1973-02-14

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Fox:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
On Monday, a newspaper published in the national capital region appeared to be insinuating that some hon. members, myself included, had not met the requirements of the Canada Elections Act through failure to file their statutory return respecting election expenses with the local returning officer.
Mr. Speaker, this article is inaccurate. I filed the statement referred to with the returning officer of my constituency, on December 30 last, and I was accompanied by my official agent.
Furthermore, this return was later published in a newspaper in my constituency. The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, confirmed to me by telephone that the article was inaccurate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to ask leave of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the announcement today by the Canadian Wheat Board of the disastrously low final payments on wheat and oats and no payment at all on the barley pool. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the annual report on the Canadian Wheat Board be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and the Wheat Board and the minister be called to appear before the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



MANPOWER


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneui):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since the government has granted unlimited credits to the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the maintenance of unemployed Canadians while the Local Initiatives Program, which enables the unemployed to feel useful and to work, has very limited funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House should consider as soon as possible the means to be taken to make available to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration sufficient funds to carry out all the projects submitted, so that the unemployed who are now reduced to idleness may make a worthwhile contribution under the Local Initiatives Program.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Portneuf. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. Therefore the motion cannot be put at this time.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise under Standing Order 43. Shi guinjick nitsa ginyha she rinetha go, do ya shi gwooddj thuck dava thlee I enjit oonjit que zhit nitsa gin neeya.
I spoke in that fashion, Mr. Speaker, to make the point that I do not believe anyone in the House understood my words, nor do I think there are many people here who

Committee on Oil and Gas Production and Conservation understand the people of the Northwest Territories and their problems. Therefore, under Standing Order 43 I seek leave of the House to present a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), on an urgent and pressing matter involving our Canadian north and the northern people. I move:
That this House instruct the Ministers of Indian and Northern Affairs, and of Energy, Mines and Resources, to reconsider the appointments to the five-member committee on oil and gas production and conservation in the Canadian north and in off-shore areas, and that the committee be composed in such a way that it could understand the problems of the north and would truly represent the interests of the Canadian north and its native peoples.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Northwest Territories requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Speaker-


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


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for St. John's West. The hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham is rising on a question of privilege.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you for not being able to give you notice of a matter that just came to my attention and, in addition, the minister has just entered the House. Yesterday, before the Special Committee on Food Prices, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs referred to an unpublished study by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which he indicated had looked at the profits of the grocery store chains which in a period of rising costs showed declining profit margins. My point of privilege is that it is my understanding of the rules that if either a minister or a member refers to a report in the House or in a committee of the House that report should be tabled. Therefore my question of privilege is that the report should now be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of weak aspects to the proposition made by the hon. member. First, even though this matter has just been brought to the hon. member's attention there is still the requirement of the Standing Order that notice must be given. Second, I would think it is perhaps more a point of order than a question of privilege. Third, the hon. member is trying to bring into the House a matter raised in a committee, and that is entirely out of order. Fourth, the fact that a member or a minister has referred to a document in a committee does not require its tabling. It is only when it is quoted and cited that its tabling may be required.


Mr. McGrath:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as my colleague from Northumberland-Durham

mentioned, referred to and did in fact quote from an unpublished report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. My understanding is that the minister has a responsibility to table that document in the House once he quotes from it either in the House or before a standing committee. Unless the minister has something to hide, I suggest that he should in fact table that document.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has reiterated the point of order raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham. The fact remains that although I appreciate it is a point of order which is subject to interpretation and ruling from the Chair, the ruling in^respect of the point of order of the hon. member for St. John's East must be the same as the ruling I just made when the matter was raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, that this is a point which should be taken up in the committee. We cannot bring to the House a procedural debate that took place in a committee. I suggest respectfully to both hon. members-and of course I have no knowledge of what transpired in the committee-that even if an official document were cited, read or quoted from in a committee the rules and practice and the Standing Orders do not require that that document be tabled in the House. There must be a distinction between the proceedings in committees and the discussions, debates and proceedings in the House. It is a well known rule, which I am sure all members appreciate, that we cannot import into the House the debates, discussions and points of order which might legitimately be raised in a committee.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Then instruct the chairman, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I beg leave of the House to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I refer to the situation in Placentia, St. Mary's and other bays in Newfoundland where the Department of Fisheries has set quotas with respect to the herring fishery, thereby endangering the herring stock and causing a possible depletion, without first ascertaining, through scientific research, a safe sustainable yield of herring catches in these bays. I therefore move, seconded by -the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries to initiate immediately a thorough scientific investigation into the herring stock in Placentia and St. Mary's Bays in Newfoundland with a view to determining the size of the stock and the sustainable yield; and that pending the outcome of the investigation, strict conservation measures be adopted by imposing closing lines in the bays and that large purse seiners be barred from fishing in the areas so designated.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There are yeas and nays, and the fact that there are nays indicates that the motion cannot be put at this time.



DISPLAY OF CANADIAN FLAG-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask leave under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which I hold to be of national urgency. Tomorrow, February 15, will be the eighth anniversary of our Canadian flag. In most legislative bodies throughout the world, the national flag stands in a place of honour.
Knowing the spirit of good citizenship and patriotism of my hon. colleagues, who are all proud to be Canadians, I trust that my motion will get unanimous support without debate.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart):
That the Speaker of the House, following the adoption of this motion, be authorized as of February 15, 1973, to display the Canadian Flag in the House of Commons in such location as he chooses.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult for the Chair to determine whether there is unanimous consent. I might say that when some members say "agreed" and others say "d'ac-cord" it is perhaps even more difficult to make out what the consensus of the House is. I want to make sure, if there is unanimous censent, that it is made clear to the Chair. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Laprise:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi is rising on a point of order.
Cablevision


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, we gave unanimous consent on the preceding motion and we would like to have the same opportunity when we, in turn, present motions under Standing Order 43.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the current practice of some former government employees acting as consultants to their former departments upon leaving government service, thereby trading on the expertise and associations gained there, and in view of the number of former DREE employees now so engaged as consultants to applicants seeking DREE benefits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That this whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion with instructions to consider possible amendments to existing legislation or enactment of new legislation such as exists in other jurisdictions notably the United Kingdom, to halt this highly objectionable practice.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Central Nova. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



BROADCASTING


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I ask for unanimous consent to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As the Canadian Radio-Television Commission no longer issues cablevision licence in areas where only one television system is in operation, the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe areas will be cut off from an important source of information.
Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Dionne) I move:
That the minister responsible for the Department of the Secretary of State make representations to the CRTC in order to give those the information services they are entitled to.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion presented by the hon. member for Rimouski under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the hon. member that there is not unanimous consent. Therefore, his motion cannot be put at this time.



RURAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
February 9-Mr. Howard-Bill intituled: "An Act to provide for the establishment of Rural Airport Development Advisory Committees".
Mr. Speaker:: Before putting this motion I think I should advise the hon. member that the Chair has had an opportunity to look at the proposed bill and there are, to my way of thinking, money implications. The hon. member seems, at least in some respects in the bill, to infringe the financial initiative of the Crown. Perhaps some minor changes to the bill might make it acceptable from the procedural point of view, unless the hon. member has come to the House armed with the Royal Recommendation. He may have this in his possession, in his pocket, at the present time, and that, of course, would make the bill acceptable. If he does not possess this all-important procedural document, I would think it would be helpful if he would have a brief discussion with the parliamentary counsel. I am sure some slight adjustments would make the bill perfectly acceptable at least from the procedural standpoint. This is the advice I take the liberty of giving to the hon. member for Skeena.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I would not seek to obtain the royal authority you mentioned because I think that is an infringement upon the rights of all members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Howard: In any event, I have had a discussion with the law clerk of the House. Following that discussion the matter which I think you have your eye upon was put into order, but perhaps that information has not yet reached Your Honour. Therefore I will ask that the bill stand.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member and I shall look again at the proposed bill. As I said, the difficulty is not of a substantial nature and if that aspect is corrected the motion for introduction of the bill could then be put. The hon. member requests that the bill stand. Stand.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1970 (b) March 31, 1971(c) March 31,1972?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March
31.1970	(b) March 31,1971 (c) March 31,1972?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March
31.1970	(b) March 31,1971 (c) March 31, 1972?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
The amount credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account as of: (a) March 31, 1970, $3,695,308,333; (b) March 31, 1971, $4,097,595,197; (c) March 31, 1972, $4,607,185,498.
2.	Interest was paid on this account at the rate of 1.0000 per cent per quarter up until the quarter ending June 30, 1969. T.B. Minute 692055 dated September 25, 1969 amended section 35 of the Public Service superannuation regulations, and the actual interest rates subsequent to this date were as follows: Quarter ending September 30, 1969, 1.2416 per cent; quarter ending December 31, 1969, 1.2575 per cent; quarter ending March 31, 1970, 1.2868 per cent; quarter ending June 30, 1970, 1.3174 per cent; quarter ending September 30, 1970, 1.3262 per cent; quarter ending December 31, 1970, 1.3427 per cent; quarter ending March 31, 1971, 1.3597 per cent; quarter ending June 30, 1971, 1.3838 per cent; quarter ending September 30, 1971, 1.3896 per cent; quarter ending December 31, 1971, 1.4004 per cent; quarter ending March 31, 1972, 1.4157 per cent.
3.	The total amount of interest credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal year ending: (a) March 31, 1970, $130,993,152; (b) March 31, 1971, $147,693,942; (c) March 31, 1972, $163,707,472.
4.	The total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Fund during the fiscal year ending: (a) March 31, 1970, $95,880,827; (b) March 31, 1971, $107,680,817; (c) March 31, 1972, $118,635,547.
Note: The total annual amounts being credited to the account which include interest are set to be just sufficient to meet estimated future obligations under the act.


ESTABLISHMENT OF POST OFFICE IN NORTH DELTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Reynolds: Has the government any immediate plans to establish a post office in North Delta, British Columbia, which has a population of over 25,000 and, if so (a) on what date does the government intend to call tenders (b) on what date do they anticipate the post office will be completed?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: The post office and sub post offices in North Delta, appear to provide adequate service for the area. In addition, a letter carrier depot is being established to provide further service.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-HOPPER CARS
Mr. Gleave: Will the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board inform the House as to the status of the 2,000 hopper cars which he announced in the 28th Parliament would be purchased and put at the disposal of the Canadian Wheat Board and, if so (a) how many of these cars were in service as of January 1, 1973 (b) had an agreement been reached with the CNR and the CPR as to the recovery of depreciation and maintenance costs for this tank car fleet prior to putting these cars into service (c) does the Minister have assurance from the two major railroads that they will not reduce the numbers of their own rolling stock for the purpose of grain movement as and when the 2,000 hopper cars are made available (d) has an agreement been reached with the P.G. and E. Railroad for the use of these cars?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. (a) CP Rail 494; CN 292; (b) An interim operating agreement has been reached to permit the cars to be placed in service in the quickest possible time following manufacture. Negotiations have been going on prior to the first car going into service and are continuing to resolve the remaining outstanding matters; (c) Assurances have been given by the railways that they will not accelerate the retirement of their fleet of grain box cars; (d) No agreement is contemplated with the British Columbia Railway (formerly Pacific Great Eastern).


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE SIGNS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	By province since January 1,1972, how many (a) Detachments (b) automobiles or other vehicles have had the descriptive letters RCMP removed and the word "Police" substituted therefor?
2.	By province since September 1, 1972, on how many automobiles or vehicles have the said letters been restored?
3.	Under whose authority was such action under Parts 1 and 2 taken by the Solicitor General?
4.	Did the Prime Minister, as undertaken by him in a public statement, direct the restoration of said letters and, if so, on what date?
5.	Has there been a recent directive to the RCMP rescinding the earlier direction that the said letters should be restored and, if so, on what date, for what reason and under whose authority?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed as follows: (a) No building signs were altered, however, 26 signs containing the crest of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the word Police were installed on operational buildings replacing signs which contained the crest of the force and the words Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Gendarmerie royale du Canada. Additionally, 26 signs bearing the crest of the force and the word police were installed on new buildings previously unmarked which the force was occupying for the first time. (Annex 1) (b) Eighteen police vehicles had the shield containing the description letters RCMP removed and the shield containing the word police substituted therefor. Additionally, 622 police vehicles had the shield containing the word police installed as new or replacement vehicles previously unmarked. (Annex 2)
2.	Nil.
3.	The policy change for building and vehicle signs was authorized by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under section 5 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, the first building sign being taken
Order Paper Questions
into use in March, 1970 and the first vehicle signs in January 1972. The conversion of signs under this policy was discontinued on April 28, 1972 save in the case of 86 vehicles (included in the total of 622 vehicles referred to in Part 1 (b) which were marked subsequently to that date for reasons of operational necessity.
4.	No undertaking was given by the Prime Minister in the terms stated. He did indicate, however, in a public statement on April 27, 1972, that the program replacing RCMP insignia on buildings and patrol cars had been halted.
5.	Not applicable since, as stated in Part 4, no direction for the restoration of the letters RCMP had been given.
Mr. Speaker, there are two annexes to this question; I wonder if I could merely table them with the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION-PUBLIC RELATIONS CONTRACTS
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Public Service Commission on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms or individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	What contracts for publicity and/or information were awarded in the current fiscal year, what are the names and addresses of contractees, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
Year: 1968-69	Amount $	Nature of ServiceCanadian High News Ltd., 62 Shaftesbury Ave., Toronto 7, Ontario.	9,061.50	AdvertisingWhitsed Publishing Ltd., 42 Mercer, Toronto, Ontario	3,781.00	AdvertisingW. J. L. Gibbon & Associates Keith Road, West Vancouver, B.C.	4,070.00	Photos for recruitment literatureSaturday Night Publication Second Century Canada Publications Inc., 52 St. Clair Ave. E., Toronto 7, Ontario	3,083.00	AdvertisingMacLean-Hunter Ltd., 481 University Ave., Toronto 2, Ontario.	32,483.54	Advertising
February 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Nature of
Year: 1969-70	Amount	Service

Weekend Magazine, The Montreal Standards Publishing Co. Ltd., 231 St. James St. W., Montreal 126, P.Q.	4,103.00	AdvertisingSouthstar Publishers Ltd., The Simpson Tower, 401 Bay St., Toronto, Ontario.	4,280.00	AdvertisingYear: 1970-71	Townley Publishing Co. Ltd., 1129 Leslie St., Don Mills 403, Ontario.	4,581.62	AdvertisingYear: 1971-72	Keys Advertising Associate, 25 Hamilton North, Ottawa, Ontario.	9,592.50	AdvertisingUniversity and College Placement Assn., 254A Main Street North, Markham, Ontario.	3,200.00	AdvertisingCarousel Productions Ltd., 376 Churchill Ave., Suite 306 Ottawa 3, Ontario.	8,762.00	Production of Film StripsYear: 1972-73	Stewart Green Co. Ltd., 486 Bank Street, Ottawa, Ontario.	700.00	AdvertisingDonald Keyes Ltd., 25 Hamilton Ave. North, Ottawa 3, Ontario.	5,381.00	AdvertisingBreak, Pain & Watt Ltd., Box 88,	1,953.00	Advertising
Toronto Dominion Bank Tower,
Suite 3502,
Toronto, Ontario.


VICTORIA, B.C.-NUMBER OF DREE PERSONNEL
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	How many Department of Regional Economic Expansion personnel are there in the office or offices at 1175 Douglas Street, Victoria, B.C.?
2.	What is the annual or monthly rent for the premises (a) in total (b) per square foot?
3.	How many DREE projects were approved by or through that office in the period January 1 to November 1, 1972?
What is the total annual payroll for the personnel employed there?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Six
2.	(a) Annual rent for 2,368 square feet, $14,752.64. (b) $6.23 per square foot.
3.	The office's main operational role in the period in question was to analyze and recommend on provincial government proposals for action under the ARDA program. Nineteen projects calling for total federal assistance of about $2.4 million were dealt with in this way. During the period, however, local DREE personnel was

also involved in extensive discussions with provincial representatives which resulted in the signing of an agreement for the implementation of the Special ARDA program in B.C. The Victoria office is responsible for the administration of this new program and, while no projects had been approved as of November 1, 1972, 17 applications seeking federal assistance of approximately $5.4 million had been received and were under consideration. The Victoria office is not directly involved in the processing of applications under the Regional Development incentives Act, but does receive and deal with many enquiries and this activity represents an important part of its responsibilities.
4.	$67,734 for the 1972-73 fiscal year.


HOPPER CARS
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How many of the government's new hopper cars were allocated to (a) CPR (b) CNR?
2.	How many box cars previously used in grain movement have been scrapped since September 1,1972 by (a) CPR (b) CNR?
3.	Are there any restrictions placed on the use of the hopper cars in so far as what commodities will be carried?
4.	(a) What braking systems are used on the government's hopper cars (b) who designed the braking system, have all of the cars the same type of braking systems and, if not, which railway received each respective braking equipment (c) have there been any previous hopper cars built with the braking equipment now being used on the government's hopper cars and, if so, have any known defects been reported insofar as their use is concerned?
5.	Have there been any reported problems encountered with the hopper cars now being used by (a) CPR (b) CNR and, if so, what are these problems?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. (a) 1,074 CP Rail; (b) 926 CN.
2.	(a), (b); 46 CP, 344 CN. Box cars used in grain service are restricted to those with six foot doors. Figures include cars assigned exclusively to grain service and general purpose box cars not exclusively assigned.
3.	Restricted to the carriage of grain as defined in the wheat Board Act delivered to the railways from the western division.
4.	(a) The braking system incorporated on the cars is the AB freight brake equipment with B-l quick service valve. Aside from the quick service valve, the principal components include the ABD control valve and Wabcopac truck-mounted unit brake assemblies with 9" diameter brake cylinders; (b) The Brake system on all cars is designed by the manufacturers, Westinghouse Air Brake Company and New York Air Brake Co., to Association of American Railroads specifications; (c) All 100-ton covered hopper cars built for CP Rail since 1964 have AB freight brake equipment with Wabcopac brake assemblies but have not included the B-l quick service valve. The quick service valve is a relatively new development originally designed to provide more efficient braking on cars of more than average length but has more recently been adapted for use on any size of car to promote maximum possible response and uniformity in brake action. Its use is required, for example, on such long cars as multi-level autorack cars and the long variety of piggyback flat cars, and because of the length of brake pipe in the Canadian Wheat Board grain cars, it is considered desirable to install the quick service valve for optimum braking
February 14, 1973

response. No deficiencies in braking action have been experienced on CP Rail's several types of long cars such as multi-level cars and piggyback flats that are already equipped with B-l quick service valves.
5.	(a) CP Rail problems experienced are all of the failsafe variety and have involved either the failure of train brakes to release after an application, causing the train affected to stop, or the development of brake pipe leakage to such an extent that it has been impossible to start the train out of the yard until the cause has been found and remedied. In all cases where deficiencies have occurred, corrective action has been taken which has returned the cars to service in satisfactory condition; (b) CN: There has been a problem reported on the quick service valves. However, the nature of the problem is such that it could cause delays in charging time but does not affect braking ability of a train. In any event these valves were temporarily isolated before the cars entered service. They will not be used until the problem is rectified.


NUMBER OF POST OFFICE CALENDARS PRODUCED
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many 1973 calendars were produced by the Post Office Department, without charge?
2.	To whom were these calendars distributed?
3.	What is the name of the company that produced the calendars?
4.	What was the cost of production and distribution of these calendars?


André Ouellet: 1. 800,000.
2.	They were distributed through major post offices across the country, to the general public and to the business community. They were also mailed to post office employees.
3.	They were produced by Metropole Litho Inc., Montreal, for 1'Agence Canadienne de Publicity, an advertising agency.
4.	The production cost was $269,866.20. Distribution was effected through major post offices at no cost to recipients.


COMPANIES LISTED WITH DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Andre: 1.	How many companies are listed with the Director General, Scientific Procurement of the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	What is the distribution, by province, of the head offices of these companies?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Subsequent to the government's new contracting out R&D Policy announced last August 15, the Department of Supply and Services began to create a source information system specifically related to R&D contracting. To date 646 companies have been listed. In response to publicity inviting industry to register with DSS for potential contracts, it is expected that within the next few months this list could grow to two thousand or more.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Northwest Territories, 1; British Columbia, 39; Alberta, 26; Saskatchewan, 8; Manitoba, 23; Ontario, 369; Quebec, 159; New Brunswick, 5; Nova Scotia, 14; Prince Edward Island, 1; Newfoundland, 1.


ESTABLISHMENT OF REGULAR AIR SERVICE BETWEEN CUBA AND CANADA
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What discussions have been held concerning the establishment of a regular commercial air service between Cuba and Canada?
2.	What has been the result of such discussions?
3.	Is it contemplated that the service be between Halifax and Havana?
4.	Have officials of Eastern Provincial Airways been consulted on any negotiations for such a service?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: 1. There have been no negotiations between Canada and Cuba regarding the operation of scheduled air services between the two countries. At their request, Cuban officials, however, have been given information on Canadian policy respecting charter flights and were told that the Canadian government would expect Canadian carriers to have equitable participation in any charter flights organized between the two countries. The contractual arrangements with carriers would be a matter to be settled by those chartering the aircraft.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


DREE PROGRAM-GRANT TO WIRE ROPE INDUSTRIES OF CANADA LTD.
Mr. Cossitt: Has the government received any communications from Wire Rope Industries of Canada Ltd. on the subject of a possible government grant under the DREE Program for construction of a new plant in Quebec and, if so (a) what were the dates of such communications (b) who signed such communications on behalf of the Company (c) what action was taken by the government?


Marcel Prud'homme: The Department of Regional Economic Expansion must consider such information as confidential until an offer has been made and accepted. However, it can be said that, to date, no offer has been accepted by this Company.


COST OF PRODUCTION OF POST OFFICE CALENDARS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What was the total cost of production (including all editions) of the 1973 calendar printed by the Post Office Department?
2.	How many calendars were printed?
3.	Who was responsible for the content and indicated holidays?
4.	Was the Postmaster General aware of the content and indicated holidays before it was published?
5.	Were there two different editions printed of this calendar and, if so, for what reason?


André Ouellet: 1. $269,866.20.

February 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	800,000.
3.	L'Agence Canadienne de Publicity and Public Affairs Branch, Post Office Department.
4.	No.
5.	There was one edition which was revised after some errors were discovered.


ANNUAL REVENUE TO POST OFFICE IN LIBAU, MANITOBA
Mr. Rowland: In each of the past five years (a) what was the annual revenue of the Post Office in Libau, Manitoba (b) what was its annual operating cost?


André Ouellet: (a) Annual Revenue:	1967-68, $766.92;	1968-69, $625.32; 1969-70,
$696.47; 1970-71, $983.00; 1971-72, $986.00. (b) Annual operating costs for salary and rent only: 1967-68, $4,179.95; 1968-69, $4,443.38; 1969-70, $3,923.38; 1970-71, $3,796.53; 1971-72, $3,990.84.


PEI-DESIGNATED PORTS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What are the names of the fishing harbours in Prince Edward Island officially described as "designated ports"?
2.	How many other harbours are to be similarly designated?
3.	What are the criteria for the status of "designated port"?
4.	What part does the government play in the process of designation?
5 What reasons prevent Covehead from being a designated port?
6.	How do the maintenance and improvement responsibilities of the government differ as between designated and other ports?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. The fishing harbours in Prince Edward Island officially described as designated ports are: Tignish, Skinner's Pond, Mimine-gash, Howard's Cove, Abrams Village, Alberton, Rustico, Naufrage, North Lake, Graham's Pond, Murray Harbor (Beach Point), Malpeque, Morell, Wood Islands, Tracadie, Launching, Milligan's Wharf, French River and West Point.
2.	Under the development plan for P.E.I., the expansion of landing facilities is to be concentrated in some 14 to 20 ports. To date 19 have been designated thus leaving room for one more.
3.	The criteria used by the Province to determine which inshore fishing ports to propose for designation are: (a) distance from other ports; (b) numbers of fishermen and boats; (c) the weight and value of fish landed.
4.	The Federal-Provincial Joint Advisory Board, established under the terms of the agreement to administer the plan, considers for designation those inshore fishing ports which are proposed by the province and recommended by the plan management group. The government has equal representation with the province on the board and the management group.
5.	Covehead has not been proposed by the province for designation.

6.	The designated inshore fishing ports are eligible for assistance for the installation of new facilities and for the expansion of existing facilities to meet the needs of the fishing industry. Non-designated ports are eligible for assistance with essential maintenance only.


LOAN-EQUIPMENT TO HANDLE BULB FERTILIZERS
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the interest on the loan for the purchase of equipment to handle bulb fertilizers at Indian ports as announced in CIDA press release No. 72-59?
2.	Does the loan agreement call for the purchase of materials from Canada and, if so, what Canadian firms are benefitting from this program?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. This is an interest free loan repayable in 50 years with ten years grace before principal payments begin.
2.	The loan agreement specifies that the purchase of materials be made from Canadian suppliers. Canadian firms in receipt of contracts for equipment to date: (1) Buhler Brothers (Canada) Ltd., Don Mills, Ont.; (2) Robert Morse Corp. Ltd., Ville St. Pierre, Que.; (3) Crousse-Hinds Co. of Canada Ltd., Montreal, Que.; (4) Rex Chain Belt (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, Que.; (5) Aeromotive Manufacturing Co., Montreal, Que.; (6) Federal Equipment Eastern Div., Montreal, Que.; (7) Union Electric Supply Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.; (8) Jeffrey Mfg. Co. Ltd., Montreal, Que.


DEVELOPMENT OF EXTENSIVE COPPER DEPOSITS AT RAKHA IN BIHAR STATE
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Is there to be Canadian participation in the feasibility study for development of extensive copper deposits at Rakha in Bihar State as announced in CIDA press release No. 72-59 and, if so, to what extent?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to have Canadian participation in the mining production?
3.1s the $300,000 mentioned in the press release an outright grant or is it a loan?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. On November 23, 1972, the government of Canada entered into an agreement with the government of India in the form of a $300,000 grant to India concerning the provision of the services of Canadian consulting engineers for a feasibility study of the Rakha copper deposits in Bihar State.
2.	So far, this study will be undertaken with a view to providing recommendations on which to effect mine development and to supplying preliminary engineering studies of production operations at the Rakha copper mine site.
3.	The amount allocated is in the form of a grant.


RESTORATION OF PLACE ROYALE, QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion paid any money to the Government of the Province of Quebec under
February 14, 1973

the Canada-Quebec Agreement of 1970-1972 for the restoration of Place Royale in Quebec City?
2.	What was the amount paid as of December 31,1972?
3.	What is the estimated total cost of restoration?
4.	What will be the total share of the federal government?
5.	Was the federal government consulted on the awarding of contracts for Place Royale without public tenders, as stipulated in the Canada-Quebec Agreement of 1970?
6.	Was the decision to award contracts without tenders made by Mr. Yves Malepart of DREE or by the Minister?
7.	What were the main reasons for the decision?
8.	Will the total cost of the restoration be less since contracts were awarded without tender?


Marcel Prud'homme: 1. Yes.
2.	$3,795,000 in grants $586,000 in loans.
3.	Approximately $18 million to restore some 75 houses.
4.	The actual commitments of the federal government to date amount to $4,330,000 in grants and $1,150,000 in loans under the Canada-Quebec Agreement on Special Areas.
5.	Yes.
6.	This decision was made jointly by the minister and the hon. Robert Bourassa, following the recommendation of the Quebec Department of Cultural Affairs.
7.	The joint federal-provincial committee had granted the Quebec government a request that contracts for this project be given without tenders being called because the nature of the undertaking is such that firm prices could not be obtained for this kind of work. Officials of the department had investigated the matter and had sought the advice of federal experts before granting the request of the Quebec authorities.
8.	It is impossible to answer this question because, as stated above, the nature of the undertaking is such that firm prices cannot be obtained for this kind of work.


Mr. Speaker:: Starred Question No. 663.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, as the reply to Starred Question No. 663 is somewhat lengthy, I would ask permission of the House to have the answer printed as if read.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order relating to the documents just tabled by the Solicitor General on starred question No. 53, although he asked the permission of the House, perhaps they might also be printed as if read.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I would ask to table two annexes which were attached to the question and give further information.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Print them in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on that point, may I suggest that what the Solicitor General ought to have said is that they should be printed as an appendix to Hansard. If they are tabled, the documents will remain downstairs in the parliamentary returns office and, unless someone knows about them and gets copies of the docu-
Order Paper Questions
ments and relates them to the question, the toteil answer will be incomplete.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the starred question I placed on the order paper, No. 663, I am quite agreeable to having any schedules or tables printed as an appendix to Hansard but I cannot see why the answers to such questions should be so lengthy that they cannot be read in the House. If the answer extends over several pages, I could agree; otherwise, I should like to have it read.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps before the parliamentary secretary, who is apparently prepared to read the answer into the record, does so, I might say that it is my understanding that there is agreement that the annexes to which the Solicitor General referred be appended to Hansard. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For annexes to starred question No. 53 referred to above, see appendix.]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The answers to starred questions should always be read.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for suggesting that the answer be taken as read. I was trying to conserve the precious time of the chamber.


'CANADA PENSION PLAN-DISABLED PERSON'S PENSIONS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	What is the total number of "medical advisers" who advise the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to decisions on applications for a Disabled Person's Pension under the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	What are the required qualifications and experience of these advisers?
3.	Do all of the present advisers meet the qualifications outlined in Part 2?
4.	Are consultations required to be held with the "family doctor" when applications are made?
5.	Are consultations ever held with the applicant's family doctor and, if so, under what circumstances?
6.	Does the Minister personally review complaints concerning the decisions of his medical advisers?
7.	Is it the policy of the Department to disregard recommendations of an applicant's family doctor when applications are made for a Disabled Pension?
8.	How many applicants for the Disabled Pension have been personally examined by the Minister's medical advisers?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is: At present there are 13 full time medical advisers making recommendations with respect to Canada Pension Plan disability pensions. In addition, four medical advisers work on a parttime basis.
The answer to Part 2 is: The required qualifications for medical advisers are an M.D. degree from a recognized university together with some years of clinical experience and/or public health experience.
The answer to Part 3 is: Yes.

February 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
The answer to Part 4 is: A medical report from the records of the treating physician is requested by the applicant in each case and accordingly is included as part of the documentation upon which medical advisers advance their recommendations.
The answer to Part 5 is: The treating physician is contacted by the departmental medical adviser if more information is required on the current status of the applicant's medical condition.
The answer to Part 6 is: There is, in the law, a three-stage appeal procedure which applicants may pursue if they wish. However, the minister may review those complaints which are brought to his personal attention.
The answer to Part 7 is: No.
The answer to Part 8 is: Canada Pension Plan staff medical advisers do not personally examine applicants. However, specifialists in appropriate fields perform examinations at the request of the Canada Pension Plan when such examinations are felt necessary for recommendations to be made. Such special examinations are performed with the consent of the applicant and at the expense of the Canada Pension Plan Administration.


NUMBER OF STUDENTS HIRED BY DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES IN SUMMER 1971-72
Mr. Muir: 1.	How many students were hired by the Department of Supply and Services in the summers of 1971 and 1972?
2.	For how many months were they hired and what were they paid as an average wage?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. In 1971, 319 students; in 1972, 362 students.
2. In 1971 students were hired for a total of 795 months. In 1972 students were hired for a total of 985 months. In 1971 the average monthly wage paid was $441. In 1972 the average monthly wage paid was $409. In 1971 the average summer wage paid was $1,243. In 1972 the average summer wage paid was $1,137.


POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	During 1972, did the Post Office prohibit postal service for any books published (a) by Canadian firms (b) by firms outside Canada?
2.	What were the titles of these books?


André Ouellet: 1. (a) No; (b)
No.
2. Not applicable.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION INVOLVEMENT IN HIRING PROCESS FOR PEI DEPARTMENTS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1. Was the Department of Regional Economic Expansion involved in the hiring process of the following personnel of the Department of the Environment and Tourism for the Province of
Prince Edward Island (a) General Manager, Tourism Marketing Branch (b) General Manager, Parks and Resorts Branch (c) Senior Planning Officer (d) Tourist Literature Specialist?
2.	Did the Department participate in any way in the advertisement campaign for these jobs?
3.	Did the Department require the Province of Prince Edward Island to advertise in selected regions of Canada and, if so, what were these locations?
4.	Did the Department set the criteria for any of these jobs?
5.	Did any officer of the Department participate in any of the interviews held for these jobs and, if so, where were the interviews for these jobs held and for what reason?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, the reply is as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	No.


&quot;COMMUNICATION '73&quot;
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What was the cost of producing "Communication '73", No. 30, published January, 1973?
2.	What is the distribution list for this publication?
3.	How many copies of the January issue were printed and how many mailed?


André Ouellet: 1. $2,435.87.
2.	All post office employees, Senators, Members of Parliament and some news media.
3.	(i) 50,000, (ii) 48,410.


THIRD NATIONAL PARK ON EASTERN SHORE OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With respect to the answer to question Number 145, will the government now advise the House when the evaluation of the public meetings referred to will be completed?
2.	Will the government advise whether there is an expiry date on the Memorandum of Agreement and, if so, when wi! 1 the Memorandum lapse?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to Part 1 is as follows. The evaluation is being carried out in conjunction with the Province of Nova Scotia. No advice concerning the date of its completion is yet available.
The answer to Part 2 is as follows: The Memorandum of Agreement itself has no expiry date. The memorandum does suggest that certain tasks to be performed by a joint federal-provincial committee be completed and reported on within six months of the signing of the memorandum. The option to extend the time limit for this report is available to both governments.

February 14, 1973


CANADA PENSION PLAN BENEFITS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many people applied for Canada Pension Plan benefits because of disability and did not qualify for the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many people were classified as being disabled and supported by their own doctor's report did not qualify for the Canada Pension after being assessed by doctors employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare for the years 1969, 1970,1971 and 1972?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the first part of the question with respect ot the year 1969, the question is not applicable because disability pensions commenced to be paid under the Canada Pension Plan from February, 1970, only. With respect to 1970, the determined as disabled numbered 3,087. The determined as not disabled numbered 670. The figure for action discontinued due to application withdrawal or insuffient earnings is 203, and the total for the year 1970 is 3,960. For 1971 the figures are as follows: determined as disabled, 10,019; determined as not disabled, 2,259; action discontinued due to application withdrawal or insufficient earnings, 480, the total for the year 1971 being 12,758. With respect to 1972 the figures are as follows: determined as disabled, 14,951; determined as not disabled, 4,572; action discontinued due to application withdrawal or insufficient earnings, 640, the total for 1972 being 20,163.
The answer to Part 2 of the question is as follows: In the case of disability pension applications under the Canada Pension Plan, the applicants' own physicians are not asked to determine whether a person is disabled under the Canada Pension Plan legislation, since the decision is more than purely medical in nature and must be made, as required by the legislation, by the Canada Pension Plan Administration. The applicant's physician is simply asked for objective findings of any functional limitations. This procedure, including the medical report form answered by physicians, was approved by a committee of experts on disability assessment, which included a representative from The Canadian Medical Association.
The statistics of the nature requested are not kept since the applicant's physician is only forwarding a medical report; that is, the physicians are requested to report their objective findings, rather than to provide their opinion as to whether the applicant meets the requirements of the Canada Pension Plan legislation.
After the application is received along with the medical and other reports, if it is felt that more medical information is required, the applicant is asked to undergo an examination by a medical specialist (consultant) at Canada Pension Plan expense. With this information, a large number of applicants are able to complete the legislative requirements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Despite the exchange which took place earlier between the parliamentary secretary and other hon. members, I would think that an attempt should be made by the House to consider the terms of Standing Order 39(4) which provides:
If a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the Minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the
Order Paper Questions
form of a return, and the Minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the Table-
Clearly, the answer may be made an order for return. That has been the long established practice of the House. In such a situation the reply is made by the House itself an order for return. I would hope that this might be done in relation to the answer which the parliamentary secretary is giving to the House at present. I am not sure how long he has yet to go, but I would hope that there would be consent to make this reply an order for return.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I think there are about 15 more words to go, if the House would be satisfied with English; if it wants the reply in French, it will take a little longer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it might be agreed that the reply be made an order for return.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Return tabled.


POST OFFICE-INSUFFICIENT POSTAGE ON LETTERS FROM LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Cossitt: Did the Post Office Department collect any postage due because of insufficient postage being placed by the Liberal Party of Canada on imitation personal letters from the Prime Minister and mailed to approximately 35 constituencies, including Leeds, shortly before October 30, 1972 and, if so (a) what was the amount of overdue postage paid (b) what was the date the Department received such payment?


André Ouellet: Yes. (a) $130.56; (b) October 27, 1972.


NUMBER OF UNITED STATES DRAFT EVADERS IN CANADA
Mr. Diefenbaker: What is the government's estimate of the number of United States draft evaders in Canada?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that an applicant from the United States is, or may be, seeking to avoid military service in his own country is not considered in determining his admissibility to Canada. Consequently draft evaders are not identified as such in Immigration records and, short of conducting a special survey or registration, it is not possible to provide an estimate, based on other than a guess, of the members in Canada.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Ninety thousand.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I can be told when I may expect an answer to my starred question No. 811 in which I ask whether the Minister of Finance has had discussions with the chartered banks regarding the escalating of the pensions of their retired employees.

February 14, 1973
Vancouver Airport


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to escalate the answer.


MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 INDIAN AFFAIRS CLAIMS OF JAMES BAY AREA NATIVES AFFECTED BY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 26 to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the lack of direct participation by the federal government in the claims of the James Bay Indian people affected by the James Bay hydroelectric project, the exposure of apparently conflicting cabinet positions, and what appears to be an abdication of the federal government's constitutional responsibilities to act on behalf of the Indians of James Bay at the insistence of the provincial government which created the development corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and The Islands has filed the notice required by Standing Order 26. This has provided an opportunity to give serious consideration to the hon. member's proposed motion. The Standing Order requires the mover to state the matter proposed to be discussed. In this particular instance the hon. member proposes for debate, "the lack of direct participation by the federal government in the claims of the James Bay Indian people", and later, "what appears to be an abdication of the federal government's constitutional responsibilities".
With respect, the Chair must suggest to the hon. member that her proposed motion is essentially one of censure which the House would normally consider in circumstances provided by Standing Orders other than Standing Order 26. In other words, what is proposed for debate is a substantive motion which cannot claim the priority provided by Standing Order 26.
With much regret, I have to rule, therefore, that this motion cannot be put to the House.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, that during the currency of public hearings under the Expropriation Act concerning the Cora Brown, Tapp Road and MacDonald

Subdivisions, Sea Island, Vancouver International Airport, British Columbia, which must be resolved before March 4, 1973, ministers of the Crown have refused to provide those affected with the information they have requested, contrary to specific provisions of the Expropriation Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta proposes that the business of the House be set aside for the purpose of an emergency debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26. In support of his motion the hon. member has been kind enough to file with the Chair some very interesting and enlightening material, for which I thank him.
As hon. members know, it is only in very exceptional circumstances and on rare occasions that the provisions of Standing Order 26 are used for the purpose of setting aside the business proposed for consideration by the House, as previously announced by a spokesman for the government, and usually after Consultation between the parties. Standing Order 26, as well as numerous precedents and rulings, determines the conditions required to accept such a motion.
One of the elements to be taken into account is whether the motion proposed for discussion is a new matter requiring immediate debate. It is essential to note that it is not the urgency of the matter which is relevant but the urgency of debate. If the matter is one on which there has been continuing discussion over a period of time, it can hardly be judged to meet this particular requirement.
In fact, in this instance the question was first raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South on January 15 last when he proposed to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On the following day the same matter was raised again and this time it was discussed on the adjournment proceedings; indeed, priority was given to the hon. member for Vancouver South to raise this question on the adjournment proceedings on the basis of the then urgency of the matter. On January 19 the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 which in effect dealt with the same question as he now proposes under Standing Order 26. Essentially the same question was raised on January 31 by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West when he proposed to move a motion under Standing Order 43 dealing with the expropriation proceedings at the Vancouver International Airport. On February 1 the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta again brought the matter before the House during the proceedings on the adjournment motion. Once more, on the 8th of February, the same question was raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition by way of a question to and reply from the hon. Minister of Transport.
It will thus be seen that over a period of approximately one month this very important and, I am sure, urgent matter has been brought to the attention of the House by concerned members.
The Chair also has to take into account the possibility of debate within a reasonable time. I would judge that the budget debate, which is one of the general debates during which such matters can be brought forward for debate, should provide an opportunity for the submission of addi-
February 14, 1973

tional representations and the expression of additional views for the information and guidance of the government. It can be assumed that the budget debate will be called on government orders for a few days next week. If this should not take place, the Chair would be prepared to review the situation if a similar motion were proposed again at that time. For today, however, the Chair cannot agree to set aside the government business scheduled for today. I regret, therefore, that the hon. member's motion cannot be put under the terms of Standing Order 26.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 43 is acceptable to the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTRACTS INTO FORMAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE FOUNDERING OF THE &quot;SS PATRICK MORRIS&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43-Mr. Marshall:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence in reply to extracts and recommendations from the report of the formal investigation into the foundering of the SS Patrick Morris.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 35, 115, 116, 117 and 133 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of hon. members that motions Nos. 35, 115, 116, 117 and 133 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPY OF REPRESENTATIONS RELATING TO APPLICATION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO PROSPECTORS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all representations received by the government, or any agency, department or branch thereof since July 1, 1971 relating to the application of the Income Tax Act to prospectors.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 115-Mr. Firth:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports prepared within or for the government concerning the social and economic impact of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline on the livelihood of native people.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 116-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the government and the consortium of private corporations established for the purpose of promoting the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 117-Mr. Saltsman:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports prepared within or for the government concerning the economic implications of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 133-Mr. Howard:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Stanbury-Fields report on the taxation of Indian people and Indian bands in the province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 126 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 126 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CORRESPONDENCE DEALING WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PARKS IN QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 126-Mr. Knight:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all agreements made with the province of Quebec in the past several years dealing with the establishment of national parks in that province.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 14, 1973
Motions for Papers
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 33 and 86.


REPORT OF THE LEGISLATION REVIEW COMMITTEE, CHAIRED BY JOHN G. BRYDEN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Forrestall:
That an Order of the House do issue for the tabling of the Report of the Legislation Review Committee, chaired by John G. Bryden.
John Mercer Reid: The Bryden report was commissioned on the understanding that it was to be an internal, confidential document for the use of the minister through whom the Public Service Staff Relations Board reports to parliament. It is for this reason that the Bryden report has not been released. When the proposals relating to changes to be made in the Public Service Staff Relations Act are presented to the House, however, the government will then review the situation to determine whether it would be in the public interest to publish the report. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps this might be an appropriate occasion to remind hon. members that when parliamentary secretaries and members of the government reply to these motions, although a brief explanation to the House might be helpful there should not be an extended reply. I am not saying that this is what was done in this particular instance, but this might be an appropriate time to place this caveat on the record.


Mr. Forrestall:: I ask that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


BRYDEN REPORT RELATING TO REVISION OF PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the so-called Bryden report concerning the revision of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which was submitted to the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration in June 1971.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with exactly the same subject matter as the last. Therefore I appeal to the hon. member to withdraw it for the same reason.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appeal to Your Honour to put the question.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 133, which admittedly only has the date of February 6 on it, relates to the Stanbury-Fields report on the taxation of Indian people and Indian lands

in the province of British Columbia. During the previous session in the last parliament the House passed such a motion subject to the agreement of the province of British Columbia. That agreement has now been given in a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whom I am very pleased to see back in the House in good health. We wish him the best from now on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: In view of this piece,of past history regarding endorsement being given by the province of British Columbia to the tabling of this report, I wonder whether the matter could be proceeded with.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for his kind words. I should like to inform the House that the document will be tabled within the next few days.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and is based on last night's report released by CTV with respect to the lack of federal participation in the claims of the James Bay Indian people. Can the minister tell the House if the role of the federal government is now relegated to that of an observer, as directed by the chief negotiator for the province of Quebec; and has the federal role been confined so as to prevent the government from participating in the negotiations and, if so, why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is true that on certain occasions the representative of the provincial government wanted to make a distinction between the federal government and the Indians, but I never accepted that policy and each time the Quebec Indians asked me to attend, I complied. I must say in that connection that I met four or five times with the Quebec premier but unfortunately we could not come to an agreement and the Indians have decided to lodge legal proceedings. As all hon. members know, in my capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs, I am pleased to grant them funds so they may plead their case before the court and it will now be heard in Montreal.
February 14, 1973


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I still feel that the government is abdicating its constitutional responsibility. May I direct a further supplementary question to the minister. In view of the three different positions taken by cabinet with regard to the claims of the James Bay Indian people as outlined in the memo to cabinet of July 6, 1972, the first being that of "alert neutrality" on October 21, 1971, the second being that of "being a party to the negotiations" on May 9, 1972, and the third being that of "restricted to the role of an observer", can the minister say which of these three now is the position of the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are being less paternalistic than some other people would like us to be. We have always followed in all circumstances the wishes of the Indians and have assisted them as often as possible. When they decided to go to court to defend themselves, I gave them some help and I am ready to help them in all possible ways. But, of course, I do not intend to be paternalistic, and I know they are capable of defending themselves.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the minister acknowledge that the National Indian Brotherhood has requested that the minister assist them in their representations before the courts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, two groups are involved, the Quebec Indian Association and the National Indian Brotherhood. The case in court has been put forward by the Quebec Indian Association and, as I say, I have helped them put their case before the court. I am in constant contact with these people; in fact, I had the pleasure of meeting their representatives about 10 days ago.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-STUDY OF EFFECT ON ENVIRONMENT OF NATIVE PEOPLE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary question. Has he caused to be conducted any inquiry into the effect of this proposed undertaking upon the environment, life and habitat of the native people in the area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the consequences. As for the department which I am heading, we are concerned with the interests of the Indian people and their traditional way of life. We have held numerous discussions with them and we are endeavouring to protect their interests. They have decided to take their case before the court and it would not be advisable for me to discuss the heart of the problem since their case is before the Superior Court in Montreal.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has any formal, systematic study been made of the environmental effects resulting from this development, particularly upon the native peoples, and is the minister prepared to make the study public?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the question concerning ecology in this area has been considered and I think that the Minister of the Environment could perhaps answer this question.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might try to reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition. We are now in the second phase of studies, the first phase having been completed in the fall of 1971. A summary report was published and widely distributed. There are 40 supporting reports available to anyone who is interested. More detailed studies are now under way at a cost roughly of $8 million, and jointly financed by the Quebec government and the federal government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister indicate approximately when the results of these studies in the second phase will be made public?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I expect that a number of the studies being undertaken in the second phase will be completed this year and their publication will begin in the fall.


CLAIMS OF JAMES BAY AREA NATIVES-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING COURT CASE
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one or two questions on this matter. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has told us that the matter is now before the court and therefore he cannot discuss certain aspects of it. But would he inform the House whether the native people affected in the James Bay area asked him before they went to court to carry out the responsibilities that the federal government has under the British North America Act as well as the Indian Act and to represent them in negotiations in order to protect their interest in that area before they were forced to go to court?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House that the Indians themselves came to see me and asked me to help them take the case before the courts; I used my authority to give them the funds required to retain the services of the best legal advisers they could find. We gave them all the information they requested. The Indians never asked me to take over their case. They themselves decided to take it before the courts, and I gave them all the help I could.


David Lewis: In view of the responsibility of the federal parliament and government to protect the Indian people in that area, both under the act that gave that area to Quebec and under other statutes, has the minister given consideration to his responsibility to be in court to support the position of the native people in that area instead of merely providing them with legal assistance?

February 14, 1973
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been directly summoned to the court and I believe the proceedings are now going quite smoothly. An observer from my department is following them, I have regular meetings with the Indians, I offer them all the assistance required and if I am summoned to give evidence-I do not know whether I shall be-I am quite ready to comply with the orders of the court, but I can do no more than keep the court informed of legislation. The attorneys in charge of the case for the Indians have already informed the court of existing legislation, i.e. the Indian Act and the 1912 Act of Transfer.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I put this straightforward question to the minister in the hope that I can get a straightforward answer.


Erik Nielsen: I doubt it.


David Lewis: Does the minister accept the responsibility of the federal government and parliament for the condition of the Indians in that area, despite annexation of the territory to Quebec under an act and, if so, exactly what plans does he have to protect the welfare of the native people in the area who are bound to be affected by the development which has now started?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the hon. member but the question he has now asked is a legal one. I accept my responsibilities as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I do not believe the Indians of the province of Quebec have complained at any time of my attitude toward them.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-MEASURES TO PROTECT QUEBEC INTERESTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette on a supplementary.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
We are all aware of his concern about his responsibilities towards the Indians and my question is as follows: is he willing to do as much to protect as well the interests of the province of Quebec with regard to the James Bay development project?
Hon. ]ean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, my primary responsibility is the protection of the interests of the Indians; I have repeatedly asked the Quebec government to sit at a table and come to an agreement, but it was felt that the Indians had no rights. Today, their case is before the courts. We will know whether or not they have rights; as

for me, I must fulfil my obligations and help the Indians as much as possible.


CLAIMS OF JAMES BAY AREA NATIVES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT POSITION
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. In light of the decision of the federal-provincial cabinet committee on May 9, 1972, that in view of its constitutional position in respect of Indians and the lands reserved for Indians the federal government has a vested interest in the settlement of the Indian claims and should be a party to the negotiations, will the government now make known its support for the Indians of the Quebec Indian Association either by clearly stating its position to the House on motions tomorrow or by reasserting the position that it indeed has a vested interest in the settlement of the Indian claims and should be a party to the negotiations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in that question. I stated in the House on various occasions what was my position as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and as I said earlier, I will endeavour to help the Indians protect their interests in the James Bay area.


Erik Nielsen: In light of the minister's answer, is the government prepared now to make known its support of the position of the Indians of the Quebec Indian Association in a statement before the interlocutory injunction hearing?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question on several occasions and stated what had been the government interventions. I wish to point out to the House that I am in constant communication with the Quebec Indians and that such a request could not be made at the present time; besides the Indians themselves did not ask for it.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION CONCERNING CONTINUATION OF DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say what is the policy of his department concerning the works now under way at James Bay?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have no direct jurisdiction over that area, but we do have one over the Indian rights and it is precisely because the works are carried out that the Indians have applied for an order of the Superior Court. Indeed, it rests with the court to decide whether the works must be stopped or not, but the specific request made to the court is that they be stopped.
February 14, 1973


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my quesiton is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the government been informed that the chairman of the James Bay Development Corporation has been appointed mayor of the James Bay municipality with a mandate given by the provincial government for regional development, and is the federal government prepared to assist the area under the terms of federal regional development legislation?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister oi Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as to the appointment of the gentleman in question, I have no formal knowledge of it other than what is public knowledge, nor have there been any discussions between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec with regard to this region. As things stand at the moment, the region would not be entitled to special assistance under the Regional Development Incentives Act but, of course, Quebec is free at any time to make submissions to us with regard to the region. As of the present moment it has not done so.


JAMES BAY AREA-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF QUEBEC DEVELOPMENT ACT
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development back at work. I wish him continued good health because I think his presence makes for a very interesting question period. Has the federal government decided to refer the James Bay region development act, passed by the Quebec National Assembly, to the courts of this land for determination as to its constitutional validity?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question is part of the application made by the Indians to the court and I think that one of the aims of their procedure is to determine whether the legislation passed by Quebec is constitutional. It would not be proper for me now to make further comments.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment.
Could he say whether it is the federal government or that of Quebec which has the first responsibility for the joint ecological study made by both governments on the James Bay basin?
Oral Questions


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, personnel carrying out these studies are supplied by both levels of government and consultants are also being retained by both levels of government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously there is widespread interest in this matter. Before going to the next subject the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. If there is time at the end of the question period we might return to this matter, but I have some doubts whether that will be possible.


JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY TO INDIANS AFFECTED
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the purpose of clarification. Is it the position of the government that the government of Canada has no responsibility to the Indian people in the James Bay area on this question beyond the payment of some conscience money and, if not, what are the responsibilities recognized and accepted by the government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, obviously this question is a bit startling because we accept all responsibilities which are ours under both the Indian Act and the act of 1912.


SHIPPING
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, St. Valentine's Day seems to be an appropriate occasion upon which to ask the Minister of Transport about the Darling report which has been in the possession of his department for some two years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to ask the minister whether he has yet made any decision with reference to the recommendations in the report of the inquiry on the coasting trade of Canada and related maritime activity, particularly with reference to the recommendation that Canadian coastal waters be reserved for Canadian flag vessels. Has any decision been made in respect of this matter, since it is of tremendous importance to those on the east and the west coasts of Canada?


An hon. Member:: Give us a sweetheart answer.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member and am anxious to have this report implemented. But before doing so I

February 14, 1973
Oral Questions
should like to meet with the premiers of the maritime provinces to study the impact of the recommendation on transportation prices and to see what kind of solution we can bring about. We have a problem of a shortage of crews as well as a shortage of ships, and I should like to know exactly what would be the total impact whenever we decide to implement the report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the importance of creating jobs on both coasts, and the need for keeping our coastal waters clear of pollution by having ships under Canadian control, can the minister give the House any idea when he will have completed his discussions, which should have been held some time ago, and when he will be able to make a report to the House regarding a decision on this matter?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member knows how we have had to stay around these days in order to attend sessions of the House. As soon as we can I will meet with the premiers in an effort to solve this problem.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, although it might be a good idea if this matter were referred to the standing committee for review, whether implementation of the Darling report is in any way related to the rewriting of the Canada Shipping Act and, if so, does the minister intend to rewrite that act prior to any serious consideration of the Darling report?


Jean Marchand: That calls for a legal opinion which I am not in a position to give, but it is my opinion that we can implement the Darling report without amending the Canada Shipping Act.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport a supplementary question. Inasmuch as the Darling report and its examination involve matters which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada and the minister's department, why does he want to talk with the premiers of the maritime provinces about it?


MANPOWER
Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Concerning projects submitted under the Local Initiatives Program, we all know that there is a study and selection committee. Would the minister tell this House since when projects are submitted to the Liberal caucus for final approved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the House whether he is aware of the fact that political committees, at the riding level, cooperate with some officials of his department in order to give political approval or disapproval to certain projects?


Robert Knight Andras: No, Mr. Speaker.


BARLEY-REASON FOR NO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1971-72 CROP YEAR
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Can he explain to the House and the country why there has been no final payment on barley? Was the surplus used to pay off losses in previous years?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The pool to which the hon. member refers is for the crop year 1971-72. The pools have been closed for all three grains. In those years world prices were at a very low level, and accordingly the final payment is small. I am happy to say that the situation has been corrected and that the farmers can look forward to higher returns.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister referred to a small final payment. My understanding of the announcement made today is that there will be no final payment.


Otto Emil Lang: I was referring to all three grains. In the case of barley, there was a deficit in the pool of approximately $3.8 million which, of course, will be borne by the treasury in accordance with the standard practice.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Now that the final pool has been audited, will the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board be referred to the committee on agriculture, as has been the practice of the House over the past number of years?


Otto Emil Lang: We will certainly be following the practice of making the annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board available to the committee.


BARLEY-EXPECTED INITIAL PAYMENT AND ACREAGE TO BE PLANTED THIS YEAR
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: My question is supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and is addressed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Since there is not to be a final payment for barley for the 1971-72 year, and since this could have an effect on the barley acreage to be planted this year in western Canada, could the minister tell the House what acreage and what initial payment can be expected this year for barley?
February 14, 1973


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would hope to be able to inform the House about this fairly soon, because we are moving toward the time of issuing a regular letter to producers about initial prices, probable quotas and, therefore, also market opportunities. I should remind hon. members that the $3.8 million deficit in the barley pool results partly from the initial price of barley being increased for 1971-72, with the specific object at that time of encouraging additional barley production so that we could go into the market and establish markets which are now paying off at better prices.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, is the Wheat Board giving serious consideration at the present time to making an initial payment, in respect of barley, of $1.15 a bushel for this coming year with at least a 40-bushel quota to ensure that we will have sufficient feed grain, specifically barley, to meet export and domestic requirements?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, for this year the Wheat Board is watching the quota situation and the delivery situation. At the present time there is on hand a significant quantity of barley and of wheat. This has been noted in the House on other occasions in respect of certain elevators being congested. As the spring movement of grain develops with the opening of Thunder Bay, we will continue to see a very rapid movement of barley and wheat, as well as rapeseed, and hon. members can be assured that quotas will be opened at that point by the Wheat Board to enable the farmers to deliver barley at a far greater volume than in past years.


SUGGESTED NEGOTIATION OF PRICES THROUGH UNITED NATIONS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, since the level of prices which has denied the farmers a final payment on barley this year stems from the negotiations that were carried out in respect of grains under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, can the minister give the House some assurance that in the 1973 negotiations we will seek to have prices and grades negotiated through the United Nations rather than under GATT?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question as it relates to barley is completely false because, of course, barley was not the subject of an international agreement and therefore was not in any way affected by any negotiations concerning its price. In the case of wheat, of course, it was not the International Grains Arrangement which led to the lowering of the price but, rather, the failure of our chief competitors to adhere to that agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we can return to this matter later, but for the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Albert.


WHEAT-REASON FOR LOW FINAL PAYMENT FOR CROP YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1972
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the questions asked in connection with the final payment, I should like to ask the Minister of
Oral Questions
Justice whether the distressingly low, even meagre, final payment made for wheat arose because sales of Canadian wheat in the year ended July 31,1972, were made, internationally, below the cost of production?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the size of the final payment depends specifically upon the amount of money obtained by the Canadian Wheat Board from the sale of Canadian grain in markets, less the initial price paid to farmers at the time of delivery. Therefore the final payment is dependent directly upon the price obtainable by the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board, in my judgment, did an extremely good job in obtaining the best possible price in a world marketing situation where it had to remain competitive.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall not criticize the Canadian Wheat Board, because it was the Conservative party that set it up. I ask the minister to answer the question. Is the low final payment for wheat for the year ended July 31, 1972, the result of the policy of this government of permitting the sale of our wheat below the cost of production? That is the question. The verbose explanation of the minister did not answer it.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, if the Wheat Board had been left with only the powers given to it by the Conservative government it would have never worked at all, and that is what the colleagues of the hon. member would like to see happen again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has given his answer, and the fact that he cannot answer indicates that what I suggested was so. Did not the minister, when speaking in Minneapolis last March 12, say that one of the great difficulties in marketing wheat at that time was that it was being sold below the cost of production?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman knows, of course, that questions cannot be asked about statements made by ministers outside the House except for questions asking the Prime Minister whether such statements represent government policy. Perhaps the question might be redrafted.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will try to put it in such a way that the minister will be able to answer.


An hon. Member:: Make it really simple.


John George Diefenbaker: As of July 31 last, Canada had two contracts with the U.S.S.R. for wheat.


An hon. Member:: Question!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member does not even know what wheat is; he thinks it grows on trees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In those two contracts, under which 90,100,000 bushels were delivered between July 31 and
1280

February 14, 1973
Oral Questions
December 31, were the prices to the U.S.S.R. below the cost oi production?


Otto Emil Lang: I am glad that the right hon. gentleman has been able to rephrase his question so that it is in order and therefore I have an opportunity to answer it. The prices which were obtained from the U.S.S.R. in those agreements were, in the judgment of the Canadian Wheat Board, the best possible prices obtainable at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Any suggestion to the contrary can only come from those who would want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: With a few more ministers like this minister, the Wheat Board will be destroyed, because that is what happens when wheat is sold below the cost of production.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that almost 200 people who purchased condominium apartments at 980 Broadview Avenue, Toronto, have had their purchase contracts cancelled by the builder, Halliwell Terrace Limited, by the use of a "loogal leaphole"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: -legal loophole in the act stand to lose their apartments unless they pay $1,600 to $4,000 more, would the minister look into this matter and advise the House whether the building has been financed under NHA? If so, would he require the builder to register the condominium plan forthwith with the municipality and the province so that the contracts may be binding and enforceable and people may retain their apartments without having to pay the price increase?


Hon. Ron Basiord (Minister oi State ior Urban Aifairs):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has contacted my office on this matter. We are making inquiries to see whether CMHC is involved and, if it is, whether there is something we can do for the purchasers who seem to have been abused in this case.


John Gilbert: Would the minister assure the House that any builder using NHA financing or CMHC financing would be prohibited from using this legal chicanery exemplified by Halliwell Terrace Limited?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not sure I should leap into that loophole, Mr. Speaker. However, we did mention in the Speech from the Throne a plan that we would be putting forward

for the provision of a system of warranties for purchasers of new homes which would include, of course, condominium units. This is being worked out at present.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is further to a question I asked in the. House a week or so ago regarding Ronald Patrick Lippert, a Canadian citizen from Kitchener, Ontario, who has spent ten years of his life, as part of a 30-year sentence, in a Cuban jail. Can the minister at this time give assurances to the House that the government is willing to undertake immediate negotiations with the Cuban government for the release of Mr. Lippert?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we were in touch with Mr. Lippert from our embassy in Cuba as recently as January 25, 1973. We are prepared to give him all possible assistance. I can add that he is in very good health.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yesterday the minister announced in the House details concerning the release of Canadians imprisoned in Viet Nam. Especially in view of the age and state of health of Mr. Lippert's mother, and in view of Mr. Lippert's diabetic condition, is the minister willing to treat this Canadian, imprisoned in Cuba for ten years, with the same degree of attention and importance?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have treated this matter with great importance. We have made representations to the Cuban government. I am sure the hon. member is familiar with the circumstances of the case and would not want me to reveal them here.


NEGOTIATIONS WITH CUBA RESPECTING AIRCRAFT HIJACKING
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister regarding a problem in Cuba. How is our combined delegation from the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Transport and the Department of Justice, I believe, together with officials of the Canadian Transport Commission, doing in Cuba in working out an air piracy and hijacking agreement, especially in view of the fact that the United States seems to have signed one already? Or does the minister think we should negotiate through Switzerland?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the House that we have reached the substance of an agreement with Cuba, just as has the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Does he intend to meet the officials of the Centre d'in-formation et d'animation communautaire (CIAC) of the Ste. Scholastique area who are complaining of inequitable action taken against them by the government in expropriating their property and in this handling of various problems resulting from the expropriation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if they ask me to meet them, I shall certainly do so, and gladly. It should, however, be remembered that of 3,250 expropriations fewer than one hundred cases are still pending, and I feel that the population as a whole is satisfied.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford on a supplementary.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Public Works.
Does he intend to review himself the cases just mentioned by the Minister of Transport? In fact, some residents of the Ste. Scholastique area not only have not been paid, following expropriation of their property, but are being charged prohibitive rents to remain in their own homes without any agreement having been reached.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question comes under the jurisdiction of my department. Rents paid are those current in the area. We do not want to compete unfairly with other landlords and there has been no abuse, and those who say there is are just indulging in demagogy.


OIL SUPPLY-REQUEST THAT REPORT OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD BE TABLED IN HOUSE
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the report which appeared in the Calgary press on December 29 last, and again last night in the Ottawa papers, that the National Energy Board staff has prepared and completed a dismal report suggesting that Canada will not be able to supply all of its oil markets beginning next year, will the minister tell the House whether there is such a report and, if there is, would the minister table it in the House so that members will be aware of its contents?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, he being a member of the appropriate committee, that committee will be meeting at eight o'clock tomorrow night and I and the National Energy Board will be reporting fully on Canada's oil export policies.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the minister is responding in a positive way, but in view of the leaks that have taken place and the fact that the press and many others have seen this report, will the minister reconsider his decision and table it in the House so that members will have an opportunity to review the report in advance and thus have a better chance to make a contribution at the committee meeting tomorrow night, as well as recognizing the proper importance of the members of this House by doing so?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me to make more sense to have the board there to explain its views in person.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, the minister is saying that we have to have an explanation first, that we do not have the ability to read this report in advance. I would ask him again to consider tabling it, because I think members could understand the report all on their own.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North.


PROPOSED ALASKA OIL PIPELINE-REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ON MACKENZIE VALLEY ROUTE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent decision of the United States court of appeal that effectively barred construction of the Alaska oil pipeline for an indefinite period of time, and in view of the statement the minister made not so long ago in Washington about an alternative route, will the minister advise the House whether further representations have been made to the United States with respect to the alternative route by way of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the "not so long ago" to which the hon. member refers was 11 months ago. The government has no intention of renewing its representations. At that time we put before the United States government the information we had available with regard to a Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline as opposed to a gas pipeline. Since that time we have completed a great many studies with regard to environmental, ecological and other impacts of a pipeline on the Mackenzie Valley and the Mackenzie Valley oil pipeline research group has made available its studies in this regard to the American authorities. Of course, we will be interested in hearing from the United States administration in this regard, but at present we do not plan to take any fresh initiative.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do I take it from the minister's answer that no further representations are being made and that
1282

Oral Questions
the government is waiting on the United States while we might have a very serious oil spill off the western coast of Canada? Do we have to wait on the United States government? Will the Canadian government take action?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that you cannot have an oil spill from Alaskan oil because there is no pipeline for it to come down through.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East on a supplementary and then try to recognize a few of the members in the last row.


NATIONAL GAS-POSSIBLE PIPELINE ALONG EASTERN SHORE OF HUDSON BAY
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister tell the House whether there has been a decision to build a gas pipeline along the eastern shore of Hudson Bay within the next three years, as announced by Premier Bourassa in New York recently?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources: No, Sir. A consortium has been formed consisting of Panarctic, Tenneco, Trans-Canada Pipelines and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to do a feasibility study on the possibility of constructing a gas pipeline either on the west or on the east side of Hudson Bay. It is a feasibility study only.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying for several days to remedy a gross oversight in the House relating to the direction in which questions are addressed across the floor. I would like to address my question to a minister who has been shamefully neglected, for reasons which I find quite inexplicable. My question and supplementary, I hope, will be directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Is the minister planning to table the agreement between the Canadian and French governments covering the joint enterprise to build and operate an astronomical observatory in Hawaii?

Hon. ]eanne Sauve (Minister of State for Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, of course I have had a look at this project in order to see whether it fits into an over-all research policy on astronomy, but as the hon. member knows, the National Research Council is under the responsibility of my esteemed colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


Donald W. Munro: Then perhaps my supplementary should be addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. I may not get an answer, but I am going to try. Is the President of the Treasury Board able to inform the House now what general division is proposed or envisaged at the moment on the construction costs, the operation and the time available, as between Canada and France for this proposed observatory?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take the liberty to suggest to the hon. member, with great respect, that his first question should have been placed on the order paper and the same might apply to his second question. The hon. member is asking for very detailed information which normally, I suggest to him, is sought by way of a written question. Perhaps the hon. member would like to follow that suggestion.


FOOD PRICES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture before the Special Committee on Food Prices yesterday, does the government propose to take any action with respect to food prices in Canada? Does the government in fact have a contingency plan for such action and has the government discussed this plan with the provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in his question the hon. member did not refer to the part of the statement of the Minister of Agriculture he has in mind. If he could clarify this, perhaps I could be more specific in my answer.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps I can clarify it by way of a supplementary question. The Minister of Agriculture indicated yesterday that a contingency plan had not been formulated-that was the thrust of what he said-and that food prices were going up. Based on that, Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this: does the government have any plan to deal with food prices, and if such a contingency plan does exist has it been discussed with the provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we have a contingency plan to deal with the general matter of prices. I have also said earlier that there is no selective way that food prices could be dealt with as a specific item unless under a general plan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. The hon. member might quickly ask a supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt or the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin, as the case may be.
February 14, 1973


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the provincial jurisdiction in this respect with regard to any contingency plan, is it the government's policy that its contingency plan would be based on a situation in which food prices, inflation and unemployment would affect the peace, order and good government of the country? Is that the type of contingency plan the government has?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is looking for a legal opinion, and that makes it difficult for me to answer.


SHIPPING
Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, pursuing the St. Valentine's Day question further, can the Minister of Transport inform the House, as a result of his decision to consult with the maritime provinces, whether marine activities as dealt with in the Darling report come under federal jurisdiction or provincial jurisdiction?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I never mentioned that I had to meet with the premiers in order to decide jurisdiction. But if we decide to abandon the Commonwealth agreement on coastal trade this will have an impact on rates and the cost of transportation. I want to discuss this problem with the premiers, not because we do not have jurisdiction but because they will be affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and then call orders of the day.
* * #


AIRPORTS
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact he stated today in the House that he will visit the people of Ste. Scholastique if they ask him to do so, has he had a change of heart and will he visit the people of Sea Island? If he has not had a change of heart, why does he continue to ignore the pleas of the people of Vancouver, including the mayor, that he visit the area involved and try to solve the problem?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the hon. gentleman. I think he mentioned at the beginning of this session that they were short of information. The people have received all the information they need about the second runway that we want to build.
Oral Questions


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the minister still has not answered my question. The people still do not have that information. I want to know why, if he will visit the people of Ste. Scholastique, he will not visit the people of Vancouver?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, they now have all the information. I will wait to see whether they need to be visited later.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


FISHERIES
Walter C. Carter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get Your Honour's eye for some time in order to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries on a matter which is extremely urgent and important to a large number of people in my riding.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the point that the hon. member is making, but I must bring to the attention of the hon. member for St. John's West that we have gone beyond the time allowed for the question period. He seeks the floor on a point of order. The Chair, of course, has no objection, but he will appreciate that he is not the only one who has not been recognized. I have made a note to ensure that the hon. member will be given priority tomorrow. However, with the consent of the House perhaps he might be allowed to ask his question quickly and get a quick response from the minister.


Walter C. Carter: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and relates to a motion under Standing Order 43 which I presented concerning the catch quotas set by the Department of Fisheries with respect to herring fishermen operating in Placentia Bay and St. Mary's Bay, Newfoundland. In view of the fact that the fishermen have made representations to the minister about the quotas, expressing certain fears as to the possibility of depletion, would the minister undertake to have a scientific investigation made to determine the size of the herring stocks in those bays? Until such time as this information is available, would the minister also impose closing lines as a conservation measure?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, scientific investigations are already under way. We will not be imposing closing lines immediately because the local herring management committee, on which the fishermen were represented, recommended against it.


Walter C. Carter: Will the minister tell the House if the quota to which the fishermen are objecting was set on the basis of scientific information or was it just a figure plucked out of the air, as it were, by the Department of Fisheries?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the committee and the scientists supporting it were trying to be as factual as possible.

February 14, 1973
Supply


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding questions that have been raised in the House and notice has been taken of them or ministers have promised to take them under advisement and bring forward answers. I raised a question on February 1 with the Minister of National Revenue, and several other questions have been taken as notice by parliamentary secretaries. Your Honour will appreciate that many members cannot get the recognition they would like in order to ask a question. Difficult as this is, it is doubly difficult to raise the same question again. I wonder if it might not be a solution that when ministers rise to reply to a question they take advantage of the opportunity to reply to other questions raised previously.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie is of interest but objection has been taken to this procedure on the ground that it complicates matters. I would think it does. If a minister rises on a first question, gives a reply and then before a supplementary can be asked replies to a question asked on an earlier day, it does confuse things somewhat. I understand the difficulty the hon. member has raised and perhaps some day he might be inspired to find a solution to this ticklish and difficult problem. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 13, consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. Mac-Eachen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, I can always expect a good deal of assistance, whenever I speak, from those around me who are masquerading as my friends. I had just launched into my remarks last night when someone pointed out that it was ten o'clock, so I am very pleased to be able to continue today and I am extremely pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: To have the minister of the department concerned present in full and living colour when one is making a speech is appreciated by all members. We are always grateful for that courtesy.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to cover three main points in my remarks this afternoon. First is the lack of tariff protection and customs protection accorded to horticultural and vegetable crops in the area of British Columbia that I represent. Second, and I am sorry that the Minister of National Revenue is not in the chamber, is what I
consider to be the inequities of taxation. Third is what I regard as the persecution and harassment of certain parttime farmers in my riding.
In British Columbia, agriculture has a tremendous impact on the economy even in comparison with other provinces. When we hear the word "wheat" mentioned in this House about 25 members jump to their feet. I am not quite in the position that the right hon. member for Prince Albert suggested, to the extent that I believe wheat grows on trees, but we have had a good deal of discussion of wheat around this House of Commons over the last few years and members from what I call prairie Canada, as opposed to western Canada, have had a lot of exposure here. Nevertheless, the agricultural industry in British Columbia represents approximately $250 million a year to the economy, so it is not a minor industry.
There are great pressures on that industry and I think it is fair to say that it has been declining, as it has throughout Canada. One of the reasons for this is that we have traded off agricultural protection in order to get some other kind of advantage with the Americans and our other trading partners in world markets. In my riding there is great pressure by subdividers because of the limited amount of land available. There is an urban intrusion into our farmland.
Between 2 per cent and 4 per cent of the land in British Columbia is suitable for agriculture. Most of this land is in the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley happens to be close to the large megapolis known as Vancouver, and the growth of Vancouver has tended to funnel up the Fraser Valley. That expansion has been assisted by a great many transport arteries, bridges and by business and domestic expansions as well as subdivisions which have appeared in the area.
As there is so little land in British Columbia that can be devoted to any kind of farming, and as there is strong pressure to sell such land because of increased land values which have been created because of subdivisions springing up, farmland has tended to disappear. There has been an encouraging response recently by the government of British Columbia. It has imposed a temporary freeze on all farmland until certain legislation can be enacted and we can know in which direction we are going.
I do not think our greatest problem is our proximity to the city. Actually, the problem that faces all agriculturalists throughout Canada is that stemming from a lack of adequate return for agricultural enterprise.


Mr. Whelan:: I agree.


Mark Willson Rose: The minister agrees with me. He said that last night.


Eugene Whelan: I wondered when the hon. member was coming to that part.


Mark Willson Rose: The minister wondered when I was coming to that part of my speech. The minister said that the government does not intend to allow a smart operator to bring in cheap products in order to make a fast buck, with the consumer not getting any benefit. I am sure the minister
(Mr. Davis.]
February 14, 1973

knows that that is occurring. He knows full well that the prices of many farm and horticultural products are depressed. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Such prices are depressed because our farmers work under a seasonal disadvantage, as the minister knows.
Our neighbours to the south can produce their crops and charge high prices. They send the tail end of their production to Canada. They may export products such as peaches, pears, strawberries or what have you. They do not send them in at dump prices, but they do not sell them at the same price as they obtain in their own markets in the United States. Those products enter this country just as our current domestic production is about to reach the Canadian market, and they kill our market. If the minister is not aware of this, then certain people in agriculture, especially those associated with the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture, have been negligent in their duty in not bringing it to his attention.


Eugene Whelan: I can tell the hon. member that they have not been negligent.


Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased to hear that. This'is not the first time I have raised this subject; I have raised it with the minister's predecessor. I am sure the minister is aware of the lengthy resolution passed by the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. I will not bore the House in reading it in its entirety, but after half a dozen paragraphs beginning with "whereas," it concludes:
Therefore be it resolved that the government of Canada immediately consult with the representatives of the Canadian horticultural industry to formulate a realistic-
It is important to note that word, because the present policy is unrealistic. I continue to read the resolution:
-means of automatic application of surtax protection based on a predetermined import valuation as may be applicable to various Canadian tariff zones.
The minister had the intestinal fortitude to stand up in this House and say that he will not allow cheap exports. That, I think, was a step in the right direction. Let me allude to a small example of what may happen in the field of agriculture. No matter whether you are talking about strawberries, pears, peaches or what have you, these crops in the United States fetch a fair price. However, those crops are grown in advance of our own. An offer for a certain amount of the product is made to certain brokers and that offer has the immediate effect of destroying or undercutting the price of Canadian products.
It is time we decided whether we want a viable agricultural and horticultural industry in Canada. Under present procedures one has to prove injury. By the time one has been able to prove injury, that injury has been done and is not prevented. This has happened over and over again.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The task force suggested that the fruit and vegetable industry of Canada should be phased out.


Mark Willson Rose: I think I said earlier to the hon. member for Crowfoot that I feel our agricultural industry forms part of a trade-off. We trade off agricultural benefits in order to obtain for other parts of our economy advantages in the field of exports, or in certain imports. If the minister is
Supply
determined to make changes he will have his work cut out, because he will run up against fixed positions which have been taken not in the past year but for many years. I want the minister to know that I-perhaps I cannot speak for the whole of my party-will support him if he will move in that direction. Proof of injury procedures come too late.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister said in committee the other day that he does not believe in tariffs.


Mark Willson Rose: He may not believe in tariffs, but unless we are able to provide some kind of protection for our industry we might as well fold it up. Land has become a commodity for sale; farmers are selling it because they cannot make a decent income from it. As a result there is great temptation to subdivide. Who benefits, Mr. Chairman, except a few real estate developers? You must remember that except for 4 per cent of the land in B.C., most of the province consists of rock and Christmas trees. Builders can build on all sorts of ground other than farmland, but that is where they like to build first and the developers grab the flat land first. Just look at the airport development; there is another land grab for you! This time the Department of Transport has grabbed all of Sea Island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Once upon a time, Mr. Chairman, I can recall that on the lower mainland of British Columbia there were up to 20 domestic processors in the Okanagan area. They are now all gone, mostly bought out by American firms. Those firms bought the rights to the Canadian label. Actually, one processor who is left in my riding has told me that he needs protection because he cannot compete against imported canned products. He cannot pay Canadian prices for his products and meet competition. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary may be interested to learn that a processor in my riding can buy peaches from the United States at 50 per cent of the price he would have to pay British Columbia fruit growers. The tail end of the United States production is dumped in this country. He can buy peaches for his canning and processing needs, as I say, for 50 per cent less than he has to pay the B.C. fruit growers.


An hon. Member:: That's enough to spoil one's appetite.


Mark Willson Rose: That might spoil the hon. member's dinner, but it is true. Perhaps he should get up on a point of order, or something. Let him rise on any point; I don't care what it is.
I now wish to move to another topic, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps this is not an agricultural matter although it has implications for agriculture. I am referring to the attitude of the taxation branch to supply and management or production quotas. Hon. members know as well as I do that such boards are going to become more numerous, despite the protestations of the hon. member for Crowfoot. There will be more and more of them because farmers have the right to organize just as any other group of citizens has the right to organize if they so decide by a majority.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They have the right to produce.

February 14, 1973
Supply


Mark Willson Rose: They ought to move into this kind of marketsharing arrangement and establish co-operatives. "Cooperative" really has a nice sound, much nicer than "dog-eat-dog competition." I know that certain agricultural undertakings can survive under competition provided, for instance, there is tariff protection against cheap Australian beef. If our people can buy a piece of land in the east at ten cents an acre and obtain freight rate assistance, they can survive as free enterprisers. The attitude is: Just leave us alone. Just help us, but do not do anything else to us. I think the Hoss Cartwrights will disappear if they are prepared to make their particular product the luxury food that nobody can really afford.
I received representations from several farm organizations, or organizations relating to farming matters, and farmers with regard to taxes on market-sharing quota sales. I will give an example of how this operates. If a farmer who has an egg quota in my constituency wishes to get into the business, and this is where I agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He needs a rich father, aunt or uncle.


Mark Willson Rose: What is so odd about that? He could steal the land from the Blackfeet for nothing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: "Blackfoot."


Mark Willson Rose: I am speaking of them collectively.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is "Blackfoot" collectively.


Mark Willson Rose: If he wishes to get into the egg business, he would have to purchase 20 cases a week. Ninety-two hens equals a case of eggs. The hens he buys from the man who wants to get out of the business cost 10 cents each, or 20 times 92 times 10 which is $18.40. If he wishes to get into the business, the cost to him is $6,000. He goes to the tax department and says that this is really a capital expense. The tax department says no, it is not, because marketsharing quotas have no value. He is told that he purchased the business for $6,000 but the hens he purchased are worth $18.40. Nobody could eat them; he probably buried the hens after he bought them. He gets this tremendous right. What he does is purchase a right to sell. I understand the misgivings of the hon. member for Crowfoot. He purchases a right.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member and the members with whom he is chatting, but the time allotted to them has expired.


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take part in this debate. First of all, I wish to congratulate the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for being so sincere and above all so convincing when he speaks to the producers.
One can tell he himself is a former producer: he knows quite a lot about production costs; he knows that the farmers must also make profits, if profits can be made in agriculture.
[Mr. Horner (Crowfoot).l
I am also happy to speak on behalf of the farmers of eastern Canada on the important question of the credits the Department of Agriculture earmarks for financing federal assistance to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, and to Canadian agricultural production and market.
At the start of my remarks, I should like to point out that it has become important and interesting for us, members of the opposition, to speak in this House since the start of this session. Formerly, when we were led by a majority government, no matter how much we shouted ourselves out of breath telling parliament what the people liked or did not like, we were not listened to. The Canadian people showed the government we were right. Not only does the government listen to us, but it listens closely to what we have to suggest. Its political life is at stake, and if it does not want to be inflicted parliamentary death sentence, I advise it to listen carefully to our suggestions and criticism. Today, I shall limit myself to agricultural production costs and profits.
Until now, I voted for or against the government, depending on the legislation proposed to us. I am proud that I am absolutely free to decide how I will vote, and not always bound to vote against the government as the progressive conservative party seems to be, nor always for it as the NDP has been since the start of the session.
The estimates that we are asked to approve are not sufficient in my opinion as far as agriculture is concerned. This is obviously not enough. In my area of the Eastern Townships and in my constituency particularly, farmers received a small cheque of $400 lately, in respect of the bad crops of last year. How is it possible, Mr. Chairman, for a farmer to recover the loss of more than 50 per cent of his hay production with $400 per year?
Almost every day, we hear statistics to show that farmers' incomes have increased at an astounding rate for the past year. Some people even talk of a 40 per cent increase, and I refer to Mr. Toupin or his acolytes in the province of Quebec.
It is very easy, Mr. Chairman, to play politics on the farmers' backs. However, the facts are not what Mr. Toupin believes they are, as reported this week in La Terre de chez-nous.
If such were the case, the government would not have accepted in the first place to give farmers $400 to compensate for the loss of crops due to bad weather. Farmers would not have to hold weekly auctions the likes of which have never been seen. Moreover, youth would be interested in becoming farmers, which is certainly not the case now.
Mr. Chairman, any one could tell me that everything is all right, that milk price is at its best, that the world demand for feed grains is the strongest ever recorded, but those are only words. The farmer who has to buy machinery or dairy cows to increase his herd knows how difficult it is to finance those investments while the labourer, who has only his lunch box to finance^ earns $4, $5 or $6 an hour. Furthermore, in order to buy, control and finance his operation, the farmer must borrow money at a rate between eight and nine per cent. In the case of farm machinery, they pay up to 13 per cent interest to financial sharks, whoever they may be. The working man does not
February 14, 1973

pay taxes on capital gains but the farmer does. Nowadays, when farmers are making a few dollars they have to pay capital gains taxes when they retire.
Mr. Chairman, those who in the past few days spoke on appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, especially on feed grains, were mostly hon. members from western Canada. Every single one said that there was not enough or too much production in the past and that exports had not been sufficient.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important to decide whether Canada is producing enough or not and whether western farmers are being encouraged to produce or not. However, it is more important to find out whether prices for grain and processed grain purchased by Quebec farmers will continue to spiral up as they do now so that eastern producers will not be able to make profits this year, contrarily to what is said in La Terre de Chez-Nous.
If in the course of the 1970-71 crop year western producers were paid not to produce, it certainly is not the fault of the eastern farmers. The federal government should provide a great deal more help for transportation of feed grain if it wants the farmer to be able to engage in a rewarding occupation.
In the January 1973 issue of Le Cooperateur agricole, I was reading about a comparative study on the prices of grain and certain ingredients which make up feeds. They study indicated that almost all classes of grain had registered raises in price per ton of the order of at least 35 percent.
Soy-bean cake, which was selling for $104 a ton in December 1971, is at $210 a ton right now, for a considerable jump in price in a 12-month period. Linseed cake, for which a price of $102 a ton was quoted in December 1971, was up to $130 a ton in December 1972. Corn sold for $50 a ton in 1971; it was up to $70 a ton in December 1972.
In eastern Canada, gluten meal with 28 per cent protein content sold for $72 a ton in December 1971 and $86 a ton in December 1972. Wheat was $60 a ton in December 1971 and $80 a ton in December 1972. Bran was priced at $56 a ton in 1971 and $90 a ton in 1972. "Gru" sold for $58 a ton in 1971 and $92 a ton in 1972. The price of barley was $50 a ton in 1971 and $73 a ton in 1972. Oat sold for $50 a ton in 1971 and $83 a ton in December 1972. Draff was priced at $68 a ton in 1971 and $86 in December 1972.
Mr. Chairman, those are the prices in eastern Canada, though they could vary between areas according to local market conditions and especially to transportation cost.
Besides UPA economist Frangois Dagenais recently called my attention to the fact that hog raisers in the province of Quebec have recently suffered losses due to the increase in feed price. Because of this, 2,054,507 hogs were slaughtered in Quebec in 1971 while, in 1972, the number was 2,029,002. Thus, the difference in production cost in eastern Canada compared with the west is $4.20 a unit. Hog producers in Quebec have suffered fantastic losses when one compares their income with that of the producers in the west.
The price paid for feed grains and proteins is the main item in the cost of production for hogs, poultry and cattle.
Supply
Feed grain consumption in Quebec has spiralled these last few years, especially over the last two years. As a matter of fact, in 1970, consumption of feed grains was about 561,875 tons of meal mixtures, and in 1971, of 623,875 tons; and in 1972, the Union des producteurs agricoles estimates that it will reach 783,445 tons. As we know very well, the cost of meal mixtures has increased by 30, 40 or 50 per cent in some cases, especially as concerns proteins, and yet I am told that the farmers have an easy life, and lots of money, and so on, because milk sells quite well!
I suggest that the milk producers will not earn enough this year, since they have to pay too much for the services they need and for feed grains.
Besides, as concerns the 1973 dairy policy established on January 18 last, the Canadian Dairy Producers' Federation has provided us with the following information, and I quote:
According to the official figures available, we know that:
(1)	The index of farm production costs for the third quarter of 1972 exceeds by 4 per cent that for the same quarter in 1971. However, let us note that in the meantime the cost for new buildings increased by 11.2 per cent and the cost of farm labour, by 7 per cent.
Moreover, that index still does not show the increases in feed grain costs registered mainly during the third quarter of 1972.
(2)	The wholesale price for feed grains, as reported in the December 1972 issue of Grain Facts, published by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, has jumped since last year-
(3)	Farm wages
As we indicated before, the cost of farm labour apparently increased by 7 per cent in Canada. Again, these are the last reports available.
The cost of manpower and feed grains, as we all know, accounts for a considerable share in the overall expenses of dairy production. In 1973, the notable increase in power rates and local taxes will only aggravate the situation.
But, once again, it is still the cost of grains and services which boosts the production cost of our eastern farmers.
As long as the government fails to take appropriate measures to stabilize the cost of feed grains at a reasonable level as usual Quebec farmers will depend on the federal policies for eastern Canada.
Recently, the Quebec Minister of Agriculture paid for two large pages of a newspaper to boast that eastern farmers "were making money"; but I say that he was once more politicking on the farmers' back.
In concluding, on behalf of the farmers of the Richmond constituency and eastern Canada, I ask the government and the hon. minister to give careful consideration to the requests from UPA on the question of feed grains so that our Quebec farmers be granted justice as to their production cost and that, some day, we can see the establishment of long term programs in the field of production cost and the sales cost of farm products.
In conclusion I would say how surprised I have been recently to hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), former Minister of Agriculture, stating that in 1960-61, the farmers were performing miracles.
I think that the Canadian voters will remember at the time of the next election as they have remembered since then, that in eastern Canada, in 1960-61, when the hon. member was minister, farmers were selling $4.05 per cwt.
1288

February 14, 1973
Supply
their 3.5 test milk when the cost of production was $4.35 and even $4.65. I think that our farmers cannot go back, nor are they considering going back in the next election to those long years of darkness the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain is trying to praise. I think that those years are over. The minister is looking at me and I think he approves of what I have just said. Those years are over and thank God we now have a minister who I think is clever and looks after his business.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, before the debate on schedule A, production and marketing program, concludes I thought I might say a few words about it. The new Minister of Agriculture has not really given us his views on what in western Canada is commonly known as the Liberal libel on agriculture, the task force report on agriculture. The former minister of agriculture stated during the last election campaign that the one big error he made was he had not publicly declared that he did not support the task force report on agriculture. I am wondering just what the present minister thinks about it. Certainly we are wondering about it since it contains many myths and untruths in regard to the goals and objects of Canadian agriculture.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, has been making a number of remarks in the House of late which suggest that some members of the Conservative party are not in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board. This reminds me of a statement made by the hon. member from Saskatchewan to the effect that I was opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. I should like to assure the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I am in no way opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe that board's powers should be strengthened and I would develop policies to do just that if I had the opportunity.
I am not in favour of the manner in which the minister is handling the Canadian grain situation. In western Canada during the last campaign there were attempts made by the Liberal party to suggest that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is the greatest Canadian salesman of wheat Canada has ever had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear some hon. members saying "Hear, hear". They should look at the annual report for 1970-71 and the percentage of the wheat trade Canada has had in the last number of years. We never dropped below 20 per cent in the whole history of the Wheat Board; but when that minister took charge of the Canadian Wheat Board we dropped to 17.4 per cent of the world's wheat trade. The next year it was 18.5 per cent, the next year 18.5 per cent, and in 1970-71 he got it up to 21 per cent. It will be higher this year because of the drought in Russia and China.
The previous speaker talked about the price of wheat back in 1961. He was quite right. In 1961, as indicated at page 18 of the annual report, the total realized price was $1.91 per bushel. When the present minister took over it
[Mr. Beaudoin.1
went down to $1.81 and it has dropped ever since. The next year it was down to $1.70, the next year to $1.68, the next year to $1.67 and the announced price today is $1.59. One can see the steady slide downward. Our percentage of world wheat trade has gone down and our price has gone down, yet the Liberal party believes it has the greatest wheat salesman Canada has ever had. Certainly he has lost us money every year he has been in charge.
We hear about the way barley is selling today. It certainly is selling well and we wish we had more to sell. About two years ago the minister in charge of the Wheat Board sold barley on the international market for as low as 47 cents a bushel. The price at Vancouver today is $1.69 a bushel. We wish we had a little more, but there is no surplus of barley. I met the vice-president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool at the Federation of Agriculture conference and he asked me if I thought Alberta would have enough barley to see us through until the next crop year. I said I thought we had. Then he asked me if I wanted to make a little bet, suggesting that we would not have enough. That indicates how much barley there is available.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has had the board conducting a survey. I spoke about this earlier. He does not want to release the results of that survey because it will show that the farmers' barley bins are almost empty. This minister has cost the Canadian wheat farmer, as I said in another speech, in the neighbourhood of $600 million because of his foolish Lift program.
To my way of thinking, this minister has been Canada's worst minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. His policies have been detrimental to the farmers of Saskatchewan in particular and I urge those farmers at the next election, whether it be in June or in the fall, to take steps to remove him. They can remove him from that portfolio, and they should because he does not understand the grain picture or the handling of grain. I would urge the Prime Minister to take the Canadian Wheat Board out of the minister's jurisdiction. Maybe he knows something about the law, but the Wheat Board should be given to someone with more understanding of the grain trade than the minister has. This minister thinks it does not really matter at what price he gives our product away as long as he moves it. The farmers are concerned about their product and the price at which it is sold. They are concerned about how it is handled.
During the last election campaign the minister came out to Calgary and said that if his party was re-elected the government would spend a considerable sum to really modernize the port of Vancouver. This port is very important to the marketing of grain in that it handles over 50 per cent of our export sales. What has been done to overhaul the port of Vancouver? Figures tabled in this House on March 5, 1972, indicate that in 1968 the federal government spent $17 million on the port of Vancouver, but expenditures dropped to about $6 million over the following four years. This indicates another sliding graph. The government should spend a little more on the port of Vancouver to help in the marketing of one of our major exports, grain from western Canada.
February 14, 1973

We now have a price of $1.59 per bushel for wheat. The minister has entered into long-term contracts with Russia and China. The right hon. member for Prince Albert suggested during the question period today that some 100,000 bushels are still to be delivered to Russia at the lower price. There is still a great amount of wheat to be delivered to China at the low price of the 1970-71 contract. This minister has done western Canada no good at all.
We have had reference to the transportation study which the minister has had conducted by the grains group. An interesting thing about the study which no one has really pointed out is that in respect of the movement of grain it has been carried out on railway rates completely ignoring Crowsnest pass rates. I wonder how many farmers in Saskatchewan really think that the minister they elected to take charge of their product is actively interested in doing away with the Crowsnest pass rates. Are they aware of that fact? I think we will have to make them aware of it before the next election.
I think the minister should be brought to task for harbouring that kind of thought. To me the Crowsnest pass rates structure is the Magna Carta of the west. The minister is attempting to subsidize the railways by giving them $48 million worth of boxcars. Without having any commitment from them in this regard, he hopes they will repay that amount some day. The minister wants to do away with nearly 5,000 miles of track on the Prairies, about 3,600 miles of which are in the province of Saskatchewan. I wonder whether the people in those areas of Saskatchewan really feel they should return to Ottawa a man who wants to gather up 3,600 miles of track in their province.
The same minister said in a speech to the Alberta wheat pool that he might subsidize the movement of grain because of the cost of long hauls to the farmer.


An hon. Member:: Temporarily.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, temporarily. The grains group study did not make that suggestion. It suggested that the farmers will have to build more storage and haul their grain over longer distances, but they will then have the 80 inland terminals to facilitate the railways. This Liberal government has been obsessed with the idea of increasing railway revenues since it passed the National Transportation Act in 1967. They are obsessed with that idea, no matter who pays. Apparently the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board will have the farmers paying the cost of this.
The minister has lowered the price of wheat from $1.81 a bushel, when he took over, to $1.59 a bushel. He now wants the farmers to pay these additional costs and will see that they do so by removing the Crowsnest pass rates, by making the farmer store more grain on his farm and haul it farther to the elevator at a lower price. It seems to me we must do our best to remove him if he is to remain in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. We must do our best in Saskatchewan to see that he does not come back, so that we might have a more orderly marketing system under which the farmers will pay less, rather than more, and under which the railways will provide more services rather than fewer at a higher cost.
We have seen the final payment figures for barley and we know that there is no surplus of barley. There is to be
Supply
no pool in respect of barley. One might expect, with wheat selling today at $3 a bushel in Vancouver, that the final payment on wheat for this crop year would be 60 cents a bushel. Because of the way in which forward sales have been made at the low price, the farmers will be lucky if they receive another 30 cents a bushel.
It seems to me that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has done a disservice to the wheat farmer during the past four years. We might consider his thinking in respect of doing away with the Crowsnest pass rates and 600 miles of track in the province of Saskatchewan, or a total of 5,000 miles of track in the three prairie provinces. There are about 19,000 miles of track in the province of Saskatchewan; therefore he will be doing away with nearly one-third of the total trackage. The closing of elevators will probably result from this. There are now about 1,800 delivery points. The minister wants to cut that figure to 80. I believe there are 105 delivery points in the constituency of Crowfoot alone. On the basis of these figures, this would probably mean that my constituency would be reduced to three, four or five delivery points. Certainly this is not a satisfactory situation in the minds of the constituents I represent.
We are concerned about these things. We believe in the Canadian Wheat Board which, as was mentioned by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, was set up by the Conservative government. We believe in orderly farming for the benefit of the farmer, not for the benefit of the railways. We believe the CPR has been given a gracious grant by the government over the years and that it has provided a good service in return. However, we do not believe the farmers should provide all the money in order to keep the railway going. This also applies to the CNR.
I think we should have a more orderly marketing system and along with it we must have encouragement of production. The Minister of Agriculture, when appearing before the committee on food price trends, said that if the price of food increased further he did not believe in the implementation of a food price freeze. He suggested that perhaps an embargo would be the easiest way to handle the situation. He would license anyone who wanted to export any commodity. I ask hon. members what kind of thinking that is with regard to the production of agricultural goods in Canada.
During the war years we had an embargo on the export of cattle to the United States. This was maintained until 1948. The price in the United States at that time was about 30 cents a pound, while the price on the Prairies was about 16 cents a pound. Finally the Liberal government of the day lifted the embargo and the price of cattle shot up to 30 cents a pound and then dropped again to 16 cents a pound. This shows the effect an embargo would have. It would result in less production in Canada. Our prices would be depressed, while everything we had to buy would be priced on the international market according to cost.
This attitude of the Minister of Agriculture leads me to believe this is part of the contingency plan we hear about in respect of the control of food prices. What will the farmers in western Canada think about a Minister of
1290

February 14, 1973
Supply
Agriculture who harbours the belief that somewhere along the line there should be a licensing system in respect of anyone who wants to export something? This would have the effect of decreasing production rather than increasing it. Instead of having an increased movement of cattle we would have less, and food prices would not be helped in the long run by such a policy.
I see the Minister of Agriculture shaking his head in disagreement with what I am saying. Perhaps he can encourage farmers to produce hogs and cattle for less money. He said it would take four years to bring about an increase of any size in the production of cattle. He is correct. I think we could do it in three years in the west, but perhaps in eastern Canada it would take longer. I really do not know. In any event, it is nice to get a glimpse of the future in the thinking of the Minister of Agriculture. It is also nice to get a glimpse into the future in the thinking of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who wants to do away with the Crowsnest pass rates and rail trackage on the Prairies. It is my belief that this would merely bring about a chaotic situation. I urge voters across Canada to take note of this fact in the event that the Prime Minister calls a June election, because this kind of thinking should not be rewarded by votes.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, this is another chapter in the continuing saga of my speech which started on Friday night and which I hope to be able to complete in this session. When I was so rudely interrupted by the fact that my time had run out, I was attempting to point out the seriousness of the taxation clauses as they affect supply-management or marketing quotas. I had used an illustration involving a person who would pay up to $6,000 in order to get into the position of having a quota. If this person turned around and sold the quota to another purchaser at a higher price, or even at the same price, he would be charged, under the current taxation laws of Canada, with a gain of 50 per cent. If the gain is from $6,000 to $7,000, it is a gain of $1,000. I believe this is an iniquitous tax arrangement. I do not think a great deal would be involved in amending this provision. I believe it would be very easy to do it if the government were interested at all in encouraging agricultural production in this country.
I hope the minister recognizes that this is a problem with regard to supply-management quotas, and so on. There are now national agencies in respect of the production of broilers and eggs. There is to be an agency in respect of turkeys, and perhaps hogs, which might leave out Alberta although certainly the rest of the country would be involved. I bring this to the attention of the minister because it is a matter of concern to many people in my riding. As I understand it, it is my duty to speak on behalf of my people.
Another problem involves the type of depreciation allowed on farm equipment. Last May we heard the minister speak of fast write-offs with regard to manufacturing and processing in an attempt to produce jobs in the manufacturing and processing industries. However, the kind of change that is anticipated by the new tax arrangement concerning the write-offs for equipment in effect means that there will be a straight line depreciation of, say, 15 per cent while others have a declining line write-off. If

such a write-off is to be helpful in manufacturing and processing, about which I have some doubt, and certainly if it is to be stimulating in that sector of the economy, a faster write-off would be a stimulus or at least of assistance to farm production. This would result because of the high capital cost of land in most farming operations today. I hope the minister has taken note of this point because I believe it is very important. It is something which probably affects everyone who is now involved in a mechanized farming business. I think farmers are quite able to understand fast write-offs. Certainly if they are good for one sector, they are equally good for another.
I should like to deal with another tax matter that I said earlier was a persecution, a harassment of part-time farmers, which occurs in my riding and perhaps in other parts of Canada. When you mention this situation you think of part-time farmers and you have visions of doctors, lawyers or other affluent people who use this technique as a tax haven. There is no doubt that some of this occurs, but the vast majority of the people engaged in agriculture in a small way, at least in the riding I represent and the ridings near me, are not that type of person at all. They are people with a small acreage of land which is in effect a green belt. We would like to preserve that land as a green belt. These people are occupied with farming on a parttime basis mainly because they cannot make a satisfactory living for their families in agriculture.
However, it must be noted that these people provide a very important service; they make a real contribution to the supply of food. As some of you may know-certainly people from the prairie provinces will know it-so far as the red meat industry is concerned in the lower Fraser Valley, it is pretty well gone for the most part. Most cattle breeding is finished near Edmonton where they have the advantage of having non-board grain, the price of which is about half as much as even freight assisted feed grain in the lower Fraser Valley.
We in North America have now roughly a 20 per cent beef shortage. The cattlemen may correct me if my percentage is wrong. Nevertheless, the small, part-time farming operation where the wife and kids do the work while the husband works in the mill in the daytime, or has some other kind of occupation, and then comes home and does the chores at night, provides a real contribution to our food supply because it avoids the monopoly control of the meat industry of a relatively few big ranches or big companies.
We have a situation where the small or part-time farmer is being harassed by the taxation department and is frequently being told that he can no longer file for tax exemption because in his operation there is, to use the language of the tax people, "no expectation of profit". He is the kind of person who provides work for the packing industry and the slaughterhouse and he provides a good deal of the local meat. He is the one who holds the price down. We find that once he is gone, which is the case in England, the price of the commodity that he produces goes up.
What is happening to these people who are visited by tax auditors? Frequently the tax auditors are inex-
February 14, 1973

perienced people who do not know much about farming. Some people say they do not know much about accounting either. They call at these farms and have a little chat with these people, following which, and without giving them the usual RCMP warning that everything said will be held against you, they make out a report and that is the end of it. Sometimes the tax auditors even tell the farmer, "You cannot even file for a farm exemption any longer". The man has a perfect right to file for tax exemption if he likes. By and large these people are not interested in being cheaters or tax evaders. They are people who are working very hard to produce in what they consider to be a fine environment for their family, the rural atmosphere, and they want to do what is right. Yet they are told that they can no longer file for a tax exemption.
About a year ago I went to the predecessor of the present minister to speak about this problem and I got some relief for these people. At least they stopped reassessing them two or three years back and limited the reassessment to one year. However, this is still going on. Tax auditors are continuing to plague and harass the people. I do not think the farmers save enough to even pay their own salaries. What the auditors do, in addition- I think this is most pernicious-is push these people off the land. What choice have you if you receive no tax recognition for your enterprise? What choice have you if you are a small or middle-income person? Your choice is either to subdivide-which I do not think we want-or sell to some more affluent person. This has to stop. The Minister of National Revenue is, I think, interested and willing to listen. I will be meeting him on this problem shortly.
I will not take up any more of the time of the committee because I know this debate is supposed to finish this afternoon. I would just like to say that there are three major concerns with which I have attempted to deal in three separate sessions of this debate. The first is the lack of protection afforded with regard to foreign imports. The second is the iniquity of the taxation of production quotas, and the third is the persecution and harassment of part-time farmers. I do not think there is much to gain from pushing people into cities and making formerly independent, self-reliant people into what might be called urban serfs.
These people are marginal farmers in terms of their income. They are mostly three generations away from their forefathers who came to this country looking for land of their own and for independence of their own because they were either part of the peasantry of Europe or were the urban poor of the cities and of large industrial slums. They came here looking for a better life, but within three generations they become, again, serfs in the high-rises. That is what is happening all over the country.
If it is necessary, let us take steps through taxation, through agricultural policies and through urban policies to make rural life not only rewarding but opportunity creating so we will not have this constant rush to the cities. If necessary, let us even subsidize people to stay away from the cities, because we will save money in the long run. The minute we crowd people into cities our police costs go up, our school costs go up, costs for services and housing go up, and the incidence of stress and mental illness goes up.
Supply
Before resuming my seat I should like to commend and congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on his new portfolio. All of us are looking for great things from him. He has a tremendous opportunity to reverse the trend which has existed in the Liberal government, of not really caring very much about this problem. I wish him well. [Translation]


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues to my left seem discouraged when a member of this House does his duty, but that does not impress me at all. I shall continue to do my work to the best of my knowledge and with the sense of responsibility instilled in me during my youth.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke last night on a subject of great relevancy nowadays-


Mr. Trudel:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Mont-real-Bourassa rises on a point of order.


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Speaker, I think our colleague misread our minds. We are anxious to hear what he is about to tell us and not what he has said about his colleagues.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank the hon. member for the correction and I am sure the second part of his remarks is true.
Mr. Chairman, I was saying last night during the debate on this important matter of estimates for the Department of Agriculture, that strange things were happening. I think it is my duty to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to these facts, so that he might take the necessary steps so that in future there will be no need to give grants to farm producers as is being done for those who suffered losses in 1971; the money must reach directly those for whom it is intended.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) was speaking a moment ago about an increase of 44 per cent in the net income of farmers in 1972, as compared to 1971. I suggest that the public servants, in Quebec, are very good playing with figures. They are able to put figures one after the other and make them say anything they want; but if they troubled themselves to consider the matter more closely, the findings of their study would be different. They would be in a position to better inform the people.
When considering the matter in depth, one finds that in 1971, many producers lost substantial amounts of money; their operations showed a deficit but thanks to representations which were made to draw the attention of governmental authorities, programs were developed to make up for part of that loss. And as subsidies were paid in 1972, it is normal that the income of farmers in 1972 should be higher than in 1971. But this does not mean that the 1972 production brought in a higher income. These figures are added to those of the 1971 production.
When one really wants to study these facts in depth, one must substract the losses suffered in 1971 from the total income of 1972 and then, one shall know the truth. I think

February 14, 1973
Supply
the farmers of the province of Quebec can see for themselves whether those figures are true.
But there is more to it, Mr. Chairman. What happened is that very valid programs were implemented then poi-sonned in several cases by blood suckers who saw an occasion to further exploit the farmers.
I will give you an example: in 1972, the federal government raised the grant for hog production to $5, up to 200 hogs, and the provincial government drafted a policy in that direction. Unfortunately, it happened that some "integrators" took advantage of that program by using those who raised hogs for their own use. They obtained their signature against a fictitious acknowledgment of debt. When the cheques were delivered, the "integrators" gave them a receipt. Many thousands of dollars allotted to the farmers thus went into the pockets of those people. That did not increase the real income of true farm producers. In fact, some jokers have suggested that perhaps that money was used for the October 30 elections; I do not know how it was used but certainly not for the right end anyway. As I said, these practices did not increase the income of true producers.
I think it is about time the Canadian government manages agriculture on a real national basis by taking all means available so that when a policy is developed to help a certain category of producers, the money gets where it should if we want to obtain results, if we want those who are supposed to benefit from those programs to be really satisfied.
Mr. Chairman, I think many things happen without the hon. minister knowing about it; but these misuses of funds do nothing for the government or the producers for whom we carry votes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like the important question of grain to be examined very carefully. Earlier on, a member was stressing the fact that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board might not have the competence to manage this agency efficiently. I think it might be better if the board were under the responsiblity of the Minister of Agriculture (M. Whelan) because he certainly has closer relations with the producers and their associations than does his colleague. These associations and the brief would get a better hearing if the board came under his responsibility. I see the minister is smiling; maybe he thinks he has enough work as it is. However, with his stamina, he would be able to manage efficiently and the whole population, including farmers, would be very happy.
Those are, Mr. Chairman, the few remarks I wanted to make while we are examining these votes so that we could together find a better use and also allow farmers to keep on hoping.
I have received today, as all other members probably have, a brief rrom the Canadian Federation of Milk Producers. During the question period, I intended to put a question on that matter to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. But since probably more important matters drew the attention of the Chair, I had to postpone until now my remarks on that matter.
I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to give special attention to that very serious brief which demonstrates that production costs in the dairy industry

have increased substantially in 1972, particularly in the last quarter and that they continue to increase.
As it is stated in this brief, the Canadian Federation of milk producers is asking for a 60 cents increase per hundredweight in order to allow dairy farmers to make profits proportionate to their investments and their needs and to attain gradually the living standards enjoyed by other classes of society. Production costs are clearly established; I believe that the figures stated are valid and that we should take them into consideration.
The brief suggests two ways in which producers could make higher profits; it stated also that the government should take direct action to increase the subsidies granted to producers through the Agricultural Stabilization Board. As far as I am concerned, I would support such a measure, because there is a committee studying the trends in food prices, and I believe that if we should pass a different type of legislation from the one we had in the past, we would help both consumers and producers without increasing food prices.
This policy was applied during the war when the government had enacted a measure for the payment of a discount on dairy products. Thus the consumers were not paying any more, but the producer got a discount directly through the federal government. This is very much like the compensated discount which was so well thought out by Major Douglas in his great financial philosophy for a better economy, for a less rigid economy, that would allow the population to benefit instead of being punished by progress.
We have oodles of all kinds of products and we can produce even more. However, in the dairy industry, brakes were put on, as everybody recalls, to adjust production to consumer needs. I say however that they acted on the capacity of consumption. In fact, if consumption is to be increased, a compensated discount should be allowed to the producers, a discount which would not come from the consumers' pockets through taxation but which would be available through the Bank of Canada by means of new credits available to the Agricultural Stabilization Board and based on real production instead of fictional issues.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Minister of Agriculture to take into consideration the few suggestions I just made, including the change of jurisdiction regarding the Canadian Wheat Board and the possibility of increasing the price of industrial milk, because the producers are greatly in need of it.
I do not want to take more of the time of the House as I know other members have also comments to make on this matter.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Chairman, I am always glad to express my views.
I should like to expound some claims of our farmers in the discussion of these estimates and I fully agree with many other hon. members who have already suggested to the minister some changes that are absolutely necessary in view of the importance of agriculture in the Canadian economy.
February 14, 1973

Someone yesterday expressed some regret that the House has spent so much time for so many years before dealing with the feed grain problem.
I think I should also deal with this as with other points that have been mentioned during the discussion on these estimates.
We know perfectly well that my constituency, like many others, includes a large number of producers who have encountered difficulties because of this policy on feed grains for quite a long time. This is very disturbing for them, especially when competition at the national level is mentioned.
In my opinion, we have no right to neglect to bring this matter once more to the attention of the minister who is now present in the House, not in order to blame him, because, on the contrary, as the new minister from the east-and I am glad that he is new-I think he will naturally show more understanding in respect of the problems raised by eastern producers.
The minister is aware of the position taken by the Quebec delegation last week, but I think that the delegation has made that gesture in order to prove how important it is to remedy the unfair situation of eastern producers, not only of Quebec producers. There is a great number of producers who are directly affected by the unfair feed grain policy, and they think that the time has come to settle the matter.
As a member of Parliament, I was very happy to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had included in the speech from the throne amendments designed to settle that problem, and to learn that the minister had stated that he hoped the matter would be settled before the month of June.
All the members also must realize how important this problem is and join forces in making the members of other areas understand it, because for quite natural reasons, they might hesitate to redress that injustice. It is not a matter of depriving anyone of his rights, but merely of viewing generally the importance of the economy at the national level as far as those measures are concerned, and I think that eastern producers are only eager to work to meet a fair competition.
I hope that the minister will make every effort with regard to that policy in order to ensure a fair treatment in the interests of national unity.
I was also very pleased to find that the minister was especially concerned with the family farm. He added that the government had passed beneficial measures in the past few years-such as the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act-which are, in his opinion, a further step forward stability. Speaking of stability, one may say that farmers have never enjoyed it as other groups of citizens have. I think that the minister is quite right in raising the question of stability, because such stability would enable farmers to live in a world in which he would feel secure about his future, which would be likely to encourage young farmers.
People often wonder in my riding as in others whether the young are not losing interest in the farm. This can be explained by the poverty that the young man has
Supply
experienced at home, the instability that has affected him and because of competition that is often unfair.
It is imperative that the government hasten to set up more equitable programs. Bill C-176 deals with marketing and is aimed at ensuring more adequate prices. It deals also with farm credit, but should we not still consider the cost of interests when dealing with that subject?
If we really want to instill in the young a taste for farming, we must offer him benefits not available to him at the present time. The interest required on farm loans is a discouraging feature for the young farmer, and he will not accept to borrow huge sums of money once he has learned of the difficulties his parents have experienced.
In my opinion, it would be advisable for the minister to seriously consider preparing for the benefit of the young farmers a loan policy involving very special interest rates. This would encourage the young man to eventually take his father's place and show that the government is really willing to open a door and help those young people find stability in farming.
We know very well that these young farmers also need management classes. In my constituency, as I was told recently, people deeply regret that the Department of Manpower and Immigration will not work harder at providing help for the young farmers, and I mean not necessarily those people who have already 40 or 45 years of farming experience, but rather the young people who need more training in management, considering all the changes to which farming is being subjected today. That need has become vital for the reasons I have mentioned and I believe that the young farmers would benefit enormously from such help, as would the Canadian economy as a whole. The farmers having more qualifications in management, farming would be more lively and more challenging.
These are the suggestions I had to make, taking into account the needs of agriculture at the national level, and not only within the limits of my constituency.
I should also like to take this opportunity, as others have done, to deal with two major problems. Feed grains have been discussed and apparently the minister is to settle that problem. I hope we shall be informed of a solution by June. The Canadian Dairy Federation, as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) said a short while ago, has submitted a brief fully explaining the reasons for their requests to the Canadian Dairy Commission and to the government for supplementary subsidies of some 60 cents, because of constantly increasing production costs.
Clearly, and particularly because of the experiences of 1972 and of unfavourable temperatures, producers' needs are greater than ever. Considering the constant increase in production costs, it is also easy to understand that the Canadian Dairy Federation's request is fully justified.
We expect to hear good news from the minister early in April and in the interest of an improvement in the situation of those producers we hope he will give a positive response to the arguments and requests brought forward

February 14, 1973
Supply
by the Canadian Dairy Federation to obtain higher incomes.
I should also like to bring back to mind the difficulties producers of all food products experienced last summer. On the basis of representations made by hon. members and of course because of the minister's comprehensive attitude toward losses sustained, the government distributed $9 million to some 22 thousand farmers, making $400 for each producer.
I do not believe any of them lost less than $400 and most of them lost much more. And we know that several growers or farmers have lost millions of dollars due to bad weather.
Of course, I regret that such a policy of reimbursement has been applied. We might say it is equitable, $400 for every one, and everybody will be glad. But how could we satisfy a farmer who lost $4,000 and received only $400? I understand it was difficult to estimate the damages but I think, in view of their importance, we should have assessed them farm by farm.
I believe it would have been possible to make such a survey, such an estimate and to act more fairly toward growers. I take this opportunity to ask the minister to urge his officials to speed things up with regard to those who have not yet received their $400. I know that a number of them have made this mistake or did not quite understand what was required. Some producers mentioned this to me and I am now asking the minister to reconsider their case in view of the fact that those farmers misunderstood the terms of eligibility. Indeed they are definitely full-time producers and farmers. Of course they are looking forward to receiving their $400 but I still believe that damages could have been evaluated much more fairly and a lot more could have been given to some producers who are facing real problems mainly in winter.
I had to express these few comments to the minister while the House is dealing with the business of supply and to remind him of the importance of agriculture in my constituency. In fact, I had to express these views because they reflect the arguments put forward all the time by farmers, especially in my office on weekends.
Dairy producers are also experiencing increases in their production costs which is unavoidable. However, subsidies must be increased also if they are to make reasonable profits.
Potato producers have also experienced difficulties. Bill C-176 is intended to establish marketing boards, but I would ask the minister to make more efforts so that these producers understand the purpose of this legislation and do something to get reasonable prices. I have tremendous faith in the effectiveness of Bill C-176. However, farmers should be made to understand the need to get together and deal through a marketing board for better results. Unfortunately, farmers often have a tendency to wait for the situation to deteriorate and difficulties to become unsolvable. I think the Department of Agriculture will never overpublicize the fact that it is necessary for farmers to get together within an association if they are to obtain the maximum of benefits under Bill C-176 and to ensure that farmers are putting to good use this tool that the government has given them.

I shall end my remarks by inviting once more the minister to pay very close attention to the briefs that come to him from different organizations in Quebec and Canada as a whole. Let us hope that an interesting solution to this problem of feed grains will be forthcoming in a few weeks.
For a long time now, there has been talk of a policy to buy up small farms. In fact, talks on this subject are being held right now with the government of the province of Quebec. I don't think they have ended yet, so once more I invite the minister to increase his efforts in order to settle this question to the benefit of all farmers. I trust that he will fully understand the position of Quebec which is trying to establish certain priorities regarding farm lands within the province for the years to come.
In my opinion, the representations made by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture as well as certain views expressed by the Quebec premier must, I hope, have made the Minister of Agriculture realize the importance for that province of keeping some jurisdiction over agricultural planning. I think it is most important to meditate on that question and to find a mid-course acceptable to both governments so that producers of the province of Quebec may not suffer from protracted negotiations. I do hope that Quebec will be able to keep its priority regarding the selection of agricultural soils both for the benefit of the producers of that province as well as for the rest of Canada.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to add a few words to what has already been said by those who have preceded me.
First of all, I should like to tell the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that he impresses me as being sincere, honest and sympathetic to the cause of the farmers, and that I would like to continue seeing him in that light in the coming months.
The fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that last year, Canada imported $20 million worth of butter, while Quebec's butter production decreased by 1.5 per cent and its milk production by 3 per cent. Quebec's production, which accounts for roughly 30 per cent of the total national production, could obviously have improved to make up that loss. As a result, the farmer's income, which now averages about $2,500 a year, would have improved accordingly.
For this period, the price of feed grains from western Canada has shown an increase of 25 to 30 per cent in some cases and 50 per cent in others, not to mention protein additives, which have increased 50 per cent for fish flour and 70 per cent for soya flour in Toronto. The same tendency has been noted in the United States.
For the same period, in the province of Quebec, we have suffered from a production decrease in all areas. With regard to oats, for instance, the 1971 production was 29,667,000 bushels and was reduced to 23,392,000 bushels in 1972. For grain corn, production was 13,334,000 bushels in 1971 and 9,380,000 bushels in 1972. For feed corn, production was 1,771,000 bushels in 1971 against 1,559,000 bushels in 1972. Barley production also decreased, from 1,532,000
February 14, 1973

bushels in 1971 to 1,280,000 in 1972. Coarse grains also went down, from 5,252,000 bushels in 1971 to 4,448,000 in 1972. Spring wheat production also slackened, from 1,071,000 bushels in 1971 to 558,000 in 1972. Hay production went from 5,000,587 tons in 1971 to 4,000,054 in 1972.
Mr. Chairman, it is true that the prices of hogs have increased; conversely, there was a decrease in production of about 20 per cent in the same area. We are surely going to experience again the bad situation of the past, when we had a surplus of hogs, a reduction in prices-and I do say reduced prices-because when there is a surplus of hogs, this automatically brings the market to the saturation point and so there is a reduction in prices. This is a sort of a vicious circle. If feed grain prices remain high, it is difficult to contemplate a stability in hog prices.
Of course, with such a situation, we shall soon see small and middle farmers disappear. As I stated earlier, the average income of Quebec farmers in 1972 was about $2,500. During the same period, the number of farmers reduced from 98,000 to 97,000, which led to a decrease in the production of feed grains, without taking into account the climate.
Mr. Chairman, in the more or less distant future we shall have to face a shortage of agricultural products. Therefo"e it is time that the government take immediate steps to correct the present situation, either through the removal of feed grain price differentials between eastern and western Canada or through greater inducement for the brave people of the agricultural field. I say "brave", and I know what I am talking about, for it is not easy nowadays to secure the necessary food for all the hungry people in the world.
Unfortunately the eastern farmers have always been forgotten. Subject to all kinds of control, to the whims of climate, and forgotten by the government, they must be very brave to hold on to their farm, even though it offers many opportunities. But, through inadequate measures, our governments fail to provide security or the means of earning a living. It is not too encouraging for the farmer's son to succeed his father for, most of the time, the farmer is up to his neck in debts. So, when the father is ready to pass his farm on to his son, his son must take the good with the bad. Therefore, people lose interest in rural life and leave the farm. This is why, last year, 1,000 farms were written off in the province of Quebec alone.
I believe that the minister is of good faith and I dare hope he will persevere.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Is the Chair to understand that the debate on votes 15a and 40a of the Department of Agriculture is now completed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: We will now proceed to vote 20a, Department of the Environment.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to quarrel with the supplementary estimates put forward by the minister. However, having looked at them I am compelled to ask why an item that I thought might have been there is omitted. I refer to the fact-and I think it is interesting at
Supply
this time to keep this in mind-that in the supplementary estimates, despite the growing concern over the fate of the Skagit River in British Columbia, there is no item which reflects aid to the citizens' groups which have been fighting the flooding of this Canadian valley by an American power utility.
There have been comments in the House with respect to this matter. It was first raised in 1970, some two and a half years ago, but it is still unresolved. It is time it was spoken of again in this House and it is time all hon. members learned something of the background of this problem and put their minds to doing something about it. I say all hon. members because there is not a party represented in this House which has not at one time or another expressed their complete accord with the objective of saving this Canadian valley from being flooded by an American power utility.
It is important that hon. members remember that this problem was created by the fact that in 1909 we, with the United States, entered into the boundary waters treaty under which the International Joint Commission was established. As some members know, that commission was created to resolve disputes between ourselves and the United States along our border.
Many years ago the city of Seattle developed a utility department. As a consequence, plans were made and shortly after World War I the Ross dam development began on the Skagit River. The Skagit River's headwaters are in British Columbia, where they come through what is now the beautiful Manning provincial park. They leave Manning park and head south along a beautiful valley for a distance of 12 to 14 miles and then cross the American border.
The area that the Canadian Skagit flows through is not completely primitive because there has been some limited logging there. But it is still a very beautiful place and is close to the city of Vancouver. The Skagit is one of the last free-flowing streams within 100 miles of the third biggest city in this country. I know the Skagit well. I have fished it, hiked along its banks and camped beside it. It is a very beautiful part of the country.
If I speak with some emotion this afternoon for some moments, I make no apology for it. I would ask every hon. member of this House, keeping in mind the position that all parties have expressed, to remember that this is not just an intellectual assessment of our resource use; this is an emotional matter, a question of what is going to happen to a part of your country, Mr. Chairman, and mine.
Pursuant to the regulations of the International Joint Commission, in 1941 the United States, which was concerned with continuing the development of the Ross dam project, applied to the commission for authority to raise the Ross dam on the United States' side another 100 feet or so. In 1942 the International Joint Commission, as it must do, made an order granting the Americans the right to raise the dam even though as a consequence at least ten miles of the Canadian valley would be flooded.
I ask hon. members to remember the climate of those times: this country was at war and in 1941, when the

Supply
United States made its application, that country was not yet at war though it was to be soon. The Skagit was relatively isolated. There was no environmental input at the hearing. In fact, the game commissioner for the province of British Columbia turned up only because the game commissioner for the state of Washington had said to him, "George, they are going to flood your valley; you had better get down here and see what damage it is going to do".
As I say, this order was made in 1942 and it is important to note that the order probably is legally invalid because, contrary to article 8 of the treaty, the International Joint Commission did a strange thing: it delegated to the city of Seattle and the province of British Columbia the right to work out the terms of compensation. That is completely contrary to the duty of the commission under the treaty. I stress the aspect of legality because this is a very powerful weapon in the hands of Canada in dealing with this particular matter, one that has not been effectively used by this country.
To continue the chronology, in the early fifties negotiations between the City of Seattle Light and Power and the province of British Columbia were continued. I do not want to take too long on the subject, but finally in 1967 an agreement was entered into, apparently pursuant to the order of 1942. This 1967 agreement was entered into between the province of British Columbia and the city of Seattle and it provided that the province of British Columbia would agree to allow the valley to be flooded for an annual payment of $3,500 a year. So Seattle, in their estimate, gained at that time an advantage in terms of power of $1 million a year, and there are documents today that show they have upped the figure to $2 million a year.
Under article 8 of the treaty, the commission is charged with the duty of ensuring that adequate and suitable compensation is made as "approved by it". The point I am making is this. I realize the International Joint Commission is important in our relations with our American friends, and I am very aware of the sensibilities of a great many people in this city if anyone were to suggest that the International Joint Commission did not do everything as well as it should or that it had made a mistake. But the fact is that in taking this action the commission delegated its authority, which it had no right to do, and in fact never approved the terms of that settlement. And is there any wonder? Who in their right minds would approve it? There is now no question that the International Joint Commission would say to the Canadian people or any other people that that sum was suitable and adequate compensation for the loss of a valley.
It took some time for the public to realize what was going on and agitation began originally in the city of Vancouver. The former Liberal member for Fraser Valley East raised the matter in the House of Commons on October 6, 1970, as reported at page 8855 of Hansard, and this is what he said:
It is therefore incumbent upon this House of Commons to exert every power within our jurisdiction to assure Canadians in general and British Columbians in this case in particular that the government of British Columbia is acting and operating at the present time in the interests of the people of Canada in relation to the proposed plans for the flooding of the beautiful Skagit Valley...
Apart from normal requirements relating to removal of debris, and so on, the compensation to be paid to the province of British Columbia by the city of Seattle department of lighting is $34,566.21 per annum.
Then the hon. member worked it out and said that this amounted to $5.50 per acre per year, which is equal to two Christmas trees per acre per year. That, Mr. Chairman, is what we gave away. One can say that the province of British Columbia gave it away, and that is true. But what I am saying is that the International Joint Commission is a child of the treaty that was entered into between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, and it is therefore our responsibility in this House to make sure that this giveaway does not happen.
The Minister of the Environment-I will be most generous in what I say-immediately recognized the seriousness of this problem and began to take steps to see what could be done about it. On October 10, 1970, he issued a statement. Part of the statement reads as follows:
The International Joint Commission had a great deal of faith in the B.C. government, too much faith perhaps. It left the Skagit to our provincial authorities to look after. Victoria was to look after the Canadian interest. Victoria was to look after the writing of a contract with the Seattle City Light Company in the U.S.A.
That is an admission that the Minister of the Environment recognized that a mistake had been made, that a potential legal invalidity lay in the order that allowed Victoria to settle with Seattle as to terms. Then the minister made this commitment:
All I can tell you this morning is that we in Ottawa are taking our responsibilities seriously. We are going to do something with the hot potato which Premier Bennett has tossed our way. As a starter we'll open up the Skagit issue for public discussion right here in B.C.
The Prime Minister was next to get into the act. On November 25, 1970, in The Province the right hon. gentleman is quoted as saying:
The best way-
That is, to end the threat of flooding.
-would be to do it yourself-get rid of Bennett.
Let me inform those hon. members whose knowledge of the beautiful province of British Columbia is limited that the "Bennett" referred to is the former premier, the Hon. W. A. C. Bennett who until recently was premier of the province. For better or for worse, the people of British Columbia did get rid of Mr. Bennett but this, contrary to the hopes expressed by the Prime Minister, has not resulted in the going away of the threat of the flooding of this valley.
I should say, also, that hon. members of all parties have supported the opposition to this flooding. As far as the government party is concerned, I want to make sure that hon. members on that side know full well how hard a certain member of the legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia, a member of the Liberal party, has worked on this matter. I pay tribute here to Mr. David Brousson, the member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia who has as much as any man led the fight to save this valley for the whole of the country. I think hon. members on the government benches should be aware of that fact because it has been the Liberal party in

February 14, 1973

the province of British Columbia as much as any other which has been in the forefront of this fight. It behooves government members to pay close attention to all those things that must be attended to if we are to win that fight.
There was a promise, of course, that there would be a public hearing on this matter. But there never was. What happened finally was that the government promised that this matter would be brought back before the International Joint Commission. Most people engaged in the fight breathed a sigh of relief because they felt if it went back to the International Joint Commission that would be the end of it. A very strange thing happened. The 1971 terms of reference that the governments of Canada and the United States agreed to in putting the matter back before the International Joint Commission contained these strange and sinister words:
The International Joint Commission ... to report on the nature, scope and impact of these consequences; and to make such recommendations, not inconsistent with the commission's order of approval dated January 27, 1942, and the related Agreement dated January 10, 1967, between the city of Seattle and the province of British Columbia as the commission may deem appropriate for the protection and enhancement of the environment-
The effect of that was that the International Joint Commission, by virtue of its terms of reference, did not have the power of jurisdiction to say no to the flooding. Let no one in this House fad to remember or to take into account the intense disappointment of thousands of citizens in Vancouver who realized that these hearings, no matter how they ended up, could not result, from the terms of reference, in the IJC saying no.
I have asked, as have other people, why the government of Canada agreed to these limited terms of reference. There may be reasons which justify these limited terms, but the fact is that they were limited and, as a consequence, the International Joint Commission brought out its report. While it could not say no, the report went so far toward saying no that headlines sprung up in papers across the country to the effect that the Skagit was saved by the IJC report. The fact of the matter is that there was a lot of optimism but that optimism was ill-founded. This matter was tabled in the House of Commons when the IJC report came out and there was a commitment by the Minister of the Environment at that time to study the matter and bring a report back to the House. So far that report has never been made to the House.
Let me go back to one incident at the hearing before the International Joint Commission. This is significant in that it refers to the legal point of which not enough has been made. I refer to the legal argument presented on behalf of the citizens who opposed the flooding, to the effect that the 1942 order was invalid and, as a consequence, the 1967 agreement was invalid. For some strange and incredible reason which I do not understand, which is completely and utterly beyond me and beyond other people there at the time, the representative of the Canadian government made this statement after the legal arguments before the IJC were closed. This statement was made by a representative of the government of Canada who was doing everything possible to stop this flooding, and I quote from page 130 of the transcript:
Supply
-the government of Canada has treated the 1942 order and the 1967 agreement as perfectly sound legal documents and this has been our posture and I think that speaks for itself.
At this point we have the government saying it wants to stop the flooding, and we have arguments presented that could be used to stop it, yet we have a representative of the government of Canada saying that the government thinks these are legal documents. If any member of this House does not know how discouraging it is, when you are involved in a citizens' group fighting for something, to hear somebody from your own government shooting you down before the United States government, let him be faced with that sort of thing. This is one example of what we have had to fight against. There seems to have been an unexplained lack of co-ordination.
To bring the matter up to date, we now have been told by the Minister of the Environment that the Skagit is a dead issue. In fact, there was a press conference held in the fall by Premier Barrett and the Minister of the Environment wherein the Minister of the Environment assured us that if the province of British Columbia did not want the flooding to take place, it would not happen. He said: Really, it is all over. When the government of British Columbia, who owns the valley, says the valley is not going to be flooded it's just a matter of Seattle City Light getting the message loud and clear-
Again the news headlines suggested that the valley was saved. Curiously enough, on February 6 when had occasion to raise the matter in this House and I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs what was happening, he said, as reported at page 1000 of Hansard, for that date:
Mr. Speaker, we have made our representations to the United States government which I believe is quite happy to discuss them with us. The outstanding issue at the moment is not the question of the flooding but the question of the cost, and this is what we are discussing at present.
That was a curious reply I say, with respect, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. How can we be discussing costs if the United States is still going ahead with the flooding? On January 29 of this year, Seattle City Light filed its brief with the United States Federal Power Commission and is proceeding with its application before that commission. Unless we do something or get some agreement with the United States, that commission will make the final determination as to whether a Canadian valley is flooded.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked on February 6 what he meant by his answer in the House. I say gently, that is a good question. This is what he said to a radio news reporter, Mr. Doug Taylor, of CKWX:
There is nobody believes now that the . .. Skagit Valley will be flooded. And that is why my colleague the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis, said, "The Flooding of the Skagit is a dead issue". What we are talking about now is . .. who is to pay the costs that have been incurred ... so this is what we're talking to the American government about. I agree with my colleague the Minister of Environment, that the flooding of the Skagit is a dead issue.
If this is a dead issue, I wonder why a letter of December 18 from Seattle City Light to the mayor of the city of Seattle said this:
The Canadians apparently deem it sound strategy to make strident but unofficial press statements, and studiously refrain from any legislative action affecting Ross on either the federal or provincial level.

Supply
Further in that letter we find this:
We understand from contacts with our state department that it would view very seriously any Canadian action repudiating the treaty agreement-
My time is just about up, but this is my point. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment do in fact have an agreement with our United States friends that this flooding is not going to take place, surely it is an obligation on the government to say so in this House. Certainly it is an obligation of the government to say to the citizens' groups opposing this, raising money and getting ready to fight it before a United States tribunal, groups from both the Canadian and the United States side, that they can safely withdraw because this matter has been settled. This is what I ask the government to do. I ask hon. members to support this position and encourage the government to make such a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I shall say only a few words. First, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver South for raising this subject. It is very important, especially in the eyes of the people of British Columbia. I believe it is also important to Canadians since what has happened here could create a precedent for good or ill in respect of other situations along the border between Canada and the United States.
The hon. member concluded by expressing concern about certain groups which are raising money to continue the fight in respect of the flooding in Canada of a beautiful valley. They need not be in too much of a hurry because the Federal Power Commission, which could be meeting on this subject, will not be considering the application by Seattle City Light and Power Company until late in the fall. So there will be a period of some months before that hearing will begin.
Let me try to describe the present situation. It is not one of flooding which is about to take place. It is one involving compensation. The hon. member for Vancouver South is a lawyer and therefore knows that this issue is now in the hands of lawyers on both sides of the border.
The province of British Columbia in 1967 signed a contract of sorts with Seattle City Light and Power which involved certain costs. It certainly involved a large expenditure on the part of Seattle City Light in subsequent years. The province of British Columbia has, in effect, torn up that contract and Seattle City Light is, in its eyes, out a considerable sum of money. This company is owned by the people of Seattle. Considerable jockeying is going on now concerning who should pay how much. It is yet to be settled as to whether there is some obligation on the part of the people of Canada, as distinct from the people of British Columbia as represented by their provincial government.
The amount of money involved could run into millions of dollars. Whether Canadians should pay any part of that amount really is the issue. It is really a question of who pays, and how much, what obligation was entered into by the province in 1967, and how binding that obligation is in respect of a financial settlement with Seattle City Light.
The federal government has been in touch continually with the state department in Washington. It is my understanding that the state department has in recent weeks been in touch with Seattle City Light, but I suspect this jockeying will go on for some time. It is essentially a matter of the amount owing, and who pays whom in respect of the unfortunate incident.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes.


John Allen Fraser: Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a question to the minister. I am not so naive as not to know that there is a certain amount of jockeying going on in respect of compensation. I am also a good enough lawyer to know that if a contract is broken by frustration, one cannot claim damages. The frustration was created by an act of the Government of Canada. The agreement under which Seattle wishes to claim damages may have no effect at all. I ask the minister whether he or the government is prepared to say to this House, positively and absolutely, now, that there is no possibility of this flooding taking place; not just now but at all.


John (Jack) Davis: I may be sticking my chin out a bit, but I would say there is no possibility of it taking place.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Chairman, if the minister would permit a question I would like to ask him this. The minister mentioned that the question is one of compensation. In this particular context "compensation" could mean different things. It could be compensation for damage in respect of flooding; it could also be compensation for expenses, expectations and failures in construction. Which sort of compensation are we talking about?


John (Jack) Davis: The only kind of compensation we are talking about is moneys expended by Seattle City Light in the interval, I believe, from 1967 to the present or to the time when they finally received word from British Columbia. There is some debate as to when they received word.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, it is very close to six o'clock. May I call it six o'clock?


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
At 5.57 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
February 14, 1973


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Annex I
	Building Signs Replacement	New Building
[Stage Direction]
Province
[Stage Direction]
Signs
[Stage Direction]
Signs
[Stage Direction]
British Columbia
[Stage Direction]
10
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Alberta
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
10
[Stage Direction]
Saskatchewan
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
Ontario
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
Quebec
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
North West Territories
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
Yukon Territory
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
26
[Stage Direction]
26
[Stage Direction]
Vehicle Signs New Signs Replacement to April 27
[Stage Direction]
Annex 2 New Signs post April 27
[Stage Direction]
Province
[Stage Direction]
Signs
[Stage Direction]
1972
[Stage Direction]
1972
[Stage Direction]
British Columbia
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
64
[Stage Direction]
24
[Stage Direction]
Alberta
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
80
[Stage Direction]
12
[Stage Direction]
Saskatchewan
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
145
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
Manitoba
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
81
[Stage Direction]
16
[Stage Direction]
Ontario
[Stage Direction]
16
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
8
[Stage Direction]
Quebec
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
New Brunswick
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
64
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
Prince Edward Island 0
[Stage Direction]
9
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
69
[Stage Direction]
12
[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
9
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
North West Territories 0
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
Yukon Territory
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
3
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
18
[Stage Direction]
536
[Stage Direction]
86
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 15, 1973