has said repeatedly that he had not received any request from the Indian people for assistance and that he does not want to be paternalistic and interfere in their affairs.
I think those statements are somewhat misleading. Perhaps this was unitentional, but unless the minister does not read the papers and his mail, he should have known that there was a good deal of opposition to his project based on the fact that these Indians have been hunting, trapping and fishing in the area for 300 or more years and that flooding the entire area would wipe out forever their ability to earn a livelihood. There was no statement by anyone on how they would be compensated or what alternatives they would have, should the old way of life be made impossible on a permanent basis, which would occur through flooding as a result of the construction of dams.
May 4, 1972

On April 22, the Montreal Star-I am sure that the minister read that newspaper-quoted David Diamond's brief as follows:
I really can't understand them . . . those who would destroy other people in order to suit their own selfish ends.
The reference is to the possible destruction of the way of living of the Indian people in this area through flooding which might occur, an area covering 4,000 square miles of forest and valleys. I want to encourage the minister to state his policy. In his discussion on April 28 in the House he said he would have meetings for three days this week-yesterday, today and tomorrow. I would think he would have something to add which might be useful in establishing what the policy is and in allaying the fears of the Indian population in that area.
I think that when the minister said he did not want to be paternalistic he was merely passing the buck. The facts are that the law requires that prior to surrender of any Indian lands an order must be obtained from the governor in council, which means that before any Indian lands Eire surrendered the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must give his approval. The Indian people have indicated that they want him to exercise his authority as the guardian of their lands, ensure that such lands will not be surrendered until they are satisfied that their land rights have been fully discussed with people of authority, and assure them of a method of earning a living.
Not too long ago the Indian people indicated their intention to proceed by way of the courts to stop this construction. The minister has indicated that since a request was made to him directly for assistance, he will do everything in his power to assist the Indian people. Since the minister ran out of the chamber a few minutes ago, I would like to know from his parliamentary secretary if the minister will assist the Indians with the legal costs if they continue their proceedings in the courts.
So far my comments have been somewhat critical of the minister for his failure to act on behalf of the Indians. The question is: What alternative could he offer them? The first thought that comes to mind is that some jobs could be given to Indian people during the construction, but we know this is really of no value because we must look at the matter from a long-term point of view. Construction, at best, will last only two or three years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) asked the minister on April 26, I wish to state that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) added substantially to his previous replies during the debate which took place in the House on Friday, April 28. The minister said on that occasion: "Now that the Indians have officially requested my help I am happy to offer them my assistance. They have asked me to meet them next week and I have agreed to do so."
Most hon. members know that the Indian chiefs from the James Bay area and representatives of the Indians of the Quebec Association are in Ottawa at the time I am speaking and are meeting both today and tomorrow with the minister and his officials. It is appropriate at this stage to mention two of the recommendations in the preliminary study of the environmental impacts of the James Bay development project, prepared by the joint federal-provincial task force. The report, published in February, 1972, recommended:
That intensive studies be undertaken of the major ecological problem of the impact of the project on the native population of the territory. These studies should examine the effects upon the Indian mode of life caused by both the changes in the natural environment (e.g. hunting, fishing and trapping potential, travel routes, etc.) and of the abrupt superimposition of an alien culture and technology. The object of these studies should be to improve and protect the lot of the Indians, whether they choose to maintain their traditional way of life or to shift to the industrial community. Present efforts to encourage the active participation of the Indians themselves in such studies should be intensified in order to draw upon their innate understanding of the forces of nature.
Another recommendation was:
That programs be instituted providing full and open discussions with representatives of the native community on the planning of the regional development and on the education and training needs of both Indians and whites that will lead to a reasonable harmonizing of their two cultures.
These recommendations and other subjects will be raised during the discussions between the Indians concerned and the minister. The judicial aspects of the situation will also be reviewed. The minister stated last Friday, and many times previously, that we firmly intend to protect the interests of the Indians. I am sure that when his discussions with the James Bay chiefs and the executive of the association are completed the minister will be pleased to make a further statement.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.

Friday. May 5. 1972