1972-06-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Agriculture- Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition containing the signatures of 31,000 Newfoundlanders praying that the government take the necessary action to restore rail passenger service in that province.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in French and English the Hague Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft and the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. Canada ratified these conventions this week.



PROVISION OF MORNING SITTINGS ON JUNE 26, 27 AND 29

Hon. Otto E. Lang (for the President of the Privy Council) moved:: That, on June 26, 27 and 29, 1972, the hours of sitting shall be:
11.00	a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
2.00	p.m. to 6.00 p.m.
8.00	p.m. to 10.00 p.m.
Provided that routine proceedings shall be taken up at 2.00 p.m. and that government orders shall be taken up between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. P. M. Mahoney (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 60 I request that you designate the requisite order of the day for consideration Monday of the notices of ways and means motions tabled in conjunction with the budget on May 8.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the Minister of Finance is not here so that he could receive similar applause.
I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the experience last night when billions of dollars in estimates were passed in a matter of hours and the experience of the last year and a half during which expenditures do not receive that attention which constitutionally should be given by the House of Commons, and it being now apparent the amended rules have proven to be detrimental to this institution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Well, all I can say it that last night the Prime Minister left in disgust over what was happening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would hope that we would not resume at eleven o'clock the debate that we abandoned at three o'clock this morning. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman might like to ask his question.

June 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not easily provoked to answer, but when remarks like that are made I have to do so.
Would the Acting Prime Minister bring to the attention of the government the submission of the rules, particularly with reference to the examination of expenditures, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to the end that the rules that were in effect that permitted a proper examination by Parliament will be restored?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman is very much aware, the procedures were changed a few years ago to permit the examination in detail of the estimates of the various departments in committees of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: They have probably received more careful and detailed examination than at any previous time. This has meant that in the House we could devote more attention to other subjects. In addition, the opposition parties have had a number of allotted days. Whether they have used them to the best advantage is for them to judge, not for us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, after this recent experience, which is quite contrary to that described by the minister, will he have consideration given to making this institution once more responsible for the preservation of responsibility with respect to the vast expenditures that are being undertaken?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the Acting Prime Minister's reference to what the committees can do with the estimates. I refer to the meetings of the finance committee last week when the chairman of that committee ran the committee in such a way that he maintained the privilege of ruling on his own decisions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot cast reflections on a chairman of a committee or on any member in any capacity. In any event I suggest to the right hon. gentleman, to the Acting Prime Minister and to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that this is debate. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who has a supplementary question.



SUGGESTED REVIEW OF WORK OF COMMITTEES ON ESTIMATES

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of his answer to the right hon. member for Prince Albert a moment ago. In view of the reliance the government seems to place on the consideration that is given to estimates in committees, will the government consider the possibility of reviewing the work on estimates that is done in committees to make sure that a more satisfactory accomplishment of our job in this area is achieved?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to pass along these suggestions from the right hon. member, the former Leader of the Opposition, and from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We are very anxious to improve the rules of the House. All parties, however, agreed with the procedures that we are now operating under.


John George Diefenbaker: Not so.


Mitchell William Sharp: After the experience of last night I think our procedures could be improved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Therefore I have no hesitation in saying we would like to improve these procedures. But I do reiterate what I said before, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will admit it, that the estimates have received at least as careful consideration and even more careful consideration in committees as under the previous procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously we are going to continue the debate and we might as well accept that fact. There are a number of supplementaries. Hon. members will be recognized for that purpose, but I would hope the questions will be for the purpose of seeking information and the responses will be for the purpose of giving information, and that neither will be for the purpose of embarking on debate. The hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is seeking information. In considering this matter would the Acting Prime Minister not give consideration to the suggestions made by a very independent and objective witness, the Auditor General, who in his last report referred to the fact that parliamentary control over expenditures is being steadily eroded?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the answer of the Acting Prime Minister that the committees are doing the work, would he agree, when the government is looking at this question, to look at the experience of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting Films and Assistance to the Arts which deals with the estimates of the Secretary of State amounting to almost $1 billion? These estimates did not get more than six to eight hours consideration in total.


An hon. Member:: Whose fault is that?
June 23, 1972


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to the problems which confronted members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Because of many conflicts the Minister of Public Works appeared before that committee for only two hours on the day before the time for study expired under the rules. That is another committee which should be looked at.


Mr. Woolliams:: I wonder if I could ask a
supplementary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we are getting pretty far from the question period. This is just an ordinary, or perhaps extraordinary, debate during the question period. I will call on the hon. member for Calgary North for a supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for York South.



REQUEST THAT ESTIMATES OF SOME DEPARTMENTS BE CONSIDERED BY HOUSE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the Acting Prime Minister's statement that we agreed with the new rules. If he checks the speeches made by myself and others on this side he will see that we asked that the opposition have the right to request during each session of Parliament that four or five departments be brought in so that the pursestrings of the nation would still be controlled by Parliament. Would the Acting Prime Minister accept that suggestion and make a recommendation to the appropriate committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I know that these suggestions will command the attention of the House leader and the committee that looks after procedures of the House. I have no hesitation in saying that I do not want a repetition of what happened last night and I do not think anyone here would. I believe we have made great advances in the consideration of the estimates. I reject the suggestion put forward that the House does not have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mitchell William Sharp: -greater control than it ever had before.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate. The hon. member for York South.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that why you have only got five bills for Royal Assent?



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Communications. Some time ago I asked him some questions about the increase in rates granted Bell Canada and drew his atten-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion to the fact that a gentleman in Windsor was appealing those rates. May I ask the minister whether he has completed his study of the various documents filed with the Canadian Transport Commission and whether he has given consideration to assisting this Canadian citizen in his appeal against these rate increases?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his patience. I hope to be able to conclude next week what action, if any, I should recommend on this matter, and perhaps I can convey that to him then. As far as the next part of the question is concerned, I have advised Dr. Lloyd Brown-John that I have a copy of the transcript of the hearings of the Canadian Transport Commission which he is most welcome to use as he wishes and to copy whatever parts of it he may require.


David Lewis: I am not sure that I am patient; I am just not entirely awake, I suspect. May I ask the minister whether he offered to give Dr. Brown-John a copy of the transcript or was it an offer for him to come and study it here? I am asking the question because I think this Canadian ought to be given every possible assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first part of the hon. member's question is acceptable but the second part is, of course, an explanation or representation. The minister might reply to the first part of the question.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I have not offered to supply a copy of the transcript to anyone who might choose to bring an appeal against any decision of the Canadian Transport Commission. I am not sure that would be appropriate. What I have offered is access to the copy that I have, and I am quite willing to have it go to Windsor if that is more convenient to Dr. Brown-John. I have not had any request from him up to this point.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether he would lend me his copy of the transcript so that a copy of it may get to Dr. Brown-John?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have a visit from the hon. member at any time to share all my utmost secrets with him.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It is based on a very serious report alleging that a member of the Northwest Territories Council while on a visit to his constituency was, when he attempted to visit Resolution Island in Frobisher Bay, forbidden entry to that island by the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation of the United States. Has the minister heard of this report and has he done anything to convey the view
3440

June 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
of this Parliament and the view of the government that Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister oi Industry, Trade and sovereignty in the Arctic rests in the government and the Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member of people of Canada?	the efforts made by the Minister of Labour.
Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer that question. That particular article has come to my attention and I have asked that an investigation be made. It may be that entry was forbidden for security reasons. I am not convinced of that and I am having the matter looked into at present.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he tell the House what is the present situation concerning the St. Lawrence harbours?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Judge Alan Gold is expected to summon the parties to arbitration imminently. The Minister of Labour has told the press that he expects the arbitration to get under way quickly and to be over quickly.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-POSITION OF PARTIES RESPECTING ARBITRATION-RESUMPTION OF WORK

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In order to be clearer, could the Acting Prime Minister tell whether the two parties have willingly accepted arbitration and do the longshoremen expect to return to work soon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to find out the facts. I would not want to mislead the House in any way. Perhaps later in the question period I could give the answer.



QUEBEC-LONGSHOREMEN'S STRIKE-STEPS TO ASSIST PORT OF MONTREAL TO REGAIN FORMER STATUS

Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mb'. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of reports that many shipping firms are pulling their business activities out of Montreal and going to other ports as a result of the dock strike, can the minister indicate what steps he intends to take to help the port of Montreal to regain its former status?


Raymond Rock: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about trade and commerce.



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

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As the government's career oriented summer work program was designed to assist students financially and as this year's change from a weekly to an hourly pay scale will result in loss of income of up to $130 per student for the summer's work, will the minister consider a return to the former pay scale in order to enable students to save more money toward meeting greatly increased university fees?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at that question.


Donald MacInnis: As this year it was not explained to students applying for this program on the new hourly basis that the summer work week in the government service shrinks to 35 hours, with a resulting loss of salary, will the government make good this lack of explanation by paying these students what they would have received on last year's basis?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.



NATURAL GAS-INQUIRY AS TO RECONSIDERATION OF RESERVES BY ENERGY BOARD

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the recent public statement by the minister to the effect that he thought reconsideration should be given by the National Energy Board to the quantity of natural gas reserves in Canada, particularly in view of recent discoveries in the Arctic. Because of that statement and because of the application to the National Energy Board by Dome Petroleum for the export of ethane, has the government asked the board to reconsider its judgment with respect to Canadian natural gas reserves which it made last November?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, not in general terms, no. The hon. member will recall that the Dome application is really to determine whether the ethane proposal is separable from the general export of gas. At the moment the government and Dome Petroleum are awaiting the decision of the National Energy Board on that question. On
June 23, 1972

the broader question, the question of reserves would only arise with respect to the possibility of taking into account frontier oil and gas reserves which at the moment are not accessible and are still being proven.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY GAS PIPELINE-PERCENTAGE OF CANADIAN PARTICIPATION-AVAILABILITY OF CANADIAN CAPITAL

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of reports in the financial pages of the Globe and Mail and other financial papers of Canada and the fact that the minister talks about Canadian participation with regard to the building of a proposed pipeline to transport natural gas from the Arctic to industrial centres in Canada and the United States, will the minister inform the House what percentage of Canadian participation there will be and what guarantee was made in that regard when he met with the American companies which make up about 75 per cent of the consortium?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet met with the new consortium. My objective would be to have majority Canadian equity participation in the pipeline and to have the vast majority, particularly of the consultant and engineering work, done by Canadians operating here in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact that in the same article it is reported that if the pipeline were built to join up with the Alberta Trunk gas line or to the lakehead, the one pipeline would cost $3 billion and the other would cost $5 billion, has the minister in his research or investigation considered whether Canada would have sufficient financial resources to put up the majority of the money to build the pipeline in question? Can he assure the country and the House in that regard at this moment?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not happen to be an investment dealer and therefore I cannot give the hon. member a forecast on the state of the market this year, next year or in the next five years. However, I would point out that this project will not only be the largest financing project ever undertaken in Canada but the largest financing project ever undertaken in North America. Therefore it is very likely that other than Canadian financing, preferably in debt form, would be required for the project.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Given the very high standards governing pensions for the employees of the textile industry who must retire at age 55, can the hon. minister tell us if he intends to table amendments to the legislation allowing these pensioners to draw their pension without too much trouble?


Hon. lean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this part of the textile industry policy comes under the Minister of Labour and I know that he has received requests to soften the administration of this program. I will see the minister on the matter.



REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT CLOSURE OF PORT


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister aware that the recently merged Cascade-Delta Benco Company, a manufacturer of cablevision equipment, has decided to close its Port Moody plant with the loss of some 60 jobs in that area? As the Vancouver metropolitan area's unemployment rate is now running about 9 per cent, will the minister look into this closure and use his good offices to persuade the company not to close that plant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into that.


Mark Willson Rose: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not quite catch the minister's mumbled answer. I wish to ask a supplementary question. Since Cascade-Delta Benco is largely foreign-owned and its principals hold immense interests in cable broadcasting, including public licenses granted by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, will the government urge the CRTC to investigate this company on the grounds of concentration of ownership in the media?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will make a contribution if he will vote in favour of Bill C-201 which would give the government some power in cases of takeovers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It is supplementary to those asked about the labour dispute in Montreal. It concerns the minister's announcement yesterday that the parties to the dispute in the longshoremen's strike in Montreal would submit to arbitration, and an article in today's Globe and Mail which quotes a longshoreman spokesman as saying that all that was discussed with the minister was the setting up of a commission of inquiry and that the union did not want to submit to arbitration.
3442

June 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Exactly what is the situation with regard to getting this strike settled? Can the Acting Prime Minister report to the House at this time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is in substance much the same as the question already asked by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie. 1 will try to get an answer before the question period is over.


Jack Burnett Murta: Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the government is contemplating setting up a commission of inquiry and will this commission have representatives of western agricultural interests on it?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question of which I have given notice. Has the hon. gentleman received a letter from the British Columbia Association of Non-Status Indians complaining about the conduct, in terms of language, of a British Columbia Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Justice Gould, in the course of a judgment in which he said the problems of Indians arose from alcohol? Is the minister in receipt of this letter calling for an inquiry and the dismissal of the judge in question, and can he advise the House what action he intends to take?


Otto Emil Lang: I have not yet looked at the letter or considered the nature of the complaint. I will do so, of course, and decide at that time whether any action is warranted.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I realize this is a tricky issue, but in view of repeated utterances of such a nature which are certainly affecting the well-being of our native peoples, would the minister take it upon himself to issue a directive or statement for the benefit of the judiciary making it clear that this type of thing cannot be tolerated?


Mr. Speaker:: That, of course, is a suggestion or a representation. It is not a question seeking information.



REQUEST FOR GRANT TO HALL OF FAME IN TORONTO

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In his absence I will direct it to the Acting Secretary of State. In view of the fact that large amounts of money are allotted annually on behalf of culture and art, is the hon. gentleman aware of the deplorable fact that the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame in Toronto is reported to be entirely without financial support or assistance to allow for proper maintenance and improvement of facilities? Will the Acting Secretary of State look into this situation and make every effort to

provide a moderate source of financial assistance for this worthy project?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow someone to reply on behalf of the government but I would think the second part of the question is not really a question but rather a representation. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might reply to that part of the question which is in order.


Mr. Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to look into it to see, first of all, whether we have a responsibility in this area.


An hon. Member:: Is that culture?



IMMIGRATION


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government intend to allow Karleton Armstrong to stay in Canada as a political refugee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, questions of this kind come before the courts, and I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me to comment on a case which is in a sense sub judice.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Has this question been considered at cabinet level?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that a question such as that is entirely out of order.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Has he had a chance to meet his Quebec counterpart to iron out certain difficulties particularly with regard to the petrochemical industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce recently stated, according to the newspaper Le Devoir, that his relations with his federal counterpart were extremely harmonious; I would say the same. We meet regularly, and shall meet again in the near future.
June 23, 1972



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-NUMBER OF AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF- POSSIBLE USE OF CUSTOMS REGULATIONS TO IDENTIFY COMPANIES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the number of United States corporations which have applied for DISC status is now stabilized at around 2,000 or is the number still climbing? May I ask him also whether he has now decided to request the United States government for an official list of the DISC corporations which have been set up?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the last figure I recall was about 2,000. That was at the end of May, and it was going up by 300 to 400 a month. I do not have the latest report. I have said on a number of occasions that we do not intend to ask for a list from the United States because we have good reason to believe we would not get it. We are still working on a procedure by which we would be informed by way of customs declarations of the use of a direct subsidy on exports to Canada from the United States or any other country which uses direct export subsidies.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of National Revenue whether the government has considered using the customs regulations as a means of identifying DISC corporations which may be exporting into Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are studying this quite actively.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-POSSIBLE CONTRAVENTION OF TAX TREATY

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that posed by my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether the government has looked into the possibility of the DISCs formed in the United States being in contravention of the tax treaty between Canada and the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I made a few statements on that subject months ago to the effect that I thought this procedure was not in accordance with the GATT, either in letter or in spirit. I expressed the thought, also, that it did not accord very well with the spirit of the auto agreement.


John Stratford Burton: My question was: Has the government determined whether DISCs are in contravention of the tax treaty between Canada and the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the tax treaty between Canada and the United States is not concerned with matters of this kind; it is concerned with matters having to do with double taxation. However, as the Minister of Industry,
Inquiries of the Ministry
Trade and Commerce has said, we do contend that DISC is contrary to the trade agreements we have with many countries, including the United States, under the general agreement on tariffs and trade.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-POSSIBLE USE OF CUSTOMS REGULATIONS TO IDENTIFY COMPANIES

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question arising out of the answer he gave to my colleague. If I understood him correctly he said the government was considering getting information through customs declarations with respect to direct subsidies on exports by all countries. May I ask the minister what gives rise to such a need, considering we are dealing with the effects of DISC legislation by only one country and, second, when may we expect to see the regulations which either the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of National Revenue is preparing?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we want to be sure in any program we put forward that we are able to get information with respect to any possible cases of this type arising from the action of all other countries with whom Canada trades. We are, as I have said, actively studying an appropriate method of doing what my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has mentioned. As soon as we are ready to announce our conclusions we shall do so.


David Lewis: How long will it take?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, notice of my question has been given to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister looked into complaints concerning alleged substandard accommodation for members of the crew of the Nipigon now under refit in Montreal, and have corrective measures been taken?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the crew of the Nipigon were accommodated in crowded conditions at Long Point Barracks. These crowded conditions have now been alleviated and the accommodation is adequate. However, it is not as good accommodation as they would have at Halifax.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. Is the Public Service Commission advertising

June 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
for sedimentologists in the United States through United States trade magazines-proof of which I will send to the minister-and, if so, why is this being done at a time when university graduates are walking the streets in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to see the advertisement in question and find out the reason for this.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister subscribe to a policy of hiring anyone from the United States, Scotland or anywhere else when college graduates in Canada are out of work?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact the Department of National Defence has stated it does not have sufficient competent staff to decontaminate the Meaford tank range, will the government give consideration to advertising for tenders from interested, qualified people outside the country to decontaminate the range?


Edgar John Benson: I do
not think so, Mr. Speaker; the cost would be prohibitive.


Percy Verner Noble: Is it the intention of the government to repair any of the buildings on the range, some of which are now in a state of progressive deterioration?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know offhand but I shall be glad to make inquiries.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it arises out of the question asked earlier by the hon. member for Spadina. Are there today in the Arctic Islands of our country areas in regard to which the decision whether a Canadian shall enter is determined by military regulations of the United States, and that no one can go on those islands without the consent of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation of New Jersey? I ask this question because, if such is the fact, it constitutes a flagrant invasion of the rights of Canadians.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is looking into the facts which may or may not be as represented in this newspaper article. I think that until we know what the facts really are it would be imprudent to answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to find out what is the basis for the facts. Has the government of Canada under an exchange of notes granted certain rights whereby portions of our northern areas are subject to United States military law and Canadians are denied their right to be in the areas in question? I repeat has there been any such arrangement made with the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt that there are any arrangements of such a kind in effect except those relating to security. These would affect not only Canadians but anybody else who wanted to enter upon property where matters are secret in the interest of the security of Canada. I am sure the right hon. gentleman would agree that this would be quite appropriate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have asked a simple question. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that there may be or there may not be such arrangements. During his administration, or that of his predecessor, has the government of Canada agreed that a United States corporation shall determine Canadians' rights to .be in the north? Do not excuse it by reason of security.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly. The hon. member for Red Deer.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and it probably involves his own position as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is any further report available-to the House on the recent charge that the wearing of Canadian maple leaf lapel buttons was prohibited at Quebec House in Paris? Does the minister intend to make a full statement to the House about this very serious matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that question was asked yesterday.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question supplementary to the one directed to him about the incident at Quebec House in Paris.
Is the minister aware that Mr. Michaud would have been recalled in Quebec and arrived there yesterday?
June 23, 1972


BARLEY-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF DELIVERY QUOTA
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Yesterday I asked him a question about the 15-bushel quota for barley which terminates today and whether the Wheat Board or the minister was going to announce any special incentives to deliver the barley that has been committed?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we deny that right.


Mr. Rowland:: In light of the fact that the Greenpeace III is lawfully operating in international waters, has the government of Canada protested against France's announced intention to proceed with nuclear tests in the area, and what steps are being taken by the government of Canada to protect this Canadian vessel and its crew should such tests take place?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had further conversations with a commissioner of the Wheat Board along the lines I indicated yesterday to the hon. member and they have extended the date generally for the 15-bushel quota from June 23 to June 30 in order to avoid most of the difficulties that might arise. They will be looking at specific delivery points in addition to that if the extra week is not sufficient.




Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continued intransigence of the Danes with respect to the salmon fishery, has the government made any further protests since the Washington meetings? If so, can the minister give us in a general way the nature of such protestations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have, of course, continued our attitude toward this question but we have not made any further specific representations. We made very strong representations in the past and I am sure that the Danes understand our position very well.


John Howard Lundrigan: Has the government taken any steps to prevent the importation of Danish salmon, which we might say is Canadian salmon, taken on the high seas in view of the fact that this seems to be one of the few sources of salmon this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not taken any action of that kind.


IMPENDING NUCLEAR TEST BY FRANCE-RIGHT OF FRENCH TO PREVENT PEACEFUL PASSAGE OF VESSELS-PROTECTION OF &quot;GREENPEACE III&quot;
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the government of Canada accept that the government of France, or for that matter the government of any other nation, has the right to cordon off a section of the high seas and prevent the peaceful passage of vessels of any nation, including Canada's Greenpeace lilt


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have informed the French government of our view of the legal position. We expressed our concern some time ago when we first heard about the possible voyage of some Canadians into that area. So the French government is fully aware of our position both in law and in fact. As I said yesterday, however, Canadians are free to travel anywhere they wish, and if they wish to place themselves in special hazard in this way there is nothing that I can do. I really do not know what measures I can take to prevent them from entering that area.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister has rightly said that the government does not wish to comment on matters that are before the courts. Will the government therefore take action with respect to the Cape Breton Development Corporation, a Crown company, to stop it from acting on matters that are before the courts?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I direct my question of privilege to the Minister of Justice, since no one else on that side appears to take any interest in justice. A statute was voted on and passed unanimously by this House; yet a Crown company is denying the legal rights of pre-retired people in Cape Breton as well as the rights of widows and orphans. Would the minister examine Bill C-135, the act that set up the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and ask the president of that corporation to act in accordance with that legislation as passed by the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Donald MacInnis: No answer again.

June 23, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


LABOUR RELATIONS
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Acting Prime Minister that he promised to answer our questions regarding the longshoremen's strike and I wonder if he has something to tell us.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I now have some further information in reply to the two questions asked about the longshoremen's strike. I am informed that the arbitration procedure is a very speedy process which will clear up the matters in dispute and, we hope, permit an early return to work. With regard to the question whether the men have agreed to go back to work during the arbitration procedure, the answer is no, they have not. But the process itself is very speedy and we think it is the best way to deal with the matter at the present time. In respect of the question about a commission of inquiry I am also informed that the offer of the Minister of Labour to set up a commission of inquiry was conditional on neither party going to arbitration. The Maritime Employers Association has now decided to go to arbitration, which therefore takes precedence. We have no recent information to the effect that the union is unwilling to participate in the arbitration.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to put to the minister.
Could he assure the House that the Minister of Labour will make a full statement on this subject early next week in order that the House be acquainted with all aspects of this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Minister of Labour, when he is next in the House, will be very happy to answer questions. I do not know whether he will wish to make a statement.


Mr. Gleave:: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary, but we have gone about five minutes beyond the question period. I assume this can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Perhaps the supplementary might be asked when the House next meets. Order of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 5, consideration of Bill C-204, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and motion No. 1 (Mr. Gleave).
Otto Emil Lang: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When this bill was last considered in the House, some question was raised concerning procedural difficulties with this amendment and perhaps the remaining two amendments to this bill. There have been discussions, and I believe there will be found to be general agreement to proceed with the amendments in every way as though they were in order without prejudice to that question. This, of course, in no way implies the acceptance of any particular amendment except for procedural purposes. I believe there will be found to be agreemement to proceed in that fashion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, the amendment which stands in the name of the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar will be put.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That Bill C-204, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be amended
(a)	by deleting from Clause 5 lines 29 to 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"5. Section 35 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"35. (1) The Governor in Council may by regulation extend the application of Part III or Part IV or of both Parts III and IV to any or all of oats, barley, rye, flax seed or rapeseed or to all of them.
(2) Where the Governor in Council has extended the application of any Part under subsection (1), the provisions of that Part shall be deemed to be re-enacted in this Part, except that
(a)	the word "oats", "barley", "Rye", "Flax seed" or "Rapeseed". as the case may be, shall be substituted for the word "wheat";
(b)	the expression "oat products", "barley products", "rye products", "flax seed products" or "rapeseed products", as tne case may be, shall be substituted for the expression "wneat products";
(c)	the sum certain per bushel to be fixed by the Governor in Council in respect of oats, barley, rye, flax seed or rapeseed may be so fixed basis in storage either Thunder Bay or Vancouver or only Thunder Bay or only Vancouver; and''
(b)	by adding immediately after line 5 at page 5 the following:
"(3) The Governor in Council shall make any regulation extending the application of Part III or IV or of both Parts III and IV to any of rye, flax seed or rapeseed after considering the possibility of holding a plebiscite of the producers in consultation with the appropriate representatives of such organizations with co-operative or dir.-ct membership that are involved in the marketing or production of these three grains."
(c)	by renumbering subsequent subsections accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion I should like first to point out its scope and the reason for it.
June 23, 1972

It is important to point out to the House that this motion asks that these three grains, flax, rye and rapeseed, or indeed any one of them, come under the jurisdiction and operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. More importantly, however, it asks that the producers of these grains be provided with an opportunity to make a decision, by the device of a plebescite or indeed by some other method if some other method is thought more appropriate, concerning how they wish to have all three of these grains or any one of them marketed. They might wish to continue with the present futures market, as we call it, using Vancouver and Thunder Bay as basing points, or they might prefer to market the grains through the Canadian Wheat Board as is done now in respect of the principal grains, wheat, barley and oats.
I believe it would be appropriate to give some reason for reviewing our methods of marketing and for considering alternatives to what we are doing now. One of the principal reasons for the review is the fact that we are now using quotas for the purpose of marketing all three grains, flax, rye and rapeseed. One has to go back only a few years to find the time when the Canadian Wheat Board did not administer quotas for flax and rapeseed. I am sure I would be perfectly safe in saying that the Wheat Board decided to administer quotas for flax and rapeseed only when it had no alternative. The Canadian Wheat Board felt it necessary to dwell at some length on the necessity for its administration of the quota for rapeseed.
On January 17, 1972, the Canadian Wheat Board issued a little booklet. A significant amount of space in that publication was devoted to the reasons which the Board felt made it necessary to administer quotas. The booklet reads, in part:
Every effort is being made to ensure that the non-board grains will not jeopardize the movement of the principal grains grown on the Prairies.
Farther along, it reads:
An equitable allocation of facilities is extremely difficult to achieve during an extended period, such as the present, when a very heavy export program is underway.
I will come back to that later. The producer finds himself in the position of selling his product on an open market with a price which can fluctuate as much as 50 cents per bushel up or down in any given futures market. Yet, when there is a high price in that particular market he cannot sell his product at that price because he likes that price. The producer must deliver the product when a quota permits him to deliver it. This certainly is one of the most important factors in the total equation.
I wish to point out again, as I did when I started, that it has not always been this way in respect of these grains. We have to go back only a short number of years into the late 1950's or following the Second World War when rape-seed became a significant commercial crop on the Prairies. When I first produced rapeseed, one could not deliver it to the local elevator. Instead, it had to be loaded over the platform. The first producers of this grain either did that or trucked it directly to a crushing plant.
The pricing system at that time was a contract pricing system. We used neither the open market nor the Wheat
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Board. It was a contract system and, if I remember correctly, we contracted through the pool, although they were not the principals. The principals rather were behind the pool and the pool was merely acting as an agent. I believe that Continental Grain was contracting. It was impossible at that time to get price information when you were marketing a particular product. I remember at one time being dissatisfied with the price which we were receiving. Since I was in Ottawa at the time I asked officials in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to find out the price at which the product was actually being sold in Montreal. At that time it was being purchased at twice the price which was being paid to the producer on the contract basis back in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, and so on.
The next move that was made was when the grain exchange started listing, pricing or quoting daily prices for rapeseed. At the same time, it established a futures market as well as one basic point for delivery, which was Thunder Bay. At that time there were only Fort William and Port Arthur, so this was an improvement. When the producer had some market information, he could at least look at the prices for that day of the particular product. It did not give him any security in price, which could easily move a $1 a bushel within a season or as much as 50 cents a bushel within a month, as it did last fall between August and November, I believe.
What this motion seeks to have done is an evaluation of the pricing procedures which we have now. I ask that the producer of this product have the opportunity to pass judgment on the present procedure and ascertain whether he would not get better treatment or a more equitable pricing system, one which would be more advantageous, through the Wheat Board rather than on the so-called open market. Over the years I have seen a great deal of heat generated in the Prairies in discussions comparing the Wheat Board market and the open marketing system. Usually more heat is generated than rationality, and that has been one of our misfortunes.
The second thing tnat happened in the open market under the exchange system was two or three years ago when it was decided that a second basing point would be opened thus establishing two future markets, Thunder Bay and Vancouver. If you look at the price of rapeseed, you will find that the futures are quoted for both Thunder Bay and Vancouver and you will find that they are quoted in different months, to use the term which is current in the trade. So you cannot transfer your interests from Vancouver into the same month in Thunder Bay because the schedule has been shrewdly drawn to eliminate this possibility. This is not the case on the exchange in the United States, where the futures in the different basing points can be transferred from one to the other.
Any marketing system or pricing system has to be judged on the basis of how well it works. The economists have a term for it which I cannot recall for the moment. It is supposed to be a perfect system or as nearly perfect as possible. The present system has demonstrated that it is far from perfect. You only have to examine it or read the comments of those who have examined it, to know that it is not a perfect system. Indeed, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) found it necessary to carry on

June 23, 1972
Canadian Wheat Board Act
correspondence with the grain exchange to ask whether the system could not work better, and they told him they would see what they could do about it. The minister tabled the correspondence at the request of an hon. member on this side of the House.
A particular situation really intrigued me, and I must call it to the attention of the House. We have here a very nice picture of the chief commissioner of the Canada Grains Commission, along with a story in the Free Press Weekly of May 6 which tells us that the Winnipeg Grain Exchange has asked the federal government to appoint a supervisor of trading in grain futures. I really wanted to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), in view of the fact that Mr. Pound, the chief commissioner, is responsible to him, whether he was going to comply with the request of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange to appoint a supervisor of trading in grain futures. I wondered, too, what kind of a wizard they would get to do that job. Would he be some kind of a superman keeping track of the switches and turns of the operators on that exchange? I wanted to ask him that but, as often happens to some of us backbenchers, when we want to ask a question it is not always possible.
The other aspect of the story that intrigued me was that there was an act passed to provide for the supervision of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. In 1939, Parliament passed the Grain Futures Act to provide supervision and regulation of trading, but it was never proclaimed. Following the 1930's, when the grain exchange system proved to be altogether incapable of effectively pricing the grains which it then had at its disposal, an act was brought in, but it was never proclaimed. If the government want's to do something about it, all they have to do is to proclaim that act. The story goes on to say that if the act is proclaimed, most likely the Canadian Grain Commission will act as supervisor. I do not know where the newspaper got this idea, but it intrigued me. I did not know that it was a part of the function of the grain commission to supervise or even take a look at the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
Then, the article reads:
Already H. D. Pound, chief of the Grain Commission, has made initial studies of the Washington's Commodity Exchange and the Mercantile Exchange and Board of Trade in Chicago.
Apparently somebody chased the Board of Grain Commissioners off to see how well these exchanges are working down in the United States. There is evidence that the government is or has been somewhat concerned about the effectiveness of the operation of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board was concerned enough to write to the exchange and say, in effect, "You are not working very well; tell us how you can do better out in Vancouver."
Unless Mr. Pound acted on his own as chief commissioner, then either the minister in charge of the Wheat Board or the Minister of Agriculture suggested that he take a look at the operations of the exchanges in the United States. Perhaps sometime during this debate the minister will enlighten us as to whether any instructions

were given to Mr. Pound. So, Mr. Speaker, this is the situation we are looking at in the marketing of this grain.
I want to return to the quota system. Again, here is what the Wheat Board says about its administration:
Once the production of a crop such as rapeseed exceeds 50 million bushels a year, quotas to control deliveries are necessary to ensure that the working space in country elevators remains sufficiently fluid to handle the other grains that must move through. The Wheat Board, acting in consultation with the grain trade, makes every effort to ensure that delivery quotas will not exert undue influence in the market for non-Board grains.
So, we have this interruption in the kind of flow that would be essential to let an open market flourish and operate. But this is not the only interruption we have. The other obstacle we have to the effective operation of an open market is the crushing plants that exist in western Canada, because the crushing plants have staked out a special position for themselves. They have said, "We must be assured of access to whatever supplies are within trucking distance of our plants, or as far as people will haul their grain in to us." They have insisted on special quotas that will allow them to get first call. This is also interfering with the pricing system. If a producer is within range of a crushing plant and he needs money, there is pressure on him to deliver to that plant, even though it may be paying him less money per bushel than the market indicates he might be able to get.
I have just pulled out one of the sheets which are issued by the Canadian Wheat Board, showing the situation as of March 27. Rapeseed under ordinary delivery in all blocks was 17 bushels, and as you go down you notice it is marked 7 bushels per quota acre. The crusher could take 20 bushels per assigned acre, and rapeseed, low erucic acid, was 20 bushels per assigned acre. We do not have a simple quota system such as exists for wheat and barley. We have a quota system which is adjusted to accomplish certain things. This is another factor in this pricing mechanism that makes a difference, and that prevents it from being what it might be or from operating as well as an open market system might operate. The producer is the man who carries the load, who wins or loses under this system, which, far from being perfect, is quite imperfect.
The other thing that is preventing an open market system from operating is that there is now a surplus, or a significant part of the crop which cannot be delivered, and which is hanging over the market. The big claim of those who favoured the open market system was that that type of a marketing system would clear the market. If you had an open market system and you allowed the grain merchants such as Continental, who are the international operators, and coming down past them to National Grain, to UGG and to SASK Pool, free access to the market, no restrictions, they could clear the market. But, Mr. Speaker, that balloon has been exploded. They could not meet the hard test of reality. We did not clear the market.
Now, we come to how the system really works. The street price that is established is an agreed price which two committees of grain companies, one for Saskatchewan and Manitoba and the other for Alberta, decide each day as the price. That is the system we have now. When I

phoned my delivery point at Biggar the otner day, there was a quota price for rapeseed and then there was under the schedule a premium of 17 cents a bushel. I have seen that premium go up and go down. Mr. Speaker, I waited some time last fall to deliver a carload of rapeseed, have it shipped to Vancouver, and sold at that point. It realized me $500 more than if I had sold it the same day at Biggar or, as we use the term, on the street at the elevator. That is a lot of money. A system which takes that kind of toll off the producer at a local point is a pretty poor system.
An official of the Farmers Union did the same thing a year or two ago, made the same kind of money, and made it public. The minister knows it. Anybody who can read knows it. You can get statements from very responsible officials who will confirm this sort of thing. You get a statement such as that made by Mr. Lockwood, the Second Vice-President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, speaking at the Farm and Home Week in Saskatoon in January, 1972, when he said:
-producers must try to guess the course of a daily changing price that's affected by international events, about which they have only limited information.
He questioned the effectiveness of the method of pricing which we are now using and said:
Suspicion that price manipulation "is possible under certain conditions" with the present system of marketing rapeseed has been voiced by Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a statement from a public platform by one of the people whose business it is to act on behalf of the farmers in marketing that particular grain. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the Winnipeg grain exchange asks for somebody to supervise it, when a statement such as I have quoted is made by a man responsible for marketing grain, when there is the evidence that I have quoted about the imperfections in price and the correspondence which passed between the minister and the exchange, then there is enough evidence to justify giving the producer the opportunity to make a choice.
I do not claim, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Wheat Board is infallible, and at times I have criticized it, but it does return to the farmer the price it receives on the market. However, I think it could do a much better job of forward pricing and making forward contracts. I think it could do a much better job than the present futures system. We should explore those alternatives and remedy the present shortcomings.
We know that there will be an excess of grain from time to time, and I think most people agree that there probably is no system which can guarantee to market the total production in any given year. The object is to ensure the best return possible to the farmer and we should seek a method that will accomplish this while giving the farmer the information and the choice. I hope that the parties in this House will achieve that object before this debate ends.
A little over a year ago, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board brought to the House for first reading, and then sent to committee, a bill which would have accomplished this first step. If I recall correctly, he said that it
Canadian Wheat Board Act
was not the intention of the government to force the pace, that it would be the producers who would make the final decision. However, whether the government got cold feet or whether it was the party to my right, in committee it was decided to take out this provision. Apparently, they did not want to give the farmers the choice.
We see reports emanating from Alberta that an agency of. government is thinking of getting into the marketing of rapeseed. A statement from the Alberta government indicated their concern and possible intervention. I think they have decided not to act for the time being, possibly because it is a pretty risky venture for one province to go into the marketing of a grain of the scope and importance of rapeseed. They would need to be able to protect themselves from producers on the other side of the line who might choose to unload. I suppose they decided to back off and look at it again.
Experience has taught us that the most effective way of marketing these grains is on the basis of the total producing region. This holds true whether it is the Canadian Wheat Board or whether you are using the so-called open market system. I am satisfied that one of the reasons for our troubles with rapeseed is the open market system, because two futures markets are being operated, one in Thunder Bay and one in Vancouver. The product should be marketed on the basis of the whole region, if the growers would agree. Of course, if the growers wish to continue with the present haphazard system that is their privilege, but they are paying dearly for it. I know, as does the minister and the second vice-president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Mr. Lockwood, and many other people, that the system is not working very well. The job of any pricing system is to return the price for the product to the producer through the marketing mechanism. Of course, those who operate it are going to take their normal cut, but the people who operate this system are not satisfied with the normal-every once in a while they reach out for the big bite.
Because of the quota system which is now a part of the total marketing system the producer cannot protect himself against the big bite. The producer cannot gather together enough grain under the quota system, forward the grain by the carload and obtain the price that he should get. As I say, he cannot do that because he is not given a large enough quota. He cannot move sufficient grain at any given point in time. So, because of what we are doing, the grain producer cannot always protect himself and obtain the high price under the system to which he is entitled.
Those who advocate the future's market say, "Look, the producer can buy a future at a certain time and assure himself of a certain price; or, he can sell now, in the present, and assure himself of a certain price." Mr. Speaker, that is all very well, but you need a margin of 25 cents; and that margin only protects you to the extent of 15 cents because, if you are long in the market and the price goes down by 15 cents, the brokers will close you out unless you put up more money. To play this market, the producer must have a fair amount of cash. If he uses that cash, he forefeits the interest on it. Very likely he has borrowed it and would pay, at current rates, between 8

June 23, 1972
Canadian Wheat Board Act
and 9 per cent interest. So, if he is to play the future's market, the interest he must pay on borrowed money will become another charge that his farming operation must bear, and a very unproductive charge it is, Mr. Speaker. If a farmer wants to do this, and very few do, he would probably do it, or need to do it, early in the fall when he is fairly short of cash. So, as I say, he must borrow the money, pay the interest on it, and play this market if he wants to protect himself against falling prices or, as they say in the trade, if he is to insure a price that is going on that particular day. This is a fairly cumbersome system and, so far as I know, not many producers use it.
This House must give the farmer the opportunity to choose; that is all. Let us give him that opportunity. Let the producer decide what kind of system he wants. After all-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give its unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I had practically completed my remarks. In conclusion I say, let the producer choose. Give him the choice. That is what I say in my motion. Let him exercise his choice through his organizations or, directly, through his vote. Let him choose whether he prefers this or that kind of system. The choice should be his. At present, he is not given the opportunity to exercise that choice, and he ought to be given that opportunity. After all, the facts are well known, as I said earlier. One need not hunt for them; they are available for anyone who wants to look at them. A few hours research is all that is needed, because the facts are out in the open.
Let me repeat what I have said. I say to this House and to the minister, give the producer a choice. Do not tell him what to do. Give him the facts and let him make the choice. If you do that for the western farmer he will, from my experience, make a pretty intelligent decision.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can agree with one important point which the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) made in speaking to his motion, namely, that consideration of this issue concerning the marketing of rapeseed, particularly, deserves reason and rationality rather than the heat which this issue has tended to generate in days gone by. In order to bring about additional understanding of the problem, I appointed a committee to study the rapeseed marketing system. It was a committee composed of two distinguished producers and a member from the rapeseed association. It was directed to look at the way the existing marketing system is operating and to make recommendations for possible changes and improvements.
At all times it had been my position that the manner of marketing rapeseed should, indeed, be chosen by the producers, although that, perhaps, is oversimplifying the

position since it is not easy to define a producer or to determine the opinion of the producer on an issue as complicated as this. In any event, it was my position that it was up to the producer to make that marketing decision with respect to his product and that we ought then to co-operate by having available the necessary mechanisms for marketing producers' products in the manner they chose.
The marketing committee I set up came forward with a certain number of recommendations concerning the existing marketing system for rapeseed. Many of those recommendations have since been put into effect. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) referred to an exchange of correspondence with the grain exchange. This was part of a group of discussions and exchanges with the Canadian Wheat Board and other bodies concerned with the grain trade, and all these were in line with the recommendations made by the committee. Many recommendations that committee made have been put into operation, resulting in an improved marketing situation for rapeseed at present.
The committee looked at the question of the board market versus the open market and concluded that, indeed, producers' views should be ascertained on this matter. It concluded that those views ought to be a factor in any decision but that, before producers could properly turn their attention to this question, more work ought to be done in examining alternative systems, namely, board markets, pooling systems, and the open market. Information was needed to which producers might have access in order that they might understand the various, alternative systems available and make their choice intelligently.
I trust that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has read the subsequent report that followed from that recommendation. After receiving the recommendation from what I have always thought was an extremely good committee, I asked the members to turn around, so to speak, analyze the systems mentioned and to produce a summary of that analysis for producers. This has been done and, accordingly, the outcome of the study regarding the various systems of marketing rapeseed, including the presently existing system, is available to producers. Producers' organizations have taken that report and summarized it for wider distribution to producers generally. I recommend it to the hon. member and to all who are interested in this subject. I ought to add that few people have suggested anything other than that the committee did an extremely good job in this field. I recommend the report to all people interested in problems that might be encountered in marketing of this type. Any people so interested, I suggest might with more advantage read that report than the analysis given us by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar-and I say that with all respect.
This is not a simple matter. It is a complicated matter and, therefore, the report is also complicated. For that reason, I have felt it appropriate to take some further time before determining what is the opinion of producers on this issue. It is significant in my mind that producers' organizations have tended to veer from positions they previously adopted. At one time many of them flatly recommended that rapeseed, flax and rye ought to be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board. Many now

recommend, instead, the taking of a plebiscite or the obtaining of the views of producers on that issue, partly in recognition of the complexities of the issue and, possibly, because a significant number of producers favour the open market as opposed to the board market system. I, myself, have avoided taking a particular stand, because I wanted it to be clear that I was prepared to do what the producers wanted. I have tried to inform, rather than choose a particular stand with regard to various systems of marketing.
As the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar noted, the bill now before us, when first introduced to this House by myself, contained a provision very similar in purport to that of his amendment. Subsequently in the committee, and I say this because the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar did not seem to appreciate this, the section was removed in an effort to facilitate speedier passage of the very important other portions of the bill. This section was, in effect, stood aside with an indication that a support separate bill would be brought forward with regard to it. This is still my intention at some appropriate time, perhaps after producers' views are in fact known with certainty.
It should be apparent to hon. members that we do not need this amendment to obtain producers' views, when it is decided that the time is right to determine them. At that time, this government and this Parliament will have to take the responsibility in translating and understanding the producer's view and making come true that which hon. members generally support, namely that what producers want to have done in the way of marketing ought to be done for them by us if machinery is required.
At that point in time, we removed this section from the bill in committee. Because of the consideration in committee, I will, and I urge my colleagues to do the same, vote against the amendment, even though it is practically in the words of the original proposition I put forward. I will do that because I am respectful of the committee's wish, what I know was their wish, to have some careful and detailed deliberation and perhaps representations from organizations concerning this section before it is acted upon in Parliament.
Upon determining with clarity the views of the producers, we will take steps to ensure that whatever is required in the way of appropriate legislation for better marketing for producers is available. I say that in a general way because the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has referred as well to the Grain Future's Market Act. If the open market is continued, and this is a comment in the committee report, some additional supervision may be required.
In examining the matter, the rapeseed committee visited some other exchanges in the world to see what operating system would be appropriate and what sort of supervision would be required. I am afraid, however, that the statute on the books, which has never been proclaimed, would not be adequate to do the job. It certainly could not deal with the matter of proper supervision of rapeseed. If this route is to be followed, we are likely to be faced with the need for legislation in the next session of Parliament to
Canadian Wheat Board Act
make sure that the open market system works as well as possible.
I should point out to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar that his discussion on quotas is something of a red herring in this area. The special position of crushers with relation to rapeseed is a decision that the Wheat Board has taken in operating quotas. I am satisfied it would act in exactly the same way if it were operating with rapeseed as part of its marketing responsibilities. This is shown by the fact that it is not just for rapeseed that special quotas exist to meet the needs of a crusher in the immediate area. In the case of barley or certain special kinds of wheat where there is a special market and a somewhat similar situation with a crusher or miller, the wheat board has taken special action for such quotas to make sure supplies are available. They have done this even though they recognize that this interferes with the basic principle of full equity; however, it makes sense to provide crushing plants access to supplies in the neighbouring area and an orderly marketing system in that regard. There is a balancing involved. The wheat board makes these decisions with regard to wheat and barley and consistently in the same way.
I say that we do not need this motion to determine the wishes of producers. When we are satisfied and, indeed, when producer organizations indicate that they feel there has been a satisfactory analysis of the rapeseed committee report by producers as well as other information that is available, we will be prepared to determine the wishes of the producers with regard to marketing and proceed with whatever legislation may be required, whether it be of the sort contained in the motion or of the sort that would provide better supervision of the exchange. That is the situation which leads me to vote against a motion which is very much in the words of a section contained in the original bill that I introduced in the House some time ago.
The importance of the bill was the reason we tried to bring it forward into law. It was a vain attempt, but we did try to bring it forward. It is an extremely important bill. It may allow the Wheat Board to price barley out of Vancouver as well as Thunder Bay, and so deal with the problems of the Alberta producers. It may allow the wheat board to set up separate pools with regard to protein wheat and take further steps in connection with the existing protein grading system. It will allow the Wheat Board to have extend quotas through a crop year end and solve some very serious quota problems and, therefore, produce a better equity system. It also introduces a better quota enforcement system, better both in efficiency and in the humanity of its operation.
For these reasons, we wanted the bill brought forward. It would not be fair to the committee deliberations with regard to this particular problem to proceed with this matter now. For that reason, I will oppose the amendment.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I am very appreciative of the minister's comments with regard to this motion. As I remember the events that transpired in committee, in order to facilitate passage of the bill, at least those portions of the bill with which the committee members were in complete agreement, it was necessary to

June 23, 1972
Canadian Wheat Board Act
remove the controversial section. That section happens to be similar to the motion moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). The section was not controversial to the point that it was objectionable, however, there did not seem to be sufficient time for the committee to deal with the proposal.
Upon reflection, I feel that perhaps the committee may have dealt with the whole thing and called witnesses later. However, time having passed and hindsight being better than foresight, the committee hoped that the entire bill could have been proceeded with at the earlier session. Having reached this stage, and having the assurance of the minister that there will not be any wholesale approval of this particular motion by him, we can express ourselves openly as to the whys and whereforces of the suggestion contained in the motion.
I have agreed with the minister on several occasions. The minister accepted the suggestion I made in committee and withdrew the objectionable portion. At that time, I suggested that this amendment should be introduced on another occasion, if for no other reason than to debate the issue. We have always stated that we would not mind a plebiscite, but the minister's original proposal and the present proposal of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar do not suggest that there will, shall or must be a plebiscite. It suggests that there may be a plebiscite. The motion reads and I quote:
-any ... rye, flax seed or rapeseed after considering the possibility of holding a plebiscite of the producers in consultations with the appropriate representatives of such organizations with co-operative or direct membership that are involved in the marketing or production of these three grains.
These words are not sufficiently clear. The matter was left entirely to the discretion of the minister. We objected to the minister having an unrestricted right to announce, one day, that these grains should be included. That is the position we took then and our position has not changed since. We do not mind the producer having a say, or a vote, on the issue if it is his wish.
My views on this question may not coincide with those of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). I was somewhat amused to hear him arguing in favour of control by the Wheat Board while at the same time telling us he made $500 on one carload of rapeseed. That, in itself, nullified his argument. I know other farmers who have done likewise. Then again, there are farmers who cannot take a similar advantage because of closed quotas applied by the Wheat Board. I know a producer in my area, he happens to live about 20 miles from my home, who had a long, hard fight with the Wheat Board over this very issue. He arranged for several cars to be spotted at his delivery point. He shipped the rapeseed to Vancouver and paid the storage on it for 42 days, if my memory serves me correctly. He made himself $2.92 on every bushel of rapeseed, amounting to about $800 in all, not $500 as was made by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. In other words, it is possible for any farmer to take advantage, but the restriction is there to the extent that the Wheat Board imposes a quota.
I would point out again for the benefit of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar that the quota restriction

itself tends to equalize prices anyway. Why is it that some people seem to like others to do the calculations behind the scenes? They do not complain then. But if they are affected directly they object to it. Why is it necessary to deliver to the pool or to any other agency? I heard the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) say "Hear, hear!" When the statement was made that the elevator companies were gouging the farmers. Well, it happens to be the pool in this case. It is the pool which is speculating. Why are the hon. member and his friends always defending the rights of the pool? I am not objecting to the system of delivery to the pool, but why, all of a sudden, should there be two standards? Why is it that this system has a right to gouge the farmers, apparently without any protest being made? It is perfectly all right, we hear. It is not all right. Every farmer wants to have as much money as possible. It happens that the pool got delivery in the first place, and when they sold, they made a profit.
There is no need for me to go into the philosophy of the pool system because everybody understands it. In this case, 64 per cent of the system happens to be owned by the Saskatchewan Pool. So why are we arguing? There seems to be a great deal of contradiction on the part of members of the New Democratic Party in their approach to the subject. They seem to want one thing while pressing for something quite different. They do not know where to stand. For instance, they are saying there might be a plebiscite. But they are not saying there will be a plebiscite. The words are "after considering the possibility of holding a plebiscite". In effect, they are telling farmers that someone, at some time, may decide if and when there should be a plebiscite. This is the verbiage which was used here. In other words, it is a lot of nonsense. If it were stated that a plebiscite must be held, I would agree readily. But he does not say that. A decision shall be made if and when His Royal Highness pleases. Well, in my estimation the Royal Highness here must be the farmer. But according to the NDP, the Royal Highness here is the minister or some official in the department.
Well, I have delivered rapeseed and so has the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. We have delivered it at high prices and low prices, and he and I know that the very fact that the quota exists prevents us from delivering any more than the Wheat Board has already specified. I can readily understand that the crushers require a continuous supply of rapeseed for their operations. I would hate like Sam Scratch to have the crushers stop their operations until the Wheat Board said it would open up a quota, ana somebody had better deliver because the price is at such and such a level. I would want that crusher to be operating every day, if for no other reason than to ensure a continuity of employment and a continuous flow of the product to market.
This whole process is presently in an infant stage in western Canada. It must avoid taking unnecessary chances if it is to become firmly established in world markets. This is potentially a great industry. For hon. members to suggest at this time that we should start putting clamps on the crusher is wrong, because the industry has yet to establish itself. In my area, deliveries have come from a radius of 150 miles of the crusher. I hear many praises from farmers who recognize the benefits produced by this operation. Contrary to what some
June 23, 1972

may believe, deliveries can be made on any particular day a farmer may choose. He can pick up the phone at any time and say "I think the price is right, now". But delivery must be made to the crusher in order that it may continue production. Can hon. members imagine shutting down a plant for two months in the middle of winter-


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I was commenting on the fact that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) had destroyed his own argument about excluding the three grains, rapeseed, rye and flaxseed, from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board since on his own initiative he said he had made $500 on a carload of rapeseed that he had shipped, and which every farmer is on his own initiative entitled to emulate, requestion the railways to spot a car for him. Having made his $500, the hon. member should not deny other farmers the same privilege. However, there will come a time when the hon. member will not make $500, but will lose a few hundred. In other words, the averaging principle still applies. All that the Wheat Board really does is to average out the quantity delivered by farmers. The farmers deliver their grain to someone else and take their money at the end of the year. They are not concerned about the price at the moment of delivery; rather the initiative is left to another group of people, who may or may not make the right decision.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar did make the right decision to sell at that particular time at that particular price. I have already mentioned the fact that a farmer within 20 miles of me made $2.92 on some rapeseed, as of course he was entitled to do. But is it of any comfort to the farmers to know that the wheat pool does all this for them, adding on the delivery charges and the whole cost of the operation? Or is it of greater comfort to the farmers to know that on their own initiative they are able to reveal in many instances the weaknesses of the present system?
If the farmers leave things entirely to the Wheat Board, they come to think that the Board is equivalent to the Almighty, that it is just like belonging to the Roman Catholic church. I happen to be a Roman Catholic myself, but whatever the Roman Catholic church does is perfectly all right. You do not deny the church. However, many people are trying to change the system. Many people are trying to change the Wheat Board or the wheat pool and to come up with a better system. If it is all right to challenge something as sacred as religion then it should be perfectly all right to challenge the Wheat Board system. This is exactly what has happened. No one, except the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) has suggested for one moment that we must use the Wheat Board because it is sacred. He said if we put everything under the Wheat Board, things would run smoothly.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
The hon. member gave an example of how he had received $500 on a carload he delivered. I am prepared to give an example of a farmer who received $800. On his own initiative he asked for a car, spotted the car at his own delivery point and delivered to Vancouver. He went through the whole process. At the same time he pinpointed the date at which he would sell the grain. In other words, there are arguments for and against. I shall not dwell in that further, except to point out that there are many examples of this.
I do not think the Wheat Board system is necessarily advantageous. It blinds one to what actually happens. The $500 which the hon. member received could have been more. He does not know this. He is blinded to the fact that there is a system working against him. The hon. member wants the Wheat Board to do everything for him. He admits that on his own initiative he made himself $500. I believe his approach to the whole problem is rather stupid. The Canadian farmer needs a more realistic approach. The hon. member did the right thing, but then he said he wanted the same privilege for everybody else. Nonsense! People are not prepared to share anything with anybody else unnecessarily. The point is that if necessary, others share with the hungry, the needy and so on, but in this case a man struggles for his own existence. If we were speaking of a farming industry which was flourishing, that would be fine and dandy, but this industry is not in that situation.
I shall not dwell any further on this point. The hon. member is not very realistic in respect of his motion. The committee had been asked to interview witnesses, and yet we never had an opportunity to do so. There are persons who may have expressed opinions different from mine who might have convinced me to agree with them. I have bent this way and that. The minister knows very well I have been quite flexible in most of my dealings with him, in an effort to accommodate him. My original position at that time was that if we withdrew this particular clause, the bill could be passed. One does not face reality if he suggests at this particular time that the Wheat Board is the final solution to the problem. Barley is selling for 90 cents a bushel to the feeders in the area of Saskatoon and yet the Wheat Board is buying it for 65 cents a bushel. Who is a stupid fool! The farmers are not delivering their barley.


Otto Emil Lang: They are.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister is making a vain attempt to prove his point. The farmers are catching on to the fact that it was sold at a very low price, and that they will be able to obtain a better price within a year. I challenge the minister to tell me this is not a fact. Will he rise at this particular time and say it will not be sold at a higher price?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that barley deliveries on the prairies have been running at around 20 million bushels as of the past week and this is something of an all-time record.

June 23, 1972
Canadian Wheat Board Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The time allotted to the hon. member has expired but the minister having raised a question perhaps the House would allow the hon. member an opportunity to reply.


Stanley James Korchinski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear the minister's question. I threw out a challenge to him which I thought was valid. If the minister said that 20 million bushels have been sold, this does not mean that it has been sold at a higher price. Most farmers realize it has been sold at a very low price. It was given away; this is the point. The farmers know that if they hold it for another year they will obtain far more for their grain. That is why they are holding their barley at this particular moment.
I have not completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker, but I understand my time has terminated.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments I should like to make in respect of this bill. I assure the minister, however, that I will not take up too much time because I am as interested as he is in seeing this bill pass. This would seem an opportune time to make a few comments in respect of quotas as they apply in the country. It seems to me that often the quota arrangements are made by very able and very clever people who in many cases have never actually farmed, and who sometimes are unaware of the effect of these problems on the individual farmer. I wish to talk about terminal quotas. I think that, in general, the minister's idea is a good one. It is not reasonable to expect the railways or the elevators to handle a large proportion of the crop in a period of a few months at the end of the season, as they sometimes attempt to do. I think the minister is bringing at least some common sense into the quota system. I commend him for this. He complains sometimes that we do not give him credit for the good things he does. I wish to go on record in respect of this particular item. I believe it is an improvement.
One concern the farmers have about the terminal quotas is the fact that frequently municipalities have not built roads into their farms. Some farmers have difficulty because they cannot haul grain during the winter time because of snow or because of rain during the summer months. Sometimes the terminal quota will present a problem because some farmers are unable to deliver at the appropriate time. I would urge the minister to use some judgment in respect of the cut-off time. He has shown some indication that he will extend the barley quota if necessary.
I have another comment I wish to make concerning terminal quotas at the end of the year. I think that they should be at least near enough to the year end so that persons do not have to resort to storage if they wish to sell that grain on January 2 instead of in December. Hopefully, farmers will be in a position to pay income tax, and they have the same problem in arranging their business as does anyone else. If you must haul the grain, deliver it and then pay storage on it because of the quota which someone else has arranged for you, I suggest that this power to arrange your business is taken out of your hands. It is not reasonable that this should be so. I would ask the minister to consider setting the terminal quota not on December 10

but on December 16, 18 or 20 so as to take care of this obvious problem.
Now, I would like to speak briefly on another matter. I received a letter from a Peter Kirchgesner at Unity in connection with quotas at domestic crushing plants. I would like to say that the NDP, and I in particular, favour the rapeseed crushing industry in Saskatchewan and on the Prairies; we encourage it. I was a delegate when some of these matters were discussed with the Saskatchewan wheat pool, and I supported the industry. I would like to see more crushing plants for rapeseed. I have received complaints from individual farmers in connection with quotas on delivery to crushing plants. I have here a newsletter from Western Canadian Seed Processors at Lethbridge, stating that they do not seem to be getting enough rapeseed to satisfy their requirements. I will send it across to the minister and ask for his comments. If this is the case, I would like to know why these people cannot get enough rapeseed from the Wheat Board or from the market. Is there some financial difference from which these people would benefit, or is there some other reason?
Now, I should like to comment on the price of wheat, oats and barley under the Wheat Board. I favour the Wheat Board type of marketing, but I am a little perturbed at the low prices we are receiving for these grains. The fact of the matter is that there has been such a big movement of these grains that this might have concealed the poor price. If we had not had a reasonably high production, it would have been very apparent in the Prairies that the prices were much too low. I have been making inquiries in my constituency regarding the amount of grain left, and I have found that there is not as much on hand as the newspapers have indicated. At the moment, I am concerned about the fact that there is drought in some areas, and unless something happens to change the conditions, there will not be a big crop this year, particularly of coarse grains. In view of the quotas established this year, there may not be enough to sell. The low price for barley in particular is a cause for concern. The price of one and a half cents per pound for barley at the elevator is not very high when you consider the cost of producing the grain. I say that as a practical farmer who grows much of it. If you have a good crop, you must grow a great amount of it if you want to meet expenses, let alone make money when the price for barley is only one and a half cents per pound.
I should like to say a few words about the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). He stated the reasons for giving the farmers a choice, particularly with regard to rapeseed, as to whether they want to sell their grain on the open market or under the Wheat Board. Last winter I spoke to an elevator agent who told me about a farmer who had 3,000 bushels of rapeseed which at that time was priced at $2.46 on the open market. He thought he would hold it until it went up to $2.50. Something happened to the market and the price went the other way. Eventually, he sold out at $2.06. At 40 cents a bushel and with 3,000 bushels to sell, the loss amounted to $1,200. One of the advantages of the open market is that you can always lose money on it.
June 23, 1972

I must say, in defence of the open market, that it is the best way I know of keeping farmers happy with the Wheat Board. If you talk to a man who has suffered a loss on
1,000	bushels of flaxseed, rapeseed or rye, you will find that he is inclined to think the Wheat Board's method of operation is not so bad after all, despite some problems we have had with it. Any time you meet someone who has lost $1,200, you find that he does not want to tell his wife that he finally sold out at $2.06 when he could have had $2.46, and certainly he does not want to brag about this to his neighbours. My own observation is that all too often farmers tend to lose rather than gain in situations such as this.
I should like to ask the minister and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to leave this decision in the hands of the farmers themselves. I know that I would want farmers to decide. A mechanism could be worked out whereby they could decide, and I would be willing to leave it at that. Certainly, at present this is not a happy situation in so far as the two price system for rapeseed is concerned. Quite a few farmers in the north end of my constituency grow rapeseed, and there were times when there was a 15 cents differential between Maidstone and Lloydminster in the price they were receiving. This seems odd when there are just a few miles between the two places and yet there is such a big difference in price. We have spoken to the minister about this before and he has attempted to find a more satisfactory solution. I have just used this as an illustration to point out that we are not completely happy with some of the conditions of the pricing system on the open market. As I recall the history with regard to wheat, oats and barley, small individual shippers had been selling one load to the elevator at a loss versus a carlot price, which was one of the reasons the wheat pools and the Wheat Board were pressured into being formed in the first place. I suggest that the minister consider this problem more carefully. I appreciate the fact that he has done some studying of this matter and had others study it. Perhaps we will get some good answers from them.
I should like to make one other comment in connection with the provisions for sales emphasis. I think the changes in the Wheat Board Act were good and some of the changes in the bill are good. Previously, too much emphasis was placed on controlling the movement of grain within the country and not enough on placing that grain in a position and in a condition for markets. It is a decided improvement, although the provisions in the bill with regard to proteins were a reaction rather than action in advance, but at least they are a good reaction. The fact that there is emphasis on sales in this bill is, in my view, a good move. I think that we should pass this bill and allow the Wheat Board and those in charge of the grain trade to concern themselves more seriously with finding markets that are needed for grain producers in western Canada.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members would be in favour of a producer plebiscite on the question of rye, flax and rapeseed coming under the Canadian Wheat Board, providing it was carried out in the manner suggested at committee stage. That is not really a contentious issue. But I would like to take issue with the amendment proposed by the NDP which calls for
Canadian Wheat Board Act
the Governor in Council to extend the application of both Parts III and IV to rye, flax seed or rapeseed "after considering the possibility of holding a plebiscite of the producers ..." We must be careful about the words "after considering." As was pointed out by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), the word "considering" means a great many things to many different people. An amendment such as this should not be passed at this time. When we were discussing a similar piece of legislation at committee stage, we received an indication that between eight and 12 organizations and interested groups in western Canada wanted to come to Ottawa to express their opinions on whether rapeseed should come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
My third reason for opposing it is that at the present time the Wheat Board has its hands full marketing the crops that presently come under its jurisdiction. The growing of rapeseed has developed at a fantastic rate following its introduction to western Canada, and I believe that a crop such as this must be marketed in the most advanced way. I contend that our present system of marketing, in which futures can be used for selling the product and hedging can be used for purchasing the product, is the best system we know. To back up my argument I quote from the Free Press Weekly report on farming as follows:
Imports of rapeseed into Japan in 1971 totalled 407,371 metric tons, 405,895 tons of which were supplied by Canada, according to customs clearances in the annual statistical report of Japan Oil and Fat Importers and Exporters Association. Australia and the United States supplied minor quantities.
Canadian exports to Japan increased over 1970 by about 84,000 metric tons. The 1972 calendar year figures are expected to show a further large increase due to the removal of tariff restrictions on April 1,1972.
This is the present situation with respect to rapeseed. I firmly believe that to put it under the control of the Wheat Board would jeopardize our marketings of this crop. There are price discrepancies in the futures market, but sales must be the overriding consideration when we are discussing this matter. Everything depends on sales. Import countries want the advantage of hedging their purchases of rapeseed. A perfect example is the American soybean crop, to which the price of Canadian rape-seed is virtually tied. Americans market their soybean crop in a manner similar to our marketing of rapeseed. Many hon. members have said that by putting rapeseed under the control of the Wheat Board we could eliminate price fluctuations and bring about a more stable price. This may not always be the case. I believe that the law of supply and demand must be taken into consideration.
Again, I quote from the Free Press Weekly:
June rapeseed prices at Vancouver were off from April highs by almost 25 cents in mid-May, and prices for May rape at Thunder Bay were off almost 34 cents from April.
These are great price crops. The cause is to be found in a drop in our export business. As the paper pointed out:
Much of the price drop was because of a drop in export business. But failing soybean and oil prices depressed the rapeseed market, and the rape-bean price spread was widening, increasing to 86 cents ...
Background events in rape included a flurry of activity concerning changes in transportation policy by the Canadian Wheat Board ...

June 23, 1972
Canadian Wheat Board Act
A rapeseed scare in France over May threatened to have worldwide implications-
In this context, we see that putting rapeseed under the Wheat Board would not solve all our problems. It is a commodity which is traded all round the world, and it is affected by various other oil commodities.
Rye and flax seed are not so significant so far as volume is concerned, or so far as total income of western farmers is concerned, but when we talk about rapeseed we must remember that if we do anything to jeopardize our marketing of it, our traditional customers do not have to buy our rapeseed. There are other oil seed crops which they can buy such as coconuts, palm, and soybeans. When we talk about rapeseed in Canada, we must also talk about soybeans in the United States. They are the overriding factor so far as prices are concerned, and when we come to the crux of the question we are talking about the price received by the producer. Because of the volume of the American soybean crop and the manner in which the Americans market it, they have established a bench mark for oil seed prices, around which the price of rapeseed fluctuates.
Soybeans are sold on what we call a meal market, and rapeseed is sold on what we like to think is an oil market. I am optimistic that in the near future we will be producing various rapeseed varieties that will place us in favourable competition with the meal market in soybeans. When we do that, I believe that we will share an even greater percentage of the total world markets than we do now. I am saying this to stress that we must take a careful approach to ensure western producers the kind of marketing they want. We will need the most flexible kind of marketing system possible, and I contend that the one we have for rapeseed would probably give the best results. A difficult decision must be made and it should receive the consideration of commodity groups in western Canada. It is rather cfistressing that the rapeseed associations are not showing leadership on this question of marketing. When they decide where they want their industry to go then we, as Members of Parliament, can help to implement the decisions.
I think that everything that can be said was said in committee last spring. We in the Conservative party, would be in favour of a producer plebiscite run by the rapeseed association and other associations involved; if and when this comes about we will work with them to achieve their objectives.


Mr. Leg Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and, in my usual kind, quiet manner, to make a last effort to persuade the minister and his colleagues. There should not be any argument about the acceptability of the motion. The history of the open marketing of grain from the beginning has been tragic and shameful, and I do not know how anyone can get up in this House and express support for such a 19th century system. It can in no way operate to the benefit of the grain producer because it is designed only to provide profits to the marketing end of the grain business and does nothing to protect the pro-

ducer as the pricing system has no relation to the value of the product. It does not take into account the cost of production nor the producers' need to make a living.
I was amused at the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) about the flexibility of this system. He is putting it mildly when prices can fluctuate to the extent demonstrated by his figures as well as those put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. Surely, that is ample evidence to show that there has been a change in the stability of the price of grain now handled by the Canadian Wheat Board compared to the position before it handled the grain. Is has been demonstrated that this is a better system which operates in the interests of the grain producer, providing a measure of price stability even if the prices are inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the reluctance of the minister and the government to accept this amendment, particularly as they originally had something of the sort in the bill. I find it difficult to understand why the minister, the government and the official opposition try to cling to the last remnants of an open-market system that has been proved to be detrimental to grain producers for so many years. I do not want to impute motives or suggest wrong intentions, but it is difficult not to be suspicious.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Don't hold yourself back; let yourself go.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the minister felt that the amendment should be defeated because he has appointed a committee to look into the whole system of marketing, particularly of rapeseed. He mentioned two or three alternatives and he asked the committee to keep working. He felt that the amendment should not be accepted because the committee will be able to give the farmers more information to enable them to come to a proper decision. I fail to see how incorporating this amendment into the bill would interfere with the work of the committee or prevent it from providing more information to the producers in order to help them decide whether they want this grain or flax or rye brought under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board. He mentioned that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was bringing in red herrings. I suspect this herring is redder than any, and it also smells. The hon. member for Lisgar feels that the Wheat Board-has its hands full now. Since it already handles the quotas for grain, I do not see why it could not also handle pricing.
If the arguments put forward by the minister, the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and the hon. member for Lisgar for not accepting this amendment are correct then it seems to me they must also come to the conclusion that it is reasonable that wheat, oats and barley should not come under the Wheat Board. This makes me even more suspicious that there are some members in the official opposition and the government who do not want an orderly marketing system for grain and who still oppose the Canadian Wheat Board. They still want grains handled under the nineteenth century system involving the open market, the grain exchange, the speculator, the parasite who lives on the backs of grain producers and does not work. The hon. member for
June 23, 1972

Lisgar confirmed my suspicions. His remarks led me to conclude that the official opposition opposes our amendment because it supports discredited policies, opposes the orderly marketing of grain and other aspects of grain handling that would be beneficial to producers.


An hon. Member:: You don't believe that, do you?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I urge the minister to change his mind and accept the motion. I know that many in his constituency who support his party want this amendment.


An hon. Member:: This speech is for home consumption.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Members of farm organizations and farmers individually have, for decades, been asking for the proposal in this motion. It has been the dream of grain producers on the Prairies. They want control of their production. They want to control grain from the time they first plant it until they sell it. The dream of prairie grain growers who have wanted to control the marketing of grain and bring about an orderly marketing system goes back to 1935, when orderly marketing first began under the leadership of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. He introduced that system as a sort of death bed repentance before the defeat of his government. Over the years it has been developed and now, in the main, has become the best method, I think, for handling our grains and for claiming a reasonable price. Surely, the minister ought to consider the experience of grain farmers under both systems. They have made up their minds and said that these three grains ought to be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I hope the minister will have second thoughts and decide that the motion is acceptable. The amendment would in no way set back or interfere with the work of those people whom he has appointed to look into this question. The amendment would allow the farmers, the grain producers themselves, to make the crucial decision. Surely, that is how it ought to be. It is useless suggesting that we ought to wait for another session, perhaps another Parliament, before bringing in an amendment like ours. After all, even the minister must know that, even if we are lucky, the Canadian Wheat Board Act will not be considered again for another three or four years. That might suit those who support the grain exchange and the so-called open marketing system, but it does not suit the grain growers. Again, I ask the minister to accept the amendment and to allow grain producers to make their own decision.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was struggling against the temptation to speak in this debate but, after listening to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, was persuaded that I might make a useful though limited contribution. I was somewhat struck by what the hon. member said about the official opposition supporting discredited policies. I do not accept his contention that the policy he referred to has been discredited. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for us to show a certain amount of steadiness and consistency in this House. The party the hon. member supports has been discredited at the polls for a good many years, but members of that party keep
Canadian Wheat Board Act
coming back and, most of the time, they play a useful role. Of course, at times one wonders how useful it is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not hold against them the fact that they have been discredited.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We missed the hon. member last night.


Gerald William Baldwin: They have a role to play and they play it, even though they support policies which may have been discredited.
May I now speak about the amendment? I do not like the way new section 35(3) as proposed is worded. It reads in part:
The Governor in Council shall make any regulation extending the application ... after considering the possibility of holding a plebiscite of the producers in consultation with the appropriate representatives-
I would term that as a pretty weak amendment. If it had said there shall be a plebiscite, and the phrasing of such language is not beyond the ingenuity of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or that there shall be a plebiscite held on behalf of the producers in certain circumstances, we should have been more inclined to give consideration to supporting this amendment, if I may use the language of the hon. member who proposed it. As it is, the language is meaningless. All the governor in council must do is decide whether there is the possibility of holding a plebiscite, in consultation with certain people. I do not think that language has that precise and positive ring which would be needed if we were to support the amendment.
The other reasons for our not supporting the amendment have been eloquently articulated by my colleagues, and their reasoning, I am sure, has persuaded many hon. members to oppose the bill. Any doubts hon. members may have harboured I expect have been resolved by the hon. member for Lisgar and other hon. members.
As to the Wheat Board, I am not opposed to it. The Wheat Board, like many organizations which have been around too long, has suffered from a hardening of the arteries. It was not doing the job it ought to have done and it took some prodding and pushing to compel the Wheat Board to do what it has been doing reasonably effectively in recent months. The prodding and pushing of the Wheat Board from this side of the House has resulted in the Wheat Board showing a great deal more virility than I thought in the last few years it would display. I am still reserving my judgment in that regard.
I have given some reasons which compel me to vote against this amendment. However, there is one more. I think we should postpone doing what is suggested until we have considered other ways of helping the farmers involved, particularly those in the rapeseed industry. An inquiry is going on at present into the possibility of including the rapeseed itself as well as rapeseed products in those items for which cheaper transport rates will apply. I should not have said rapeseed; I ought to have spoken of rapeseed oil and the by-products of rapeseed. The inquiry

June 23, 1972
Canadian Wheat Board Act
is to determine whether those products are to be transported at cheaper rates.
Now, I come to the question as to how it was possible for my party a number of years ago to improve the situation of rapeseed growers in this country. I mention this because the hon. member in whose name the amendment stands gave an interesting historical dissertation about the marketing of rapeseed. One cannot disassociate the marketing from transportation. As we know, what happened was this: during the last war rapeseed oil was used, I believe, as a substitute for normal marine lubricants. In the last war, because of difficulties in transportation, certain marine lubricants were withdrawn from Canada and, so, rapeseed oil was developed for that purpose in this country. The Wheat Board-hon. members are at liberty to correct me if I am wrong-undertook to pay, I think, six cents a bushel for rapeseed and undertook to take all of that commodity that farmers during the war years could produce. When the war was over it was possible to bring to Canada again marine lubricants. Consequently, as demand fell, rapeseed was almost phased out of existence. I was interested in this matter because, in the Peace Biver part of northern Alberta as well as in northern Saskatchewan, many farmers, under strong pressure to diversify their production, had grown rapeseed and became concerned when support was withdrawn. The Liberal government of the day did nothing except sit back and allow the production of rapeseed in this country to decline to nothing at all.
A great many efforts were made by farmers in the west to get the government to act, including a very active intervention by a former Liberal member of this House from the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Ross, who I think lived in the city of Moose Jaw. Through his intervention I became interested in the matter even before I became a member of this House. When I became a member of the Conservative party, which at that time was in power under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), we persuaded the government to declare rapeseed a grain within the meaning of the Railway Act and carry the Crowsnest pass freight rates. This resulted in a substantial saving for rapeseed growers in the west and helped put rapeseed back into production.
We persuaded one farmer to take his case to the Board of Transport Commissioners as it was then constituted. As a member of the bar, I handled the case. A number of Conservative Members of Parliament were called as witnesses and gave evidence. We could not find members of other parties who were prepared to give evidence or help us at that time. The case before the Board of Transport Commissioners concerned whether rapeseed was a grain within the meaning of the Railway Act, because if so it would qualify for a cheaper freight rate to ports for overseas shipment.
We did not win the case but we made such an impression that the then government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, with the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) as Minister of Transport, became interested in the matter. We ultimately succeeded in persuading the government: it took some pressure but we were able to do it. That Conservative government

listened to proposals, something that the present government obviously does not do. The government of the day was persuaded to amend the Railway Act and declare rapeseed to be a grain. As a result, rapeseed in western Canada again became a product of considerable importance. We are back in the same situation, only now the issue concerns the by-products of rapeseed-rapeseed oil, meal, and so on. The important thing today is to develop both a domestic and an overseas market. In order to do this there must be a reduction in transportation rates. That is where the situation stands.
If this government would direct its attention to the matter, and if my friends in the New Democratic Party, who have some interest, would bend their efforts to support us, the necessary legislation would be brought forward. Litigation probably will not be successful; we need a further amendment to the Railway Act to provide cheaper transportation for the by-products of rapeseed. If that is done we will have gone a long way toward solving this problem.
Rapeseed is a very important commodity in western Canada, particularly in my part of the country, in parts of northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Through the very assiduous assistance of the Department of Agriculture this crop has advanced to the stage where new strains are being developed. We have eradicated many of the problems which existed in the first stages of rapeseed production.
The minister should persuade his colleagues to introduce legislation in order to obtain cheaper freight rates for rapeseed by-products, both for domestic sale and for export. If this is done the need for amendments such as the one we are considering will probably vanish. If it is not done by this government it will be done by our government after the next election. In that expectation I shall not support this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The question is on motion No. 1 moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
June 23, 1972


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


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-204, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be amended by adding, immediately after line 13 on page 9, the following clause:
Division
Messrs:
Knowles
(Winnipeg North Centre)
Latulippe Lewis
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Mather Matte
Orlikow
Rondeau
Rose
Rowland
Thomson (Battleford Kindersley) Winch-18.
"7.1 Section 46 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
NAYS Messrs:
Coming	'46. Sections 13, 14 and 15 shall come into
into force	force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.'"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion standing in my name is purely technical in nature. It is designed to renumber a number of sections, and I commend it to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


Otto Emil Lang: That Bill C-204, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be amended by striking out lines 19 and 20 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"9. (1) This act, except section 7.1, shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
(2) Section 7.1 shall be deemed to have come into force on July 15, 1971."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The House will now take the division of motion No. 1. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-204, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Benjamin
Broadbent
Burton
++YEAS
Messrs:
Gilbert
Gleave
Harding
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.

June 23, 1972
Pension Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deachman:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While the bells were ringing there was discussion and I believe there is agreement on all sides of the House concerning the business for the balance of the day. It is suggested that we now move to the second reading of Bill C-215, to amend to the Pension Act, and when that has been disposed of that we move to Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), who has a private member's notice of motion standing in his name today, graciously consented to give up the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Grant Deachman: This would permit us to continue with these items of business until the end of the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip has correctly stated what we have agreed upon, with the understanding that if we finish both these items before five o'clock we shall call it five o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I assume this to be with the consent of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is not giving up anything. His notice of motion will stand until next week; it is to hold its position. I hope this is understood.


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood.



PENSION ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-215, to amend the Pension Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize an increase in the number of commissioners who may be appointed to the Canadian Pension Commission. The need for additional commissioners arises from a sharp increase in the number of applications from veterans for disability pensions, for increases in pensions or for related benefits. The 1971 amendments to the Pension Act provided many additional benefits which were not previously available. They also provided that applications which had been considered and not fully granted could be reopened even if they had previously gone to final appeal.
In the 12 months following these amendments, the Canadian Pension Commission ruled upon some 6,200 claims for pension entitlement and close to 60,000 cases concerning various ancillary benefits. Nevertheless, by late May, 1972, a backlog of 8,000 pension applications were awaiting adjudication. This means that even if no further applications were to be received, it would take the

present commissioners about 16 months to process the claims on hand. The commission had anticipated that the flood of new applications would have subsided months ago, but they are still being received at the rate of over 800 each month and there is no indication of any decrease in the rate.
Any applicant who has received an adverse decision in the initial review is entitled to have his claim heard further by an entitlement board composed of three of the commissioners. These entitlement boards are held in various centres in Canada and the applicant may appear with his witnesses and his advocate. The volume of hearings required will mean that at least three boards will be on the road for at least 40 weeks a year. This, of course, will deplete the number of commissioners available to consider initial applications and for other work. If intolerable delays are to be avoided, and they must be avoided, the number of commissioners must be increased.
The present act provides for the appointment by the governor in council of not more than 12 commissioners for terms of up to ten years, and of not more than five ad hoc commissioners for terms of one year subject to renewal. The maximum numbers of both commissioners and ad hoc commissioners are now serving. The new bill will therefore raise the maximum number of commissioners from 12 to 14, and the maximum number of ad hoc commissioners from 5 to 10. The need for this additional number of commissioners is expected to continue for at least five years.
Mr. Speaker, unless the number of commissioners is increased, the situation would reach a point where it would take years before a claim could be adjudicated upon. I am sure hon. members will agree that such lengthy delays would be completely unacceptable and that Canada's veterans are entitled to have their cases heard as expeditiously as can be arranged. Therefore, I am confident that members on all sides of the House will lend their support to this bill.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the parliamentary secretary need worry about the length of time that we will debate this bill, because it is something we have asked for in committee and it reflects a non-partisan approach to veterans' problems. I asked in committee at the beginning of this session what the backlog was, and I was told it was 7,000 to 8,000 cases. We asked why more members could not be added to the commission.
I am glad that the new minister has taken this step. We commend him for the sympathy he has displayed at committee meetings when the problems of veterans have been brought to his attention. I only wish to ask why the increase is only from 12 to 14 members. I am sure there are a number of retired people who were on pension boards who could come back for a certain length of time to deal with the backlog of 8,000 cases.
For some reason we seem to forget the human consideration that the veterans of World War I are now in the 70 to 75 age bracket and veterans of World War II are now between 50 and 60 years of age. We must deal with the applications that they have submitted. We have estab-
June 23, 1972

lished new, relaxed provisions under the benefit of the doubt clause but I fail to see why that clause is not accepted for what it is. The commission is still looking for evidence, but if we are to give veterans who are 70 years old any benefit of the doubt, let us do so.
One section that continues to present a problem to War Amputations of Canada is section 57(3) which deals with veterans who have to wear a prosthesis. There are still many weaknesses in the act. I could mention the exceptional incapacity allowance and the Veterans Land Act, despite which many veterans do not have a house, but I feel that section 57(3) has priority and I will deal mainly with it.
This section of the Pension Act was the subject of considerable discussion when the amendments which were approved on March 30, 1971, were before the House. It is a relatively minor provision, but it has effectively deprived some of our seriously wounded veterans of an exceptional incapacity award. The prime example is the double below-knee amputee who can wear artificial legs. The commission, in applying section 57(3), must take this into account, with the result that under ordinary circumstances no award is approved in these cases.
War Amputations of Canada has been following this matter closely since it was first noted in the draft bill C-203. Members of the committee received a letter from this association; perhaps all members received it. it was dated February 19, 1971, and called the proviso "offending". It stated that the exceptional incapacity allowance "may be decreased if pension authorities decide that the disability can be lessened by wearing a prosthesis". The former minister of veterans affairs replied to this letter on February 25, 1971.1 quote from his letter as follows:
-examination of the pertinent provisions in this bill, as amended by the standing committee and approved by the House of Commons, does not reveal any basis for reduction of allowances unless the pensioners unreasonably refuses to undergo medical treatment or use a prosthesis.
I do not know how we go about producing supporting documents, but in the interest of getting this bill through I will not take the necessary action because the letters and representations are on file. This letter arrived while Bill C-203 to amend the Pension Act was before the other place. The War Amputations officials decided, on the strength of the minister's letter, that their fears were groundless and that no deduction would be made unless the amputee unreasonably refused to wear his prosthesis. They had no objection to this latter stipulation.
However, on April 26, 1971, the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission advised War Amputations of Canada that indeed the new section 57(3) would mean that the commission would pay an exceptional incapacity award to an amputee who could not wear his prosthesis "at face value", but that where the prosthesis was worn this would have to be taken into account in assessing the eligibility of such an award. I have supporting documents in this respect.
The next step was when War Amputations of Canada placed the matter before the newly created pension review board for an interpretation, claiming that during the parliamentary process, including hearings of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, it was not made
Pension Act
entirely clear that a deduction would be made if the pensioner wore an artificial limb and that basically the discussion during this process centred around prostheses which were a medical necessity, such as a heart-pacer and a ball-bearing in the hip joint. It is difficult to say more, because this is something that causes veterans much suffering. I am sure that veterans appreciate this fact better than anyone.
Unfortunately, the pension review board had to conclude that the wording of the act is clear, and that unless the act is changed the commission has no alternative but to make a deduction if the man is wearing an artificial limb. At any other time I would introduce an amendment, but I will not do so now and, hopefully, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) will take our representations into consideration in the next session.
The inclusion of the subsection has placed the Canadian pension administration in a ridiculous light before rehabilitation experts throughout the world. In this regard I should like to quote from a letter written by Dr. Henry Kessler of the world renowned Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange, New Jersey. The letter is dated December 2,1971, and reads:
-I am appalled by the action of the Canadian Pension Commission with respect to their deduction of the exceptional incapacity allowance for persons who use prostheses.
Throughout the history of social legislation, particularly workmen's compensation as far back as 1883, various countries concerned with this problem have given a liberal interpretation to the incapacity suffered by individuals who have had double leg, double arm or one leg and one arm amputations.
This has been reflected in the principle which is referred to as "absolute incapacity". On that basis, 100 per cent incapacity was allowed; first determination was generally made with or without prostheses.
The basis of this principle was not so much the vocational incapacity as it was the gross impairment in carrying out activities of daily living or the routine pursuits of life.
I am told that this particular proviso affects possibly 150 to 200 of the most seriously disabled veterans in Canada. It is contrary to all principles upon which our pension law is founded. Our Pension Act is intended to encourage a man to rehabilitate himself, yet we have a subsection of the act which gives more benefits to a man who prefers to stay at home in a wheelchair than to an amputee who puts on an artificial leg and goes out to earn his living.
Secondly, our pension law has always contained an incentive clause which provides, in effect, that if a pensioner tries to improve his financial situation in any way he will not be penalized for pension purposes. Yet we have section 57(3) which provides, in effect, that if the pensioner does persist, despite the discomfort and inconvenience involved, in attempting to walk on wooden legs or to wear a set of iron hooks for hands, his income will be reduced in comparison with the amputee who simply gives up and does not wear his prosthesis. Even in the latter case where the commission could rule that the man unreasonably refused to wear the prosthesis, he would only lose half of his award, whereas the man who struggles to use the prosthesis gets no award at all.
For some reason, Mr. Speaker, we spend years and years dealing with the problems and incapacities of veter-

June 23, 1972
Pension Act
ans, but after all this we still find there are situations we have overlooked. I share the blame for this, with everybody else in this chamber. However, I feel that Bill C-215, which provides for an increase in the number of people on the pension board, is a good measure, and on behalf of my party I wish to say that we support it.
I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs will take into consideration what I have said after he reads Hansard and will make the improvements that are recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I trust that as soon as possible an amendment will be introduced to the act to take care of our war amputees and the many other cases with which we have not dealt. But we support this bill 100 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we warmly welcome this bill and we shall be glad to give all the co-operation we can to ensure that it will soon become law. As the hon. member who preceded me pointed out, many of us on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs began asking quite a while ago for an increase in the number of commissioners to administer the Pension Act so that a serious effort might be made to catch up with the backlog of cases which has resulted because of the improvements in the Pension Act that were made last year.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Francis) has given the appropriate statistics, and there cannot be any question but that this increase in the number of full-time commissioners and in the number of ad hoc commissioners is sorely needed. Like the hon. member for Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), I wonder whether the number should not be even greater. Perhaps we can discuss that when the bill gets to committee. It would seem to me that the number of ad hoc commissioners might be increased to a higher maximum than the ten proposed in this bill. These are the ones who are engaged for a year at a time. In view of the fact that in recent months the backlog has been growing, perhaps we should make a real effort to put enough people on the job to catch up with the backlog. However, as I say, that is a point we can discuss in committee.
Like the hon. member who preceded me, we are terribly conscious of the fact that there are still other things that need to be done for our veterans. Like him, we feel that there should be the most generous administration possible of the exceptional incapacity allowance which was provided in the Pension Act last year. Like him and all other hon. members, we are most anxious that something be done very soon about the basic rates of war disability pensions, and also about the basic rates of the allowances paid under the War Veterans Allowance Act. However, those matters do not come within the purview of this bill, and therefore I shall not transgress the rules by trying to bring them into this debate. This proposal to provide additional commissioners is one we have been asking for; it is commendable. We appreciate the action of the new minister in presenting this bill and we are happy to give it our wholehearted support.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, we are quite happy to support this legislation and we hope that it will benefit all veterans.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add a word to the debate on Bill C-215, to increase the number of commissioners on the Canadian Pension Commission. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, it became very apparent to me during the study of the estimates that the backlog of claims before the commission was getting out of hand. I believe that at the time of the committee hearings in February it was reported that there was a backlog of some 5,000 claims. Today it is reported by the parliamentary secretary that the backlog has grown to 8,000 claims. As a result of the improved benefits provided under the act last year, we now face these additional claims. Also, there are improved benefits waiting for veterans. Here we can think of those sections of the act that were improved, including the exceptional incapacity section, the benefit of the doubt section and the section providing special benefits to Hong Kong prisoners of war.
Under the provisions of this bill the number of ten-year appointed commissioners will be increased from 12 to 14, and of ad hoc commissioners from five to ten. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have suggested that these numbers could be increased further. I would hope that if the committee can have the bill referred to it today we can have a meeting of the committee on Monday evening, at which the departmental officials and the minister or his parliamentary secretary will be able to give us more information on how they think the backlog of claims will be cleared up by the addition of seven new commissioners, which I calculate makes an increase of 50 per cent in the number of commissioners handling claims.
The real danger that faces us if this bill is not passed during the next week is that all the benefits that will accrue to veterans from the amending legislation which was passed last year will be lost, because if they have to wait 16 months or longer to have their applications processed by the commission, they will not be very happy, even if the ultimate award is satisfactory. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the bill and hope we can give it second reading this afternoon.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
June 23, 1972


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
Winona Grace MacInnis: That BiD C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, be amended in clause 1 by changing the period at the end of line 10 at page 1 to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"including a woman who is engaged in the domestic services of her home whether or not she has at any time been a member of the labour force.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in order to explain the background and the reason for introducing this amendment I shall have to go back a little in history. The amendments being introduced by the minister are to the Adult Occupational Training Act, 1970. My amendment would apply to clause 3, the definition section of that act, which now reads as follows:
In this part
"adult" means a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school leaving age in the province in which he resides; "adult eligible for a training allowance" means an adult who
(a)	has been a member of the labour force substantially without interruption for not less than three years, or
(b)	has one or more persons wholly or substantially dependent upon him for support.
The way that clause reads, without the bill which the minister has introduced, has been a source of great trouble and difficulty to women across this country. Many women have needed to go out into the labour force, not only to receive training but to obtain the allowance while taking the course. One type of woman affected by this legislation is the single-support mother who because she was unable to get the training allowance and was not able to afford any kind of babysitting or housekeeping service could not go out to work and, in any case, was not eligible because of the three-year requirement. Other women were also affected adversely. Recommendation No. 130 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women reads:
-we recommend that section 3(b) of the federal Adult Occupational Training Act be amended so that full-time household responsibility be equivalent to participation in the labour force in so far as eligibility for training allowances is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, for several years I have been trying to achieve exactly the same sort of thing as is contained in that recommendation, and I have had a bill on the order paper to amend this clause. My bill, C-143, referred to section 3 of the act to which I added the following:
(c)	without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the words "labour force" includes a woman who has been engaged in the domestic services of her home for a period of not less than three years.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I wanted the definition to make sure that a woman who had been engaged in look-
Adult Occupational Training Act ing after the domestic services of her home for a period of three years would be considered to have been a part of the labour force and consequently eligible not only for training but for the training allowance. I realize very well that the minister has been besought and besieged by groups of women and has been embarrassed by the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In this new Bill C-195 he has sought to correct this particular form of discrimination against women in the home. Clause 1 of the new bill provides:
1. Section 3 of the Adult Occupational Training Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. In this part, "adult" means a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school leaving age in the province in which he resides."
Anyone who reads that is apt to wonder why I am now seeking to introduce an amendment, because they could assume that it is plain that an adult is a person whose age is one year greater than the school leaving age in the province in which he resides, and presumably a woman is an adult. It might be asked why I want this spelled out. That is what I want to make plain this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. As it reads now, this section leaves it wide open that women can get training and allowances presumably on the same basis as male adults. I know the minister intends that in his legislation because he has been very sympathetic to this approach, but I am moving this amendment because women all across the country are concerned that they have not been able to get specific guarantees from the minister that this is so.
I should like to put on record the reasons I am worried enough to bring in this amendment. When the regulations to this bill come out, unless they are clear and definite on this point, women-and some men, too-will be asking me where I was when the legislation went through. They will ask, "Why didn't you get it clarified beyond any doubt?"
On May 4, when the minister introduced the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women to this House, he said:
The bill to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act which received first reading last week in the House of Commons will provide women-
The minister did not underline this, but I will.
-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.
The minister knows as well as I do that any woman, except a few parasites, has worked more than one year at any time in her life. I could not help but conclude that the minister still had in mind the idea of the labour force and the necessity of being part of the labour force in order to qualify. Listen to these words again:
the bill will provide women who have worked one year at any time in their lives-
That can only mean they have worked for one year in the labour force in their lives; it does not make sense otherwise. All women have worked more than one year in their lives, Mr. Speaker.
-the opportunity to receive training as well as training allowances for the first time.
I replied for our party to the ministerial statement. I asked the minister about this and he nodded his head in
3464
June 23, 1972

Adult Occupational Training Act
affirmation. I said I hoped that Hansard would record the nod. I might have had my fears allayed by that nod. But on May 5, during second reading of Bill C-195, an act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, the minister said:
I think the change will do much to remove the unintentional discrimination that has been directed toward women in the work force. The three year work rule made it extremely difficult for the department to help upgrade a widow or a woman who, for one reason or another must return to work to support her children, a chronically ill husband or someone else in her family by providing such simple courses as shorthand, typing, dictation and other work of this nature.
The words "must return to work", if they are to mean anything, must be construed as "must return to work in the labour force". That is the only possible meaning one can give them. Again, this made me worry about the type of regulations that will come down. I wondered if they would be clear, or would lead to all sorts of red tape or wrangling as has happened in far too many cases where discrimination has been involved.
I do not think the minister used those words intentionally; but he used them, and that is what worried me. He suggested this will make it easier for women who must return to work, to do so. I suggest that such provision will not help those women who want to take advantage of this legislation but who have never been members of the work force. I am talking about women who married when they were young and perhaps had children, perhaps the husband has died, perhaps the husband is chronically ill or is a drunkard or helpless and is not much use as a breadwinner. Women in that position desperately need training and the training allowances without which they cannot make the necessary arrangements that will permit them to be away from home while they are undergoing training.
I wish the minister would listen, Mr. Speaker, because I shall present one or two further pieces of evidence in support of my contention. On being questioned by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), a member of my party, on whether farmers' wives or housewives on farms would qualify for manpower training allowances under this act, the minister said:
I will answer that in my usual direct fashion by saying that when we get to the committee stage the whole question of women in the work force will, I am sure, be thoroughly discussed.
Then he said that no doubt we should want to ask some basic questions about the definition of one-year training and whether or not work done in the home by the farmer's wife, for example, or a woman in a similar situation could be defined by regulation. That statement worried me because the question was not answered. Here, again, the minister could have given a categorical yes or no answer; but he did not, and that worried me.
I read the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, a report which was so carefully prepared by Mrs. Paltiel under the direction of the minister, and found on page 23 this reference to amendments to the Adult Occupational Training Act:
This would remove a major obstacle and vastly improve the opportunities for training for women who require it for re-entry into the labour force.

Again, the significant words are "for re-entry into the labour force". When I saw this last piece of evidence-and one must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am not presenting merely a single piece of evidence-I could not help but worry again. I worried precisely because in the time I have spent here I have learned that provisions must be spelled out clearly in legislation, otherwise regulations over which we exercise no control whatever may be fudged-up or so confusing and messy as to lose sight of the end the legislation was intended to bring about.
So I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the women of this country want their rights in this act spelled out so that they are clear beyond any doubt. I introduced my amendment because women of this country have had a long, hard fight asserting their rights, and the right enshrined in the amendment is tremendously important for women. Many women across this country need the benefits of this legislation. Women in the home, in the cities and in the country want to supplement the income of the home. They might be the only breadwinner in the home, or perhaps the husband is a cripple, helpless, or no use as a breadwinner. Women need this legislation for supplementing the income of the home.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to make a clear and definite statement this afternoon on whether the definition of a person who is to be eligible for training and training allowances is to include a woman "who is engaged in the domestic services of her home whether or not she has at any time been a member of the labour force." That is the definition for which I press. I want this language in the act to be clear and plain. I trust the minister will do as I ask, on behalf of thousands of women across this country who want to know whether they will be eligible for the training allowance or for training once this act is proclaimed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, one would be entitled, if one were judging the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) and the amendment she has proposed, to conclude that an election is just around the corner. She wants to include apparently, "woman" in the definition of "adult". Apparently the hon. member is implying that women are not persons, since the bill as now drawn says that an adult means a person. I have the greatest respect for people who fight for the rights of groups in the country even though one group may include 50 per cent of the population, the women of the nation. On the other hand, I think hon. members would agree that any attempt to segregate groups of people in legislation like this amounts to a form of discrimination.
I will not become involved in that question because I am sure the minister will want to raise it when he speaks. I have been the recipient of much commentary, especially since the publication of a recent article which, unfortunately, misrepresented my views.


An hon. Member:: You should read it carefully.


John Howard Lundrigan: It was printed recently in a national magazine. It purported to represent my views on the basis of my talking to certain groups of women across the country and in various parts of the Atlantic region.
June 23, 1972


Mr. McBride:: There has been a great change in the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member from Arnprior who represents Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton has been very active in the House in the last few months. I wonder how things are in the valley. I am sure the House will be delighted to hear about some of the rallies the hon. member has attended, which it might be in order to put on the record although perhaps the hon. member would not wish the matter to be debated. In any event, I have the greatest respect for the minister and the government for the moves made to eliminate various types of discrimination against women in the labour force. In this category we must include all women who participate actively not only in the work force but in any capacity in Canadian life. So I do not think we ought to talk about the special status of any group, be they young people, old people, women, males or anybody else. Once you put people into special compartments, you are discriminating. I like to think that in legislation like this, which I think reflects the attitude of the Canadian people-that is the important aspect of this question-we can eliminate discrimination so that we need not introduce special status for anyone, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has attempted to do, I am sure for good reason. If she wants to emphasize an area of discrimination and place before the Parliament of Canada her views, then naturally she is entitled to do so. I would be disappointed if she did not hold strong views on women's movements and women's rights in Canadian society. However, I do not think her proposal is other than discriminatory. I will not elaborate because I am sure the minister will want to touch on this point.
The fact is that Bill C-195 is a progressive step. We have talked about it for a long time. I could say, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) likes to say, that we introduced such legislation six years ago, four years ago, three years ago, and finally the government has adopted it. I will not do that. I think all members of the House agree that eliminating discrimination in the labour force is a move in the right direction.
Once again, we urge the minister and the government to look at the 52-week requirement respecting adult occupational training. I am sure his officials will say that this matter has been handled with discretion and flexibility. I think the 52-week provision ought to be incorporated in this legislation so that we do not see a repetition of the stupid situation in which a person, having started a course, finds 52 weeks later, even before he is finished, that under the regulations his eligibility for participating in the program has ended. That stupidity must be eliminated, Mr. Speaker.
Including on-the-job training in Bill C-195 is a good move. This program has been successful. I have repeated my concern in this House and in committee. I am afraid that areas that are not well organized so far as the business structure is concerned-I am talking about the rural parts of the country-will not be able to take advantage of on-the-job training to the extent of the more structured parts of the country, unless there is some flexibility.
25319-33J
Adult Occupational Training Act
I cannot imagine a great deal of money flowing into northwestern Ontario under the on-the-job training program as compared to what will flow into Toronto which has a very well structured business community. The minister refers to on-the-job training in large companies such as Northern Electric. There it is no difficulty in bringing in on-the-job training of a sophisticated nature. I can see that happening in large businesses and well structured communities, but not in rural parts of the country.
I do not have this concern because I am from a rural part of the country: my concern is the same as that for a good bit of government legislation, including the recent announcement on housing policy. There seems to be greater emphasis on the urban and better structured parts of the country. Without making any announcement, the government is in fact de-emphasizing rural Canada. It is trying to eliminate rural Canada. That is what I am concerned about. This is one of the most fundamental, unwritten aspects of the government's policy. It has never been enunciated. However, if one looks at the various aspects of the legislative program of the past three years, he will see a good many areas in which the government is trying to legislate rural Canada out of existence. I will leave it at that and move on to another challenge on which the minister can comment either today or next week.
The minister referred to the fact that a number of activities of his department in the past six or seven months have had some effect on the economy. He referred to the several moves to help people in occupational training, the Local Initiatives Program, which is indirectly related to this bill, Opportunities for Youth and other areas in which his department has been trying to stimulate the Canadian economy. From day to day in the House we have expressed a good number of reservations, not on the programs introduced by the minister or on the philosophies underlying such programs as LIP but on the way the programs have been decided, brought into effect, the way Parliament has lost control and the fact that we have never been involved in establishing the criteria or determining the evaluating procedures. We have not been well informed on the whole spectrum of the programs.
The minister will have an opportunity in three or four minutes to tell the Canadian people whether he plans, aside from the legislation presently before us, to introduce within the next few days a program which I believe might be called CMOP. That is the first time that term has been used in the House of Commons. Is the minister familiar with CMOP? I understand it stands for Canadian Manpower Opportunities Program. Perhaps the minister is surprised to hear that expression coming from this side of the House.
I challenge the minister to tell the House whether the government has a plan to bring in that program, and whether it will give an undertaking to introduce that program in the House of Commons and have it duly debated in terms of funding, criteria and the whole process so that it will not become another Local Initiatives Program which is basically outside the jurisdiction of this House. I just throw this out to the minister. I do not say that all the decisions have been made with regard to CMOP. My source of information is not official; I have to

June 23, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act draw conclusions on what might sometimes be inadequate information.
The minister has a right to be proud of the work he has done. However, I ask him to give us a broad indication about the CMOP program which will be funded between $80 million and $100 million. I ask the minister to inform us before Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week whether this program will be handled like other programs which may be very sound philosophically but on which Parliament has never had a chance to express itself. It therefore becomes a bureaucratic operation and handled in some ways without the just concern of the whole nation. I challenge the minister on this matter. Although it is not directly related to the bill in a specific sense, I am sure it is a matter with which he will want to deal.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan). I hope I will be able, if not to answer them at least to allude to them on third reading, if the hon. member does not mind, because the business before us at this stage is specifically whether or not we are to accept the amendment introduced by a representative of the New Democratic Party. I listened with a great deal of interest to the forceful presentation of the young lady.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I always do. However, I was tempted very early in her remarks to suggest that the amendment was entirely out of order, as can be seen if one reads the bill carefully. I listened to her comments, and at the risk of appearing, certainly not flippant but rather crabby in my old age, I was left with the impression that the hon. member felt that she and she alone had any concern about women in the work force, and that she and she alone defined work as including domestic work or the traditional type of work that a busy mother has to do while carrying out her household duties. I can assure her that she has no monopoly on this type of thinking. Theoretically, she presumes she has that kind of monopoly.
It is a definition that in general I accept. I think many members of the House realize that housework of the traditional nature and type is work in the full sense of the word and that in part our lack of consciousness should have been recognized a long time ago and in many other fields. If I chastise the hon. lady on this, it is because I think that the whole thrust of her argument is that whenever I talk about work-apart from the times I talk about re-entry into the work force, or even when I talk about that-I talk about the work force excluding work in the home. On many occasions I have expressed the opinion of the hon. lady that work in the home is work in the work force. I will not belabour the point about the need of re-entering the work force.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has quite logically and concisely dealt with, and I want to try to remain concise and precise, the question of whether the definition of "adult" includes people working at home, in the traditional sense. It is absolutely immaterial under the terms of Bill C-195 as it is now written. The argument is valid as

far as the original act is concerned because the three-year rule did, very definitely, discriminate-unintentionally, I hope-not only against women but against other members of Canadian society who for one reason or another found their right to financial assistance while taking training courses jeopardized.
If hon. members would look at Bill C-195 and read the explanatory notes which showed the bill as it was prior to the proposed amendments, they would find that we had left out entirely the old section 3(b) which defined an adult. So under the new bill it is immaterial whether a person, male or female, was ever a member of the work force. Every bill defines an adult in a different way, depending on its purpose. The definition of an adult in Bill C-195 is a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school-leaving age in the province in which he resides. What we are saying is that a person, male or female, may never have been a member of the work force at any time. That is no longer a prerequisite to obtaining financial assistance. That no longer has any meaning under the present bill.
We have therefore gone further than the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada that section 3(b) of the act be amended so that full-time household responsibility be equivalent to participation in the labour force as far as training allowance is concerned. We have eliminated discrimination of any kind. We do not want to substitute one kind of discrimination for another by setting up preferred groups. We shall not rectify the imbalance in Canada as between opportunities for men and for women in the final analysis by legislation. We have to rectify that discrimination by education. It is not by substituting well intentioned discrimination of one type that we shall eliminate discrimination of another. Many of us who feel this way are sometimes accused of being reactionary whereas, in fact, we see beyond the short range and do not wish to replace one type of discrimination by another, however well meaning. The bill as written eliminates discrimination entirely by removing section 3(b).
Having taken five minutes to say all that, I must recognize that the hon. lady has been one of the strong advocates of the total elimination of discrimination against women. Her career has been notable in this respect. Her speeches have often been directed to this end. Indeed, she has become synonymous with this battle which is only beginning but which at least is progressing along the right lines. I am sure that her amendment, which I think would be out of order, or at least it might be considered out of order because it is redundant, is nevertheless an honest attempt to bring to my attention as minister some of the ambiguities in my statements and to the fear she has that regulations may interfere with the intent of the law, although in practice a federal court would prevent that happening. Nevertheless, I am prepared to entertain, if the hon. lady feels this to be desirable, an amendment in her name-this is a tribute to the hon. lady, I can assure her, rather than the result of any fear I have of the bill as presently drafted-which would substitute one word for another in her amendment as set down. Thus, instead of reading, "including a woman who was engaged in the
June 23, 1972

domestic service of her home whether or not she has at any time been a member of the labour force," the amendment would read, "including a person who was engaged in domestic service at home," and so on.
Hon. members will appreciate that there are men engaged in domestic service at home, paraplegics and others whose wives go out to work and who maintain the home in a happy marriage situation. There are more of these people than we realize. So in my view the amendment should read:
-including a person engaged in domestic service at home whether or not such a person has at any time been a member of the labour force.
In this way we shall be removing the remote possibility of regulations ever limiting what the act intended. The amendment makes the point which the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate made so eloquently when he argued we should not substitute one type of discrimination for another, and in a way it recognizes, though perhaps after the fact, the contribution made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and its particular recommendation made at the time the officials of my department were drawing up these amendments.
I am not sure of the procedure, Mr. Speaker; I will leave that in your capable hands and I will gladly yield the floor to the hon. lady if she feels disposed to change her amendment along the lines I have indicated. I would then be quite prepared to second it.


Donald MacInnis: I wish to say right now that I find the minister's generosity very great. Not only is his generosity great, but his wisdom is much greater than mine because I infinitely prefer the word "person" in there rather than "woman". But I did not know the minister was prepared to look far enough ahead to the point at which men would be doing household work on a large scale along with women, and that is exactly how it should be.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: You haven't been to my house.


Donald MacInnis: I accept the minister's suggestion with real pleasure and profit. I accept the minister's strictures concerning what is perhaps a positive attitude on my part in seeming to be more concerned about women than some other people are. I accept this criticism, but in order to gain anything one has to drive very hard against tradition. I may never have occasion to say this again, but I think that what the minister has done today in this regard at least is to introduce a bill which will be very much appreciated, not only by the women of this country but by the men who have wit enough to understand what he has done. I thank him very much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, things I might have said are now not necessary to say, so I rise simply to ask whether the House will give consent to the motion on the order paper in the name of my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) which I had the honour to second, being taken as though it read:
-including a person who is engaged in domestic services at home
Adult Occupational Training Act
whether or not such person has at any time been a member of the labour force.
One could write out an amendment to change this, that or the other word, but it is crowding five o'clock and in view of the unanimity in the House the motion in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, which I am still pleased to second, might be regarded as reading in the terms suggested by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mackasey) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggest the way we should proceed. The Chair is in agreement, if hon. members are. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will put the question, since that is agreed. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, moves:
That Bill C-195, an act to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, be amended in clause 1 by changing the period at the end of line 10 at page 1 to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"including a person who is engaged in domestic services at home whether or not such person has at any time been a member of the labour force."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that Bill C-195, to amend the Adult Occupational Training Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is in order for an hon. member to say a word or two on third reading?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, of course it is in order. The minister pointed out that the hon. member dealt in his remarks with what he might have dealt with on third reading, and I am sure the minister might like to respond. I will, of course, see the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I deliberately put all my remarks in the one package because, unlike some hon. members, I do not want my name to appear in Hansard 17 times in one day, even if it means seconding motions or what have you. I understood that the minister was going to make a few remarks on third reading.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, my first words on third reading are to thank the House for its courtesy in dealing with the report stage so rapidly. I think this was possible only because of the very exhaustive study we gave the bill in

June 23, 1972
Adult Occupational Training Act committee. We often talk about bills that are of a non-partisan nature, and it is significant that these few minor amendments-I say minor; they are really major, if I may put it in that way-made to the original act passed in 1967, I believe, were both important and necessary.
It became very obvious to me earlier on, that these amendments should be made while looking at the same time at the act in its entirety with a view to amending the original act as fully and as soon as possible. Hence at the committee stage-I say this sincerely since I have a book full of notes in front of me-many points were raised by the representatives of the various parties, including the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) who has obviously specialized in manpower problems and is quite knowledgeable of the subject, perhaps more so than the minister since I have been in my present portfolio only a few months.
What I have tried to do during those few months, either directly or through my officials, including the new deputy minister, is to visit every province of Canada-certainly I have been in touch with every province-with the exception of Newfoundland which I intend to visit personally at the appropriate time of year, which should not be too far ahead in the future. I mean appropriate in terms of the fishing season, not election time. The general result of these visits has been a reawakening of enthusiasm about the broader aspects of the potential of manpower programs and the growing realization, not only at the federal level and within the federal department but at the regional level as well, of the important part that manpower must play, and will have to play in the future, if we are to achieve not only a quality of life that reflects reasonable unemployment figures but a quality of life that is reflected in the contentment and satisfaction of a well educated work force.
The hon. gentleman referred specifically and quite knowledgeably to a particular program, the initials of which he was able to pinpoint. I assure him that I have no intention of introducing tomorrow, next week or before the session ends, on motions or without advance warning, this kind of project in the form of a bill which would make possible this sort of future thrust by the Department of Manpower. In other words, it is not my intention to bring such legislation before the House.
The reason for this, I think, is self-evident. I happen to believe-this is only a personal opinion-that the Canada of tomorrow cannot afford a government that is extremely centralist in nature. I believe very strongly that in any legislation dealing with people, the federal government has a very strong and dominant part to play from the economic point of view. However, the provinces in turn have a particularly important role to play in the introduction of social legislation in this House, even though that legislation clearly lies within the federal field.
For example, just to use a hypothetical case, with any legislation dealing with the disadvantaged people of Canada it seems to me that input from the provinces and the various regions of the country would be of tremendous significance. We are all Canadians and all levels of government are dealing with the same people. However, if the type of co-operation and consultation that I see for the Department of Manpower in the future is to be at all

meaningful, then such discussions certainly cannot be conducted in a secretive manner. Programs of an experimental nature would have to be developed in co-operation and conjunction with the input we receive from various provincial agencies and organizations.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister a question? He referred to the Canada Manpower Opportunities Program a little earlier and said that he would not be introducing any such program through the introduction of legislation or a statement on motions before the House closes. I ask the minister whether there is such a program, which he might be ready to unveil now or after the House closes some time this summer, which not necessarily involves opportunities such as training programs or education, if I might use that word which is not supposed to be used in the House of Commons, but mainly a works program? Does the minister have this kind of a program ready to unveil?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will be a little evasive and say I have many programs to unveil and have to make up my mind what is the best program to unveil, if any.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You say that is just a little evasive?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is very evasive, and necessarily so because programs depend on many factors. They depend on the approval of the government and the availability of funds. More and more they should, and will, at least in manpower fields, depend on the consent and co-operation of provinces and agencies. I am not prepared to say to what extent we have finalized, or whether to any extent we have finalized any particular program emanating from the Department of Manpower at this moment.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have one final question. I hate to interrupt the minister, but could he answer the second part of my question which had to do with presentation before the House of Commons of any program which he might, for example, have wished to introduced in May but deferred for obvious reasons and may want to introduce in the next couple of weeks, perhaps before the House closes? Could he give us some kind of undertaking that if such a program is introduced before the House of Commons rises, it will be brought before the House and debated at least to the point where as members of this House of Commons we can express ourselves on the extent of the program and on the criteria for evaluation procedures, and consider whether it is different from the type of program which the government has introduced in the last six or seven months?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would like to be able to give that assurance, but I cannot. I will be honest and say I have no such program in my desk or in my drawer which I intend to introduce before the end of June, next week, before Parliament ends. What the hon. gentleman is saying is that he would like to see a program which affects Canadians-whether to offset unemployment, decrease or halt unemployment-so that all parties would have an input into that program before the fact rather than after the fact, their contribution after the fact sometimes being of a
June 23, 1972

critical nature, naturally. I cannot give that assurance. That is government policy, as the hon. gentleman knows. I think he is really pulling my leg, which he is quite adept at doing.
If he frankly asks me what the government intends to do next winter, if we are again plagued by unemployment, and whether we would embark on the same type of program we did last winter, I would have to say that at the moment I do not know. If he were to ask me, if I were to embark on the same type of program, whether I would use the same criteria I would have to say no, that we would benefit from the experience of the last winter which demonstrated tremendous success, as everybody knows, in alleviating hardship of short-term unemployment when we were able to put thousands of people through local initiative programs under the control or guidance of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
To summarize, I cannot give the hon. gentleman the assurance that all parties and all members would have the same type of input into a program, before the fact, as the cabinet and the government does. That is our responsibility. The hon. gentleman's responsibility, of course, is to criticize as constructively as possible, which he usually does in a very effective manner.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister.
Adult Occupational Training Act
As he mentioned a while ago that he had consultations in all provinces, I would like him to tell us the results of his discussions with his counterpart of the province of Quebec.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, these conferences with Quebec Labour Minister Cournoyer are presently in progress. I met the minister last Friday and there will be other meetings, I believe, in the near future with his officials.
At the moment, we are exchanging letters and documents and we have made some progress from one week to the other. Finally, I am convinced that I have done my duty and, as I wished to do, I have consulted as many provinces as I could, including Quebec, on all matters concerning Canadians, whether these bills came under federal or provincial jurisdiction, and sometimes under both.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to special order made this day.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. June 26. 1972