1973-03-29

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Dupras.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House of the dairy policy for the year starting April 1.
The government has concluded that in order to ensure an adequate supply of dairy products for Canadian consumers, it is necessary to take steps to help dairy farmers meet the rising cost of production with which they have been faced, costs that have escalated rapidly in recent months due partly to worldwide shortages of feed grains and protein supplements.
It will be appreciated that in deciding on measures to that end, consideration had to be given to the present concern over food prices. The decision, therefore, is that only part of the increase will come from the market, and part from subsidy payments to producers for manufacturing milk and cream.
The Canadian Dairy Commission has been authorized to set its support price on butter, effective April 1, at 71 cents per pound; the level in the year just ending has been 68 cents. This is an increase of just over 4 per cent. It may be noted, however, that the new price is only 9 per cent higher than in 1967, which was the first year of the commission's operations. Over that six year period this works out to an average annual increase of slightly over 1 per cent.
The new support price on skim milk powder will be 35 cents per pound. The present price is 29 cents.
The support price for Cheddar cheese, affective April 1 will be 60 cents per pound, up six cents from the level in effect in 1972-73 but below current market price.
The rate of direct subsidy to producers is to be increased by 20 cents per hundred pounds of milk, or 5.71 cents per pound butterfat. The total new rate will then be $1.45 per hundred pounds of milk, or 41.42 cents per
pound of butterfat. The new rate will apply to quota deliveries of manufacturing milk and cream on and after April 1. It is considered that the changed relationship between the domestic and the international price for skim milk powder will necessitate the Canadian Dairy Commission increasing the rate of producer levy to 30 cents per hundred pounds of milk.
I should point out that it is not possible to state precisely the impact of these changes in terms of increased returns to producers, since the federal government does not set market prices paid to producers. Any such authority rests with provincial agencies. However, a straight calculation, if all the benefits were reflected in producer prices, equates with approximately 60 cents per hundred pounds of milk.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like to thank the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for his courtesy in making this statement available to our party in ample time to be aware of the announcement to the House today.
I should like to begin by saying that I am rather shocked at the statement that has been made today. This statement represents the government's reaction to the chaotic economic state of the dairy industry in Canada today. It represents for one year all the concentrated action of this government on behalf of an industry which, for many months and in many ways, has made direct representations to this government. It represents the government's action on behalf of an industry which has found that in the past year it has been unable to fully meet the dairy requirements of this country. It is all very well for the minister to intimate that poor weather conditions made it impossible for us to meet our commitments. However, this excuse does not hold true because this is not the first time in the last three or four years that the dairy industry has been put into a position where it could not meet our domestic requirements. What this policy represents to the dairy industry is the very minimum that the government considers necessary for sustaining this industry in Canada in a viable state.
It is unfortunate that the minister, who has a farm background, and this new government did not see fit at this time to change policy to such an extent that we might have had some indication of a long term policy for keeping this industry stable in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harold Warren Danforth: This is a most important industry to a tremendous number of farm families in this country, as well as to every consumer. Providing only minimum sustenance and just keeping this industry alive is not going to keep this industry viable in Canada. At a time

March 29, 1973
The Dairy Policy
when other countries appreciate the value of our cattle and offer fabulous sums to the producers of this country for cattle which are exported, at a time when this government is encouraging the importation of dairy products into this country and at the very time when we need stability as never before if we are to combat high food prices, this is the policy the government has adopted in order to sustain and keep this industry viable.
I should like to say one thing in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and it is this: The government and the Department of Agriculture cannot solve any of the problems in agriculture today if all they are concerned about is providing from day to day the most minimal assistance to this industry. It must operate on a basis of profit if we are to have the type of industry that Canadians can be proud of and one that will produce the food Canadians need.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the minister some questions about dairy policy and cheese. He said he had been speaking with people in the dairy industry and that he would have answers. At any rate, this is a pretty weak answer, and I do not think it represents the comprehensive approach we need to take at this time to the dairy industry of Canada.
Yesterday, men representing a cheese factory in Ontario came to meet with my party. They asked if there was not some way in which they could get enough raw milk to keep that cheese factory going. At the same time the authorities in Saskatchewan are trying to persuade people to go into cheese production, after having driven farmers out of butter production three or four years ago. The statement that has been made to us in no way answers some of the real needs of the industry.
The minister did not tell us that we will need to import over 20 million pounds of butter this year; yet here we are, one of the largest agricultural producing countries in the world and we cannot produce enough butter for our own needs. We have been driving smaller farmers and smaller cheese factories out of production. Actually, the government gives them a bonus if they get out of production. Yet these same farmers and same cheese producers are begging to be allowed to produce more of their product, because they say there is an unlimited market, as far as they are concerned, for good Canadian Cheddar cheese.
The small amount of money that is being put up will help. I wonder if the minister thinks it will answer the purposes of those people whom he met in Smiths Falls. They told him they could not afford to hire enough help to effectively operate their dairy farm. I wonder if the minister thinks that the 1 per cent increase he is granting for this year under this policy, and about which he probably boasts, is going to meet the increased costs the dairy farmers in Canada have to absorb. I hope the minister has better plans and a better program for the dairy farmers of this country than that set out in the statement which he has made to this House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to make a suggestion which I hope will cover all departments. Since the offices of the members are not

all located in the same building, when a minister is to make a statement, would it be possible to send a copy to each member of the standing committee concerned, which in my opinion would be very helpful to all? I am not blaming the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) because he surely sent a copy of his statement to our leader, but since our offices are in another building we can barely examine the statements before the opening of a sitting.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that we were eagerly waiting the statement of the Minister of Agriculture disclosing the dairy policy of the government for the year beginning on April 1, 1973.
In the statement that has just been made, I wish indeed that the minister had considered the increase in production costs which has occurred, particularly since the fall of 1972, because dairy producers have had to purchase more feed because of the poor crops in 1972.
Considering that production costs have gone up in the fall of 1972, I would have hoped at least that the increase announced today would be retroactive to November 1972. Would it be worse for farm workers to to benefit retroactively from the effects of one decision or the other than for workers of other industries who benefit from the retroactive effects of collective bargaining?
The long term objective of the Canadian Dairy Commission is to guarantee to dairy producers an income and stability comparable with those of other sectors of the economy, otherwise an industry could not today remain prosperous for long. The commission is also expected to maintain and boost the consumption of milk and dairy products in Canada.
If these two aims are not reached, the quality of food will be noticeably reduced, and with it the quality of life of our urban and rural populations.
It is a fact that the returns that industrial milk and cream producers are getting for their products have become totally unacceptable and must be raised further; representations to that effect have been made by the industrial milk producers, the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers and also the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
I do think that all the minister's meetings with these organizations have been profitable, but more notice should have been taken of the representations that have been made.
Not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, the returns from the market, combined with direct subsidies to industrial milk producers, had finally, after years of insufficient income, reached a level sufficiently in excess of the overheads to allow something like a fair degree of remuneration. But in the last few months' costs have risen sharply all along the line, especially those of feed grain and mill feed.
Since November, the price of dairy mill feed with 16 per cent protein content has gone up from $70 to $100 a ton. That is why I claim that the increased subsidy rate should be made retroactive to November 1972, so as to guarantee industrial milk producers a reasonable income for their winter production. It is also urgent to solve the problem of feed grain without delay.
March 29, 1973

We sometimes hear people saying that the industrial milk producers are asking too much, or that they are incompetent and poor administrators, and that current prices should allow them ample returns. That is what some people say.
Strange, Mr. Speaker, that those people who act as experts in the forum of the dairy industry should not deal themselves in that production to give the example of their knowledge and the secret of their success. That would really help milk producers.
In conclusion, I say that I am always astounded to hear the comments when an increase in the cost of living is announced. It is always the same old story: if the cost of living goes up, the farmers are to blame, which is contrary to the facts. I therefore suggest that, to satisfy both producers and consumers, a discount should be decreed on the cost of dairy products, discount that would lower consumer prices and check rising prices. That discount would be made up to the producers by the Agricultural Stabilization Board through new credits made available to it by the Bank of Canada. In that way, both consumers and producers would be happy.
It is urgent that farm producers get a higher net income if they are to stay in business and if we want to encourage the young to go into farming.
In La Terre de Chez Nous dated March 21, Mr. Speaker, at least 50 auction sales were advertised, of which most were dairy operations.
The danger is serious. Unless more people devote their time to agriculture, there will be a shortage of Canadian farm produce. They will then have to be imported, at higher costs, and when a country depends on others for its food, it loses its freedom and security.
Those, then, Mr. Speaker, were the suggestions and remarks I wanted to make in all honesty, as a conclusion to my criticism. I hope the minister will keep that in mind and that he will recommend to the cabinet that they be adopted as soon as possible.
On concluding, if I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A few minutes ago, I wanted to interrupt the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), but as he indicated then that he was almost finished, I did not interrupt him. But he says again that he is about to conclude, and before he does, may I remind all hon. members about the provisions of Standing Order 15, and I quote:
A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly, subject to the same limitation.
I emphasize the word briefly, and I dare hope that hon. members who offer comments in the future under the provisions of this order will do so as briefly as possible.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I always respect the Chair, but I wish to raise a point of order to point out it is unpleasant for a Frenchspeaking member who has important things to tell the House to hear all kinds of conversation which bother very much the member who has the floor.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would like very much in the future-
Ways and Means


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member again, but he will certainly be able to conclude his remarks. I quite agree with him and I would find it hardly acceptable that the hon. member for Bellechasse and all other members who express themselves in French are not getting as much attention as those who speak in English, according to Standing Order 15.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!

[Eng lish]


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table several notices of ways and means motions relating to income taxes, sales taxes arid the customs tariff, pursuant to Standing Order 60, paragraph one. In part they supersede notices tabled at the time of my February budget, and in part they reintroduce proposals which I made to this House in my budget of May 1972. In view of the interest and importance we all attach to these matters, I should like to take a moment to outline the contents of the notices to the House.
Members of the House will be aware of the main income tax measures proposed in the two budgets. All are vitally important to Canadians, but enactment of some is more urgent than others. In particular, I am referring to the measures which affect taxpayers in the taxation year 1972. Many taxpayers who have filed, or will be filing by April 30, 1972 tax returns are affected by measures announced in the May and the February budgets. In respect of these taxpayers, final assessments cannot be made and refunds, where they are due to taxpayers, cannot be paid until parliament has acted. The highest priority therefore attaches to all the measures which affect the 1972 taxation year.
For this reason, the notices of ways and means motions I am tabling today affecting income taxes, and the bill which will be based upon them, will deal with the measures of the May and February budgets affecting taxpayers for the year 1972. These proposals include the increase in the old age exemption, the new education expense deduction, the new provisions in respect of medical expenses, the tax free transfer of the family farm to children upon death, the elimination of the ineligible investment test for small businesses and a number of items arising out of tax reform.
I also wish to table two further notices of ways and means motions covering the sales tax and custom tariff changes proposed in the May budget. In the main, the measures announced in the budget of last May took effect in 1972 and, therefore, should also be given prior consideration.
I would urge the House to deal expeditiously with these 1972 tax measures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 29, 1973
Ways and Means


John Napier Turner: After these have been dealt with, parliament will be asked to consider those tax measures arising out of the May and February budgets which affect 1973 and subsequent taxation years. These will include matters such as the increase in xthe basic exemptions, the tax cut for individuals, the indexing of the personel income tax system, the tax reductions for manufacturing and processing industries, and the 1973 reductions in customs, excise and sales taxes.
I am confident that members of this House will agree that this is a sensible and orderly way to deal with the tax measures arising out of the May and February budgets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: With the permission of the House I would ask that these notices be printed in the notice paper appended to Votes and Proceedings. And, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, pursuant to Standing Order 60(2), to designate on orders of the day for consideration of these ways and means motions on Tuesday next.
(Editors Note: For Text of Ways and Means Motions referred to, see Todays' Votes and Proceedings]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if these matters that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has dealt with and the way in which he has dealt with them were not so serious for the country, the whole thing would be laughable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You will notice of course that, first of all, the minister is replacing the Ways and Means notices that he presented at the time of his budget with some different Ways and Means notices. This is a complete abandonment of the tradition of this House that Ways and Means notices published at the time of a budget mean something. This is a further indication that what this government says one month will be replaced by something quite different the next month.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will not know, Sir, whether the notices of motions the minister has yet to table will, in fact, vary his budget proposals until we see them and the bills that follow. The minister has proposed that the House should deal, first of all, with taxation matters relating to 1972. I certainly agree about the urgency of those proposals as they affect hundreds of thousands of individual Canadians. Here we are at tax filing time and, for openers, the Canadian taxpayer is faced with a complicated and confusing tax form with which even the experts are having a great deal of difficulty in coping.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If that were not enough in itself, an even more disturbing aspect of the current situation is that Canadians are being required to complete tax returns based on non-existent law. Surely, there cannot be a more damning illustration of the administrative incompetence of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We had proposals put forward nearly 11 months ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) promising higher tax exemptions and deductions for persons 65 years of age and older, for the handicapped, the disabled and the full-time student, to be retroactive to January 1, 1972. When these proposals were made the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were front and centre taking the credit, yet they did not even have the simple decency to enact them into law before calling an election which did not work out quite as well for them as they had hoped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now, thousands of tax refund cheques are being held up because this government did not take its responsibilities seriously, and these promises were left hanging in the air prior to the election. The government waited two months after the election before asking the House to meet; it waited for three more months before introducing these measures into the House, yet the Minister of Finance, who must rate now as one of the greatest comedians of all times-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -stands up in the House and says: "I would urge the House to deal expeditiously with these measures".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: He is out to bring vaudeville back.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Finance must have a lot of brass to stand up in the House of Commons and say that. I do not think he is likely to tender his resignation very easily. I can assure him that by comparison with the record of the government since May in respect of these proposals, this House will act relatively very expeditiously-
I agree that these 1972 proposals are urgent for the reasons I have given, which are familiar to all. Why can we not have a little frankness and openness from the Minister of Finance? Why can we not have all the Ways and Means proposals before us so that we can look at them all together? We now have the budget proposals of 1972, the budget proposals of 1973 and we have part of the Ways and Means motions relating to both budgets.


Mr. Fairweather:: And we also have Lewis's proposals.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What has happened to the corporate tax proposals for 1972?


An hon. Member:: They are gone.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Benson looked pretty good.


An hon. Member:: He is chicken.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely, it is a tradition of this parliament that when we have budgets and proposals put before the
March 29, 1973

House we have all those proposals before us so we know that with which we are dealing. Some cynics might say that the Minister of Finance has not yet got the approval of his colleagues to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Some might be inclined to say that the Minister of Finance is not very much concerned with getting the 1972 laws straightened out so that people can file tax forms in conformance with the law and get their tax rebates, while others might say he is not as much concerned about that as he is in buying some time for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Chew on that one for a while.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am a very innocent man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All I know about relations within the government and between the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, Sir, is what I read in the Globe and Mail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am nearly finished, Mr. Speaker. In view of the slipping and sliding, the assertions one month and the denials the next-


An hon. Member:: Suck and blow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -surely this House is entitled to have all the Ways and Means notices before it. The government can choose the order in which it wishes to deal with them in the House. Surely, we are entitled to have all these things, Sir, and I simply ask the House, through you, Sir, what kind of way is this to run the country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


George Harris Hees: Here comes the junior member.


Mr. Nielsen:: The deputy prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: You have had your opportunity, and now you should sit still. Mr. Speaker, I am just as innocent as the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: My friends who are cynics suggest that one of the reasons the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) may be delaying some of the other proposals he would put before us is that he is anxiously waiting to find out what the policy of the official opposition may be on them.


An hon. Member:: We now hear from the political happy hooker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Ways and Means


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Last Friday's vulture.


David Lewis: It is, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Absolutely useless.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has the floor and should be given an opportunity to be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I have an uneasy feeling, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Conservative Party feel a little uncomfortable today,-


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho.


David Lewis: -hence their attitude. I was going to say it is perfectly reasonable in a minority parliament for the government to be concerned about what is the position on this issue of the various parties in this House, particularly the second largest party. I sympathize with the Minister of Finance if he is having difficulty ascertaining precisely what the position may be. It is, of course, correct to criticize the minister and the government for the lateness of these particular proposals. It is of course, correct that many thousands of Canadians have been inconvenienced by that fact. However, I want to say that it is a reasonable and sensible proposal at this late date to deal with matters that concern the 1972 taxation year, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it is sensible and reasonable to do that.
My comments will not be long. I have not seen what is in the motions which the minister has tabled, but since these motions are limited to those matters affecting the taxation year 1972 which concern individual taxpayers only, so far as my colleagues and I are concerned we will have no difficulty in giving every assistance to having these measures passed as quickly as possible so that the Canadian people affected will have the laws that they need before making their final decision with regard to what they owe the treasury before April 30, 1973. We will have no difficulty in supporting the bill that will follow that resolution because it deals with relief to individual taxpayers in Canada, although I repeat what we have often said, that we would prefer a tax credit system instead of a system of personal exemptions which necessarily favours those with higher incomes and not those with lower incomes to the same extent. But since these higher exemptions affect, so far as this motion is concerned, the old age pensioners in this country, that is all the more reason this parliament ought quickly to adopt the bill which will follow the resolutions, and so far as my colleagues and I are concerned we shall assist in doing this.
In conclusion, I want to say very simply that I note the minister stated that at some time in this parliament he will bring back other measures. I want merely to repeat what I have already said, that when the concessions to the corporations indicated in the May 1972 budget are before

March 29, 1973
Ways and Means
this House we are as firm in our opposition to them now as we have been.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who has just supplied us with the French text of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat the remarks of the two previous speakers, which were to the point, but certain words cannot go without some comment from our corner of the House, specifically on page 2 of the minister's statement, from which I quote:
I would urge the House to deal expeditiously with these 1972 tax measures.
Dealing expeditiously with 1972 tax measures, when we are in April 1973 is a mockery of the taxpayers, specially those, thousands of them, who have already paid out fees to accountants for preparation of their tax returns on time, because they do not always leave them to the last minute. The minister indeed recognizes this in his statement, saying on page 1, and I quote:
Many taxpayers who have filed, or will be filing by April 30, their 1972 tax returns are affected by measures announced in the May and the February budgets. In respect of these taxpayers, final assessment cannot be made and refunds, where they are due to taxpayers, cannot be paid until parliament has acted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those measures are not yet known to us and we have before us today clear proof that some taxpayers, or most of them, will have to make out new returns, as a result of the new measures. They will have to pay out professional fees again for drawing up this second return, all because of the Minister of Finance's lack of foresight in not announcing at least a month or 60 days in advance the measures he will be introducing next Tuesday.
That shows, Mr. Speaker, that once again politics are being practiced to the detriment of low-income Canadian taxpayers, and also that the present parliament-and because of parliament all of us-do not know where it is headed for in the fiscal field.
The Minister of Finance might announce other measures tomorrow. When will it end? He may announce new measures to amend tax regulations or the May or February budgets.
It is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, to see that the Minister of Finance who, I admit, is a nice fellow, since he has taken part in some very popular contests in Quebec, does not make more "attractive" his tax measures and recommendations, which will clearly not be passed next Tuesday. These new measures will force thousands of taxpayers to revise their tax returns, taxpayers who have already been puzzling over them for months, only to have to start afresh in the light of the minister's statement.
I consider that the Minister of Finance ought to make more "attractive" and clearer, not only his statements and the programs on which he works, but also his financial and fiscal policy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns every livestock producer in Canada in that hog prices in the United States have dropped $13 in the last two weeks, which is a 24 per cent drop, and live cattle prices have dropped $3 and are still dropping. There is now clear evidence that both hog and cattle prices in Canada are following the same pattern. Canadian hog prices have now dropped 20 per cent in two weeks, no doubt triggered by the Japanese withdrawal from our Canadian pork market.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? I hesitate, of course, to interrupt the hon. member for Medicine Hat, but I think it is a well recognized practice and precedent in connection with motions under Standing Order 43 that any explanation for the information of the House in support of the motion should be very brief. Members should not argue the case. It is only when a motion is accepted that the hon. member can make a speech in support of the motion that would then be under consideration. I am sure the hon. member would want to be brief.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will come to my motion.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth):
That the Ministers of Finance and Agriculture be requested to immediately reimpose the Canadian tariffs, recently removed by the current budget, on livestock and livestock products in order that panic marketing conditions do not become a serious threat to our Canadian livestock industry.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move two motions having to do with the visit of the President of Mexico to the House tomorrow. I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport:
March 29, 1973

That on Friday, March 30, 1973, the House shall meet at 10.00 o'clock a.m. and adjourn at 11.00 o'clock a.m. when the Daily Routine of Business (Standing Order 15(1) and (2)) shall be considered and disposed of; and that a second sitting of the House be held from 2.00 o'clock p.m. to 5.00 o'clock p.m., when the order of business shall be as provided for in section (4) of Standing Order 15.
I may explain that the interruption in the proceeding is necessary in order to arrange the chamber for the address of the President of Mexico, which will take place at noon.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
It is agreed and so ordered.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I anticipate tomorrow by making a second motion. I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport;
That the Address of the President of Mexico, Mr. Luis Echeverria, to be delivered on March 30 before the Members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, in the Chamber of the House of Commons, together with the introductory and related speeches, be appended to that day's Debates and thus form part of the records of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion by the President of the Privy Council. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr, Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
Since the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau has conducted a study on the air transportation of goods and that its report is a matter interesting the entire country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin):
Oral Questions
That this House do refer to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the report concerning the Mirabel airport and report to the House in the shortest possible time.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, there must be unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Granting the appropriateness of proceeding first with the measures relating to 1972 income, I would like to ask the minister if he has any explanation as to why he has not tabled today the Ways and Means motion relating to the other fiscal measures with which he intends to proceed?


John Napier Turner: Those will be brought forward in due course, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to examine them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, because I would not want to criticize him unfairly, if he has any reason for departing from the well established traditions of this House in not tabling these other measures along with the ones that he did table?


John Napier Turner: As I suggested earlier, perhaps the most urgent matter to clarify is the 1972 tax year and the best way to proceed would be to deal first with ways and means for the 1972 tax year. When these are disposed of, the measures I announced in the House relating to the 1973 tax year, as announced in the May and February budgets, will be introduced.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO CHANGE WILL BE MADE IN WAYS AND MEANS MOTION RELATING TO 1972 CORPORATION TAX
Robert Lorne Stanfield: would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give the House an assurance that the notice of the ways and means motion he will introduce relating to the corporation tax cuts will be precisely the same as the notice of ways and means motion that he tabled in 1972, and followed up by the legislative bills?

March 29, 1973
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cause the hon. gentleman too much concern but the government remains committed to introducing, at an early date, after disposition of the resolutions just introduced today, the budget measures that I announced in the May and February budget addresses, and he will have an opportunity to compare texts at that time.


PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization who was here a few minutes ago-someone may give him notice of this-whether in light of the extraordinary method adopted by the Minister of Finance, he would suggest that his committee review the provisions of Standing Order 60 so that this disgraceful and disorderly way of handling the fiscal and budgetary matters of this country can be brought under control?


MANPOWER
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of reports that Manpower offices, because of lack of adequate staff, continue to send job seekers to positions that have either been filled or to employers who list jobs with Manpower but who are unwilling to hire those applicants referred by Manpower, could the minister briefly inform the House what measures are being taken to improve the Manpower counselling and referral services, so as to serve better those who are seeking jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the minister that if he replies to this question he should do so briefly. Normally, the information sought should be given by way of a statement on motions. The minister will be recognized for the purpose of replying briefly.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the question and the criticism of Manpower offices, as I have often done in the past, again I say that I would welcome specifics. It is difficult to deal with generalities in a question such as this. Since the second part of the hon. member's question would take a great deal of time to answer. May I say that I intend to make a comprehensive statement to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in the not too distant future when the estimates of my department come up for consideration by it.


John R. Rodriguez: Specifically, Mr. Speaker, would the minister investigate and report to the House why the Ottawa Manpower office continues to send job seekers on a wild goose chase, after more than 20 qualified candidates have been referred to Pure Spring of Canada Ltd. in Ottawa and the company has refused to hire any of them?


Robert Knight Andras: I will look into the representation, Mr. Speaker.


WELFARE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the recent decisions by the minister who just spoke whose department, when dealing with a number of people who were laid off had then removed from the UIC rolls. In many cases, these people ended up on welfare. The question concerns a pamphlet which until recently was distributed by his department entitled, "When Your UIC Benefits Run Out, What Then?"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask a question. It seems to me that the preliminaries are a bit long.


John Edward Broadbent: I am coming to it right away. My question is that this pamphlet was widely distributed, and yet it has been recalled in the last few days from circulation, on the grounds-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is being recalled to order.


John Edward Broadbent: The question is, Mr. Speaker: could the minister inform the House why it was withdrawn, and what misstatements of information are in this pamphlet?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the brochure in question must have been widely distributed, because it was not even distributed to the minister! I do not know, therefore, to what the hon. member is referring, and not having seen the brochure before it was distributed I cannot even tell why it was recalled. I have never heard of it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peel South on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Portneuf.

March 29, 1973


MANPOWER
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister advise the House if he is proposing to introduce legislation to combine his Manpower offices and his UIC offices, as he suggested in committee some weeks ago?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I ever suggested that I was on the verge of introducing such legislation. I said we were examining the relationship between UIC and Manpower with a view to providing greater co-operation, but there was no suggestion of bringing forward legislation to do that.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A further supplementary. Would the minister then give the House the details of the investigation concerning the relationship between manpower and UIC, and could he explain briefly to the House why these two units under his department are not combined?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the decision to separate the two operations was taken some six or seven years ago, I think, after fairly thorough discussion in this House. We are examining the whole issue in the light of current conditions, and situations, and I made such a comment before the committee. I will be glad to discuss it before the committee in detail again when the opportunity arises.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Has the minister seen the report commissioned by the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau with reference to the methods for updating air transport? If so, does the minister intend to initiate the project involving the advantages of centralizing air freight at the Mirabel airport?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have read in La Presse that this report had simply been published before it was due, that is, La Presse found a copy and published it yesterday. I am waiting to have it officially conveyed to me before making some comments.


Roland Godin: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since experts claim that carrying out the project would apparently lower transportation costs and that the project cannot be completed without the minister's intervention, can he tell us what steps he intends to take to that effect?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member says that it can be done without my intervention, I will let the experts act, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, keeping the two previous questions in mind, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Transport.
Could the Quebec government take a decision without consulting the federal government?


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of his reply to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and in the absence of the Minister of Communications, is the Prime Minister now prepared to report to the House on a discussion he may have had with that minister with regard to the large increases granted CN-CP Telecommunications?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have not had time to discuss that matter with the Minister of Communications since I answered the question in the House yesterday or the day before.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, from the way in which the cabinet has handled this matter, can we assume that it has a low priority and they are actually granting approval of this 50 per cent increase?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, but the law provides for a certain delay during which the cabinet can consider these matters. We intend to respect this delay, but we found it more important today to settle the dairy products policy and the tax policy.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister advise what action he is prepared to take to halt the unfortunate downgrading of airline services by Air Canada through the elimination of United States customs preclearance facilities at Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with downgrading services. I am told that the United States have refused customs clearance or preclearance at airport No. 2 in Toronto. Such a refusal put Air Canada in an unfavourable position. I know that since then the U.S. government has reacted and we are to meet its representatives to see whether it is

March 29, 1973
Oral Questions
possible to solve this extremely delicate problem, as the interests of Air Canada, this important Canadian company, are at stake.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. For clarification, could the minister tell the House whether the actual reason for the elimination of preclearance was to save Air Canada money or to put American Airlines operating out of Toronto and Montreal at a competitive disadvantage, or was it because of the inability of the minister and his officials to reach a suitable agreement-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the statement by the President of the Public Service Alliance that 22,000 public servants are living at or near the poverty line, and that there is certain to be a confrontation between the Public Service Alliance and the government, could the minister tell the House whether the government has been looking into this problem and whether he has prepared a defence of the salary system as it applies to a large number of federal employees who are bordering on poverty?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is well aware that the salary levels are arrived at by a process known as collective bargaining, resulting in agreement.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question. With respect to the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement, will the minister undertake to act with more speed than his colleague the Minister of Finance has demonstrated in this House today?


OIL-SUGGESTED RESTRICTION ON EXPORTS TO BRING INTO BALANCE WITH IMPORTS-PLANS TO ASSURE SECURITY OF SUPPLIES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since for the third consecutive year the Alberta crude oil conventional reserves have declined by some 293 million barrels, and for Canada as a whole by 430 million barrels, has the minister given any thought to the advisability of restricting the export of Canadian crude oil at least to a point that will balance with our imports so that Canada might not be a net exporter of crude oil?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we would not propose a 
restriction until the public hearings, which as the hon. member knows the National Energy Board will be holding into this question, can provide an opportunity for interested members of the public to comment on the export control system. It may well be that, as a result of those hearings, some lower level of export than that now imposed by the National Energy Board would be deemed advisable. In that event, that would be the system that would be adopted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the latest figures just published indicate a life index for conventional crude oil supplies of 17 years-Dr. North yesterday gave the standing committee a figure of 15 years-has the minister any long-term plans for guaranteeing security of supplies, such as developing the tar sands of Alberta or any other measures so that Canadians may be assured that the government is dealing with this problem instead of waiting until the crisis is upon us?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned Dr. North's prediction of a crisis in 15 years. Perhaps he might allow me a month or so until we can hear from the public and he can read the government's study into reserves.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary. In view of the fact that we have been waiting four years for a report on the national energy policy, I would think that the minister has had ample time and so has the government.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN TOLLS
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first question in the House, but I hope I will have many in the next few years.


An hon. Member:: You will-over here.


Samuel Victor Railton: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Because the riding from which I come, Welland, is bisected by the Welland Canal and in view of the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway yesterday can the minister inform the House whether the Seaway Authority intends to increase tolls this year?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not ready to recommend to the Cabinet any increase in seaway tolls this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Edmonton Centre has a supplementary to a previous question.
March 29, 1973


AIR CANADA
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to a previous question asked about United States Customs clearance. It is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did Air Canada consult the Department of External Affairs on its decision respecting U.S. Customs clearance, and was this approved by the Department of External Affairs?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been very close and continuous consultations among the Department of Transport, Air Canada and my department.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. It is supplementary to a question asked on a previous day. I have been trying to get up for the last three of four days. It is a short question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized later for his supplementary dealing with a different question. The hon. member is not the only one who has been seeking the floor.


INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF LEDAIN COMMISSION FINAL REPORT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As it is a known fact that the increasing incidence in the use of marijuana in Calgary, Edmonton and other cities in Alberta has resulted from its spread from Vancouver, when will the LeDain Commission Report be published or tabled in the House and what are the reasons for its being delayed? May I ask another question. Is there any other report dealing with the incidence of the use of heroin?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to thank the hon. member for asking the question when I am in the House and for not making useless and unfounded charges. As I have said several times in this House, the report of the LeDain Commission is not complete. The Commission expects to complete that report at the end of this month, March. I have not had a recent report from the chairman as to when it is going to be completed. When the report is completed it will take a few weeks, as the chairman advises me, to have it translated and ready for publication. It would probably be June before the report is available to me. At present I do not have that report, and as far as I know it is not even completed. As soon as I receive the report I will be pleased to release it.
As to the other question, there is no other report, so far as I know, on the subject of heroin being prepared for the government.
Oral Questions


IMPORTATION OF MARIJUANA-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF CHARGES TO TRAFFICKING OR POSSESSION
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary. Since the first report of the LeDain Commission recommended that the penalty upon conviction for an offence involving soft drugs should be a fine, I am asking if the minister will give serious thought to those cases involving young people who, are charged with importing marijuana into Canada, for which the penalty is a minimum of seven years- inasmuch as people charged and convicted of murder get out of penitentiary sooner than that-and use his prerogative as Attorney General of Canada with respect to those charges pending which he knows about, and one in particular, and reduce the charges to simple trafficking or possession?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare could more properly confirm, but would not mind my confirming, that the government position following the first report of the LeDain Commission is as it was stated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare several months ago, and that legislative steps to put that into operation will be taken. I have indicated to the hon. member that, so far as these prosecutions within my jurisdiction are concerned, there are on occasion some difficult questions relating to whether or not the discretion he urges can be exercised. It is considered important, as far as the government is concerned, to restrict the illegal importation into Canada of drugs and the trafficking in those drugs. We, therefore, must take steps which effectively limit the importation and trafficking in marijuana as well as in the harder drugs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another short question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for his supplementary question, but I seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting supplementar-ies.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will make the question brief, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister give his assurance, and I am sure this question is of concern to young people at university and other young people charged for the first time with the offence of bringing marijuana or hashish into the country, that first offenders will not be charged with an offence under the Narcotic Control Act, under which the minimum penalty is seven years, a penalty which the judge cannot change? That is the question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, where it is possible to view the possession of marijuana as simple possession we may well, in those circumstances, find it appropriate to lay a possession charge, even if the facts support an importation charge. But I should like to say to the hon. gentleman that I would not encourage anyone to rely on that, particularly if the circumstances are such that the offence appears to have been committed in the course of commercial importation, because the people concerned may face the stiff penalties which exist now for importation.

March 29, 1973
Oral Questions
[Translation]	AIRPORTS


FINANCE
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Since a $480 million Canadian bond issue will be offered on April 1 and that the Bank of Canada has already indicated it would buy $250 million worth of these, has the Minister of Finance not tried to convince the Bank of Canada authorities to buy all these bonds in order that this organization may finance 100 per cent of this issue and thus leave more savings to finance private industry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is detailed enough to prompt me to answer the hon. member in writing.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, if I may. In light of the current statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that Canada must process more of her resources at home and that the federal government should work with the provinces to calculate the best ways to process resources locally-that being a very sensible policy if I may say so-has the government finally decided to take up the call by the governments of Ontario and of other provinces to establish machinery to work out a co-ordinated resource processing and export strategy? If so, has there been any suggestion for a meeting on this matter at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to consult with the minister to see if this particular suggestion has been discussed with Ontario officials; but I would remind the hon. member that if he wants to encourage manufacturing and processing in Canada, he will have occasion to do so when he supports the measure to be put forward by the Minister of Finance in a few days.


George Harris Hees: He has been waiting for 11 months to look at it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite follow the Prime Minister's logic. May I ask a supplementary question? Does the statement on resource development or on manufacturing and processing in Canada indicate that this government has adopted a more integrated regional development strategy than formerly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the preamble, I am afraid, alas, that indeed the opposition will not follow our logic on this or any logic at all. On the second question, I will have to look into the matter.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL EXPANSION-REQUEST BY SEA ISLAND RESIDENTS FOR MEETING WITH MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has he received a telegram from the residents of Sea Island requesting that he meet with them this weekend when he will be in Vancouver for the tri-level meeting? Also, has he answered that telegram and agreed to have a meeting with those people?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I heard from the department that I had received a telegram. I have not read it. Part of it was read to me over the telephone. I will be glad to meet a group of people who are concerned, of course, but I am not ready to receive a group that could be organized by somebody else. However, I am ready to see the people interested.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the proposals by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment regarding the Burkville area of Sea Island be discussed at this meeting the minister will have with those people?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the question.


John Douglas Reynolds: Will the proposals that were promised by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment regarding the Burkville area of Sea Island be considered at the meeting which the minister will have with the people of Sea Island this weekend?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if promises were made, they will to that extent be upheld by me.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL EXPANSION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON EXPROPRIATION HEARINGS AND STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same subject and is supplementary to the previous question. May I ask the Minister of Public Works when he intends to table in the House a copy of the Wolfe report dealing with the expropriation hearings necessitated by the expansion of Vancouver International Airport? Mr. Wolfe was the hearing officer.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his notice. The tabling of this report is not required by law, but since the hon. member has asked me, I shall be pleased to table it at the next opportunity.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. According to Section 11 of the Expropriation Act, where effect is not given to expropriation objections, a statement by the minister outlining his reasons for pro-

March 29, 1973

ceeding in spite of the objections must be forthcoming. I ask the minister when the House or the people affected can expect such a statement from the minister.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, normally this statement is to be mailed to the people affected.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad this is Fraser Valley day. My question is with reference to the claim of Captain David McTaggart against the government of France for damages to his vessel Greenpeace III when rammed by a French warship in the South Seas on June 30, 1972. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if there has been any recent response from the French government acknowledging responsibility for the damages to Greenpeace III in view of the fact the incident took place in international waters?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been advised that a reply has been prepared by the French government to Captain McTaggart's claim. The delay is apparently being caused by the formation of a new French government. We are in touch and trying to expedite the reply as quickly as possible.


SHORTAGE OF RADIOTHERAPISTS-STEPS TO SOLVE PROBLEM
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In reply to a question regarding the acute shortage of radiotherapists, the minister stated he had already discussed this problem with his provincial colleagues and the solution of it would take some time. I wish to ask the minister if he is aware that over half the radiotherapists now operating in Canada come from other countries and what steps are being taken to explore those other countries for likely candidates to be brought here to treat cancer?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would answer yes to the first part of the question. As to the second part, the hon. member knows the immigration regulations as well as I do and is aware that a great many doctors from all parts of the world emigrate to Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, could give a more detailed answer as to the application of these regulations and the possibility of making easier the entry of doctors into our country.
Oral Questions


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare is a member of the cabinet, will he convey this message to him?


Marc Lalonde: I have already done so, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has the Secretary of State recently been receiving complaints from concerned parents about the quality of programs over the CBC during hours when children are normally watching television, namely between the hours of four in the afternoon and nine in the evening? The complaints in question concern excessive use of alcohol, violence and obscenities.


Hon. lames Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this. I will be very pleased to look into it.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF EVALUATION REPORT ON 1972 OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Can the minister inform the House why he is withholding publication of the evaluation report on the Opportunities for Youth program?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That was explained at least two weeks ago. It is an internal document.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the minister. I am afraid I could not hear the minister's answer.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the explanation was given, I think, a week and a half ago by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council. The document is regarded as an internal document.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. Is the minister now prepared to obtain parliamentary approval and support for this multimillion dollar program which is now becoming permanent and appears to be secret?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, my impression is that it is one of the most open programs we have.


William Heward Grafftey: I would advise the minister it is not really open.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa.

March 29, 1973
Oral Questions
My apologies to the hon. member for Montreal-Bouras-sa. Could the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi resume his seat? I apologize to the hon. member, but I think that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is rising on a point of order.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think it is a polite gimmick for ministers to be so quiet in, when giving their answers that we cannot hear them. It is not parliamentary.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister advise the House whether he or his officials, either directly or through his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have had negotiations with the United States regarding the immigration regulations between the two countries? Have the Americans been asking Canada to remove some anomalies in our immigration regulations and what representations have we made to the United States with regard to theirs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, this has not been a subject of ministerial discussion between the two countries. I will make inquiries to see if there have been any talks between officials.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]acques-L. Trudel (Montreal-Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
On March 8, as reported at page 2022 of Hansard, I put a question to the Minister of Transport on the possibility of installing centres in cities where international flight passengers could be cleared by customs officials.
Since the minister said he would consider my suggestion I wonder if he had time to do it and possibly give me an answer today?
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that question is rather complicated. It is a new method. The department is examining it and I will be glad to submit a report whenever I can.


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the nine chartered banks in Canada last year enjoyed an increase in profit of over 23 per cent, can the minister say whether it is his intention to express to the banks the necessity of lowering their interest rates to the Canadian public?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian public now enjoy the lowest interest rates of any industrial country in the world. Also, our interest rates are about a point and a half below the United States and well below those in Europe.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question. In view of the fact the Canadian banks still made a profit of more than 23 per cent last year over 1971, can the minister say whether it is his intention to consider the creation of a Crown bank to compete with the chartered banks and other financial companies in order to bring down the interest rates for the average citizen?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. We already have the Bank of Canada.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. It concerns his decision, which was announced outside the House, to appoint a national advisory committee on the status of women. Will the minister say why he rejected the advice of the National Council of Women and the royal commission and made that committee answerable only to himself, and not to parliament?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that the National Council of Women came here and requested a meeting with the Prime Minister and the government. They wished to carry on a dialogue with us. They expected us to react to various recommendations in their brief. This is the reason we reacted and indicated what we were prepared to do with reference to an advisory council. That is how the announcement was made outside parliament. It was to pay our respect to the National Council for Women that we handled it in that particular manner.
As far as the advisory council is concerned, the council reacted relatively favourably to this suggestion. They indicated they would be pleased to try it on a temporary basis. If it was satisfactory, that would be alright. If not, they would recommend further changes to the government at a later time.
March 29, 1973


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question. I am pleased that the government has respect for the National Council of Women, if not for parliament. I wonder if the minister might table in the House the terms of reference for that committee, and indicate how the members of the committee are going to be appointed and when?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I shall be pleased to do that at a later stage. We are working on the terms of reference at the present time.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture tell us what he intends to do for the farmers in Canada regarding the boycott of beef and pork?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister might be allowed to reply briefly, but normally a question of that kind invites a statement on motions. The hon. member might wish to rephrase his question.


George H. Whittaker: I have a supplementary. Will the minister inform us now whether the committee he said he was setting up to study the lowering of tariffs on agricultural products is operational and, if so, what stage have the discussions reached?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, they certainly are operational. They are working all the time on this matter. We have received some preliminary reports from them. As to the first question, I can only say that this is a free country and people can do what they want.


Gerald William Baldwin: Unless they are in the opposition.


Eugene Whelan: I don't think it will hurt the beef producers one bit in the long run.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what steps he has taken to offset price increases announced by a major Canadian sugar refiner which could have the result of offsetting the minister's budgetary proposals reducing the sales tax on chocolate and certain soft drinks, as well as causing a consequential increase in the price of food.


John Napier Turner: There is some difficulty here, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the price of sugar was raised pursuant to a world commodity agree-26087-27J
Oral Questions
ment. I would have to determine just what jurisdiction I had over the situation.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether he took part in any discussions with the sugar refinery concerned before the announcement of the increase in price was made.


John Napier Turner: I did not, Sir, no.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, on March 16 the Minister of Transport told the House, in response to a question from me, that it was his intention to meet with the minister of transportation and communications for the Province of Ontario and with the prime minister of Ontario to discuss train services in southwestern Ontario. Has the minister yet held these meetings? If not, when will they be held? If they have been held, was a decision taken to reinstate railway services in our area of the province?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet met with the premier of Ontario or with Mr. Carton. We are now drafting the terms of reference for the examining board. Once this has been done I will try to meet with Premier Davis, Mr. Carton and the other minister who is responsible for inter-governmental relations.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Can
the minister tell us when he will be holding this meeting?


Jean Marchand: It will certainly not be before the terms of reference have been finalized. After that, it is a matter of knowing when I could go to Toronto and when the other parties will be in a position to meet me. There are some problems in that field.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have no supplementary to ask, provided I get a straight answer. My question arises from a visit which the Minister of National Revenue made to Sidney in British Columbia recently, and to reports of what he said there about the customs service facilities now available in Sidney. Will the minister assure the House that the facilities, which at one time were provided for in the act, will be continued?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think this question should be placed on the order paper. If urgency is attached, it could be considered at the time of adjournment.
Oral Questions AIRPORTS

March 29, 1973



PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-EXPROPRIATION OF LAND-MEMBERSHIP AND TERMS OF REFERENCE OF COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Considering that some two months have elapsed since he announced there would be a commission of inquiry set up in relation to the expropriations around the second Toronto international airport, may I ask whether the minister is yet in a position to tell us when the composition of this commission will be announced and what the terms of reference are to be?


Jean Marchand: I think the answer I gave a few minutes ago is applicable to this question. The draft of the terms of reference has not yet been completed. We have a list of persons we should like to submit to the government of Ontario. As to how long this will take, I can only say I hope it will not be long, but I cannot indicate when I shall be in a position to make a statement.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a single question to the Minister of Transport, but you may have a problem because I have already promised a supplementary to one of the Halifax members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the grave concern in eastern Canada over the new, high increases in railway freight rates with respect to container traffic between Halifax and Saint John, would the minister use his well-known powers of persuasion-they have not been very active lately-and consult with the House leader from Nova Scotia, the Minister of Public Works from New Brunswick as well as to the railway companies and make a last-ditch effort to get them to moderate these rates which are going to ruin our business.


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. member knows I am going to meet with the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces very soon, on April 9.


Thomas Miller Bell: The new rates come into effect on April 1.


Jean Marchand: Yes, but there is not much I can do. The only thing I can do is try to convince the parties. The purpose of the meeting is to revise the whole policy, the whole structure of freight rates in the Atlantic provinces and I think this meeting will afford the best opportunity of discussing the subject which has been raised today.



INCOME TAX


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Revenue. In the light of the fact that thousands of Canadians will be forced to review their income tax returns because of an error made by the income tax department in supplying forms which do not indicate in any way that they apply to deceased persons or immigrants-these were handed out by district taxation offices in great numbers as a proper form-I ask the minister whether he will now extend the filing date because of this mistake on the part of the department?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: This is the first I have heard of such an allegation. If it is like many of the others made from the other side of the House it probably is not correct.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I resent that!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Calgary South has been very patient and perhaps he should be given an opportunity to ask a question. I really do not think we should entertain supplementaries on this question now.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I resent the allegation made by the minister. I should like to show him the two forms-I have them here in my hand-which have been distributed by the taxation department. There is nothing here to indicate they are for deceased persons and immigrants, yet they have been distributed to thousands of Canadians in my area and in other parts of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. It is a point of discussion between the minister and the hon. member. Perhaps he would want to pursue the matter after we have called orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader what the business is to be today, tomorrow and next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Today we shall begin by considering the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, followed by the crop insurance measure. Notwithstanding progress made today, we shall begin tomorrow with the foreign investment review bill, after which we will take up the Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Act, the Aeronautics Act and the Fisheries Development Act. On Tuesday, we shall be seeking concurrence in the ways and means resolutions. If concurrence is granted, we can proceed early the following day with the resolu-
March 29, 1973

tions, depending upon arrangements which may have to be worked out with respect to absentees from Ottawa.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Finance said he hoped the House would deal expeditiously with the 1972 tax measures, and that when these were dealt with parliament would be asked to consider the tax measures which affect 1973. Are we to assume that not until the House has dealt with all stages of the 1972 tax measures will we see the 1973 proposals, or could there be certain events, such as the composition of differences in cabinet, which might permit us to see them earlier?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, aside from the fictions which my hon. friend is producing on a daily basis, I want to assure him that we will not table the resolutions affecting the later period until we have completed all stages of the present resolutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-130, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill the House is now being asked to consider provides for the extension of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for a further period of three years, that is to say, to June 30, 1976. In this period there will be no change in the method of calculating the amount of assistance that will be payable to the operators of gold mines. This is pursuant to an announcement I made on June 21, 1972, indicating the intention of the government to extend the act in order to ensure the stability of the gold mines and the future of the communities dependent upon them.
The prospects of those gold mines which have survived the steady decline in the industry-these hon. members will find in the report on the administration of the act which I tabled in the House at the beginning of the session-are now greatly improved because of the current level of the open market price for gold. Should the current level be maintained in the open market for gold and operators continue to sell their gold on the open market, then the assitance that is available under the act will not be required. With an open market price above $48 per ounce-I shall give a review of the prices to the House in a moment-obviously it is more profitable for the mines to sell gold on the open market than it is to sell to the Royal Canadian Mint and thus become eligible for assistance under the act.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
One of the prime questions, I suppose, facing both the mining community and the international community today is what is the prospect for the long-range price of gold. There are really two factors influencing this. First of all, there is the impact of the uncertainty in international monetary relations, an uncertainty which, in the period since about the middle of last year, has brought about a dramatic increase in the price of gold on the open market.
As an example of this, on January 15 of this year gold was at a price of around $65 per ounce on the open market. By February 15 it had moved to between $72 and $73 per ounce. By March 15 it was up to $82, and my information today, March 29, is that it was over $89. It has been higher than that in the last several days.
Therefore this indicates that the instability of the international monetary exchanges has undoubtedly affected the external price of gold. Notable international commentators like Mr. Elliott Janeway have predicted that the price of gold will probably go up to a level of $130 per ounce. I express no opinion on that, but it is that kind of information and feeling that undoubtedly have had some kind of speculative impact on the price of the product itself.
That, however, has not been the only thing. Demand for the commodity on a commercial basis for commercial uses, such as for jewellery, industrial and other uses, has been increasing. In the same period world output of gold has declined. Last year world output of gold declined by about 6.5 per cent. So influencing the price of gold is a combination of speculation in relation to international financial affairs and the ordinary pressures exerted by supply of and demand for gold, not as a monetary commodity but as an industrial commodity.
Therefore it is obviously difficult to predict the future price of gold in the open market. However, it is possible that if there is a lot of fluctuation in gold prices as a result of monetary speculation there will be declines for short periods to the point where continued operation of gold mines that are still in the position to draw assistance would be in jeopardy. It is with this possibility in mind that the government has responded to the requests of the industry and the gold mining communities for assurance that assistance under the act will be available if needed.
The total amount of assistance paid under the act since it came into effect in 1948 is $303,188,031. From this may be deducted the sum of $25.7 million which the Royal Canadian Mint has received as a profit from the sale of gold on the open market during the years 1968 to 1971. Because of the high open market price for gold there were in fact no applications for assistance received from the gold mines with respect to the calendar year 1972.
As I have mentioned, details of assistance paid in total and to individual mine operators may be found in the annual report on the administration of the act which I tabled in the House on January 4. Perhaps some indication of the effectiveness of the program in the period since 1948 may be found in table one of this report, which indicates that 117 mines were drawing assistance in 1948. By 1971 this number had dropped to 28, and there has been a distinct contraction in the Canadian gold mining industry during that period.

March 29, 1973
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
I believe it is fair to say that the act has achieved the objective of minimizing the social and economic impact that would have occurred in the dependent communities with the abrupt closure of gold mines through the cushioning effect that may be achieved by slowing the rate of decline in the gold mining industry. This has always been the underlying motive behind the program.
A corollary to this program is, of course, the efforts that have been taken by the federal and provincial governments to develop alternative economic opportunities in the gold mining areas that are most affected. I suppose the classic example of success here has been in the neighbourhood of Timmins, where one saw the gradual decline of the gold mining industry in that area and then the dramatic revival of the community through the discovery of copper by Texas Gulf Sulphur and the subsequent establishment of further processing facilities in that community.
On August 11, 1970, my predecessor, the Hon. J. J. Greene, announced that the government of Canada had decided to extend the application of the statute for a further period of two and a half years, to June 30, 1973. There was no change made in the method of giving assistance. The minister also announced that the government of Canada was prepared to consider a second extension for an additional two and a half years to December 31, 1975, provided that suitable adjustment programs for the gold mining communities involved could be developed in cooperation with the provincial governments, the communities, the companies and the unions concerned.
In pursuance of this goal the minister met in Ottawa with representatives of the mining industry, the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec and, of course, officials of the department on May 20 and 21, 1971, to identify and recommend scientific and technical programs that might lead to an acceleration in the rate of discovery and development to broaden the economic base of the regions. As a result of this Ottawa workshop the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced on June 30, 1971, that a special scientific and technical effort would be mounted in those areas of his department. The governments of Ontario and Quebec also announced measures to stimulate exploration in the areas concerned.
While the increased price of gold affords new signs of hope for some 14 communities still largely dependent on this industry in Canada, labour unions, the municipalities concerned, mining companies operating in those communities and, of course, provincial governments all have to continue, in the very real initiative shown so far, to expand economic activity in these areas.
The government of Canada, through my department and an interdepartmental committee working with representatives both of the industry and of the two provincial governments, has arrived at a set of priorities for exploration and prospecting programs. It was the choice of the province of Ontario, at its option, to go for the provision of special subsidies for exploration and prospecting. The province of Quebec, on the other hand, decided to launch a large geoscience program, including geochemistry and geophysics, funded jointly with the federal department of Regional Economic Expansion.

It would be comforting, but I think unrealistic, to suggest that the problems of our gold mining communities will vanish overnight because the official gold price has been raised to $38 from $35 as a result of the earlier devaluation. At the moment the United State Congress has not acted on the most recent valuation and it is premature, therefore, to say what the established official price will be. I think we can recognize, however, the destabilizing influences that international markets can have on our resource communities and the need to devise continued policies and programs which will broaden the economic base of Canada's mining communities.
Consequently, the government will pursue its efforts in co-operation with other interested parties to assist the gold mining communities in their adjustment to changing circumstances. As part of that program it is appropriate to provide some assurance of future stability to gold mining operations and to the dependent communities by extending the operation of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to June 30, 1976. What we propose to do in this period of relatively high price is maintain a floor that is established by statute in the event that as a result of the vicissitudes of the international market the price might again change, creating another emergency condition.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks of the minister in support of the bill before us today, and I think it is relevant to again reiterate, as he has, that some 14 communities in Canada are to a large extent dependent upon the maintenance of this industry in a healthy condition. It should also be pointed out that Canada, perhaps inadvertently, has fared very well in respect of its gold holding over the last few years.
As the minister pointed out, the world price of gold has shot up in recent weeks, but it is not yet clear what ultimate price it will attain. At the present time it is well for the House to bear in mind that at the end of February our official international reserves of gold amounted to $834.1 million. That figure is expressed at the prevailing rate of $38 per ounce. As the minister pointed out, it is virtually a certainty that the price will be adjusted to $42.22 per ounce. When that takes place we will find that the value of our gold holdings in our official international reserves in Canada will increase to $926.8 million. If we work back from that adjusted figure of $926.8 million which, if it is not reflected in the March Bank of Canada Review, in all likelihood will be reflected in the April Review, we find that the actual increase in value of our gold holdings in our reserves has been $158.6 million since May of last year. In short, Canada was a real winner as far as monetary holdings of gold are concerned.
A point that is perhaps overlooked is the fact that if the world market for gold is relevant at today's price, which on the London bullion market was $89.25 per ounce, our actual holding of gold are worth $1.9 billion. This is a windfall for Canada of some $1 billion. It is the result of our holding gold in our international reserves, possibly inadvertently, at the right time.
I would also point out, as the minister has stated, that the actual outflow in assistance to the mines since this act
March 29, 1973

was proclaimed is approximately $278 million. The minister did not mention that if we take into account the increase in the value of our international reserve, the $158.6 million I mentioned, the net outlay, taking both things into account, is $120 million. Canada, as a result of having the foresight to institute and keep this act effective, has spent a net of $120 million, yet today it has reaped a $1 billion benefit in terms of world prices, if the market becomes free at some later date and our reserves of gold can be sold into that world market at today's prices.
I am stressing the fact that this act is doubly beneficial in that it has not only helped to preserve a worth while industry in Canada, which employs some 3,000 people directly at the present time and, assuming there are three and a half people indirectly employed to one directly employed, in the neighbourhood of 10,000 to 12,000 jobs, but in addition it has resulted in our having the advantage of holding a large amount of gold in our international reserves. This strengthens our world position tremendously. In that regard, it is often forgotten that while our production in relative terms is small, we are the second largest gold producer in the free world. South Africa is the largest producer and is greatly ahead of us. It produces approximately 70 per cent of the free world gold, but we are the second largest. I should emphasize that our production has been lessening year by year. Canadian production of gold in 1972 was valued at $76 million while in 1971 it was almost $80 million.
I feel, as does my party, that we should maintain our gold industry, and it is desirable that this act be extended in order to allow forward planning in the industry in the future. We believe this is the mechanism through which the government can assure this industry a minimum price at which it can sell its product. This is desirable when you are encouraging people to take advantage of world prices and to capitalize on those prices referred to by the minister.
In reference to how high the price might go the minister said that Mr. Janeway feels it might increase to $130 an ounce. That may be so, but I should like to refer to the 1972 annual bullion report of Samuel Montagu and Company Limited. Samuel Montagu and Company Limited is one of the largest London, England, bullion dealers. After reviewing the uncertainties in the monetary system today Samuel Montagu states:
Under the circumstances it is difficult to imagine a return of confidence and with the probability of recurring crisis prices in excess of $100 may easily be reached.
I feel, therefore, we are fortunate in this country that we do have producing mines in the gold field. I think we are even more fortunate to know there are additional prospects and additional possibilities that mines may be opened up if the industry has the assurance that it in fact will not have the ground cut from under it in its long-range planning. This is where I feel the act is a great help in that it gives them that assurance. While in a moment or so I will have some comments on matters that we feel could be considered by the committee, I want to assure the House that we are in support of having this type of legislation extended.
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
I would also like to touch on the question of production in the industry. I could give figures-some of them perhaps have already been touched on-concerning Canada's production in relation to world figures. Without delaying this debate, I think it is interesting to note that Canada, mining men inform me, is in a position to be able to increase, percentage wise, its gold production more than is any other country in the free world. Already there is a renewed confidence being shown with regard to gold mining. For example, the gold mining index on the Toronto Stock Exchange today was 231 compared with a low of 140 in 1972. I believe this is due partly to the fact that the industry knows this type of act will likely be passed by parliament. This has helped to renew confidence in the industry itself. Today's price is, of course, the main stimulant.
If I may I should like to come to the points I wish to suggest the committee of parliament should consider when this bill is referred to it. I would mention first that we feel the committee should consider whether June 1976, is a desirable termination date for this bill. It may be that it would be wiser to give the industry a longer term assurance of our intentions. It may be the industry could be assured that until say 1980 this type of assistance will be available to it if it wishes to make plans for the future production of existing mines or the bringing into existence of new mines.
We would like the committee to at least consider the provision put in the act in 1963 which limited the application of the act to what are called established mining communities. As I understand it, at the present time the act does not apply to a gold mine unless it is deemed to provide support in a designated community and unless more than 50 per cent of the persons employed in the mine reside in one of the established mining communities listed in a schedule to the act. We question whether it is desirable to limit this type of act to that extent. It may be-and I certainly suggest it should be-looked into by the committee.
Again, the minister in his opening comments mentioned that the bill does not contemplate the changing of the method of payment in respect of assistance. We feel the committee should review this also in that we must bear in mind that if the assistance is to be meaningful it surely must take into account the inflationary problems this country is living with. If this is to be realistic assistance we feel it is foolish to leave the assistance at too low a level.
At the present time I understand that if gold sells for roughly $50 an ounce or more on world markets it is not necessary for any company or mine in Canada to resort to this act but that, if the price should fall below that figure, in some cases companies might apply for the assistance. I am suggesting the committee should take a look and see whether the $49-$50 figure is a realistic point for this act to become effective.
Again-and the minister has commented on this-we feel greater stress should be put on encouraging exploration and prospecting in the mining industry including the gold mining field. I believe one of the problems in prospecting and exploration at the present time is certain unfavourable provisions in the Income Tax Act. I think

March 29, 1973
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
this should be reviewed when we consider the bill at the committee level. In short, we feel encouragement should be given to this type of industry in order to ensure that we are and will remain a significant producer in terms of world markets and in terms of our own production.
As my final point I would suggest the committee might consider the name of the bill itself. It is called the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I feel that is a misnomer at the present time; certainly I hope it is in the sense of the word "emergency". It may be that the committee could consider a more appropriate name for the act to indicate to the industry, to the gold mining companies of the country, that we are serious in our long-range thinking concerning this field and that we will give them not a short-range commitment with regard to a floor price, if you like to call it that, but rather a much longer range commitment with regard to where we stand and also a broader range of assistance in such fields to which I have referred as exploration and prospecting. Let us help to develop any mines that may be capable of development in Canada. We hope this legislation will receive speedy passage and we certainly look forward to being able to go into the matter in greater depth when it reaches the committee.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, since this matter comes up at five-year intervals this is probably the fourth time I have had the opportunity to support this piece of emergency legislation. Over the years I have done so for various reasons which have not always been the same. Originally I came out of the gold mining industry and therefore was aware of the archaic form of management that existed in that industry and the lack of ability management had in dealing with the community or with its employees or in fact with anyone else. This, of course, stems not only from the personnel in the industry but also from the fact that they were rich when everybody else in the country was poor. Not unlike the landed gentry class in other countries, they developed a type of management that was difficult to support under any circumstances. I have changed my mind as the attitude of the industry has changed. Certainly the industry is in dire need of assistance to keep it alive and, in turn, and much more important, to keep the communities alive where it operates.
It was interesting to hear the last speaker, and I hope I am not unkind to him when I say he speaks with the voice of the business entrepreneur. I know his connections in the financial world, and I presume his interest is in the field of economics rather than in the individual mines that have closed and the individual miners who have left the industry. However, he raised a point that should be considered even though I do not think we will do anything about it.
We hold almost $850 million worth of gold in Canada. If we put it on the international market at $100 an ounce, or as that hon. member said, at $70 an ounce, Canada would stand to gain at least $1 billion and possibly $2 billion. I stress that we are not holding a very large quantity of gold in Canada. From 1948 to 1971 we have paid just over $301 million in assistance to gold producers. If we sold our present stock on the international market we could recov-

er all of that and still have twice as much left over. But obviously we will not do that. If we sell the gold we now have it will be at a maximum price of $42 because that is the maximum amount the Americans will agree to pay. Some big deal, Mr. Speaker! Gold is selling on the market in London at $90 an ounce and in other markets at well over $100 an ounce.
The government has paid a fortune to support the American dollar. No doubt the previous speaker could indicate just how much. Just recently I thought we had reached a new low when I noticed a hostess in the parliamentary restaurant open a roll of quarters. Only three of the coins were Canadian; the rest were all American. Obviously we are still selling our coinage to the United States to be melted down, because before 1968 our coins contained 80 per cent silver and as a result they are now worth much more than 25 cents for each quarter.
A number of mine managers have indicated to me that probably a third force will enter the situation and bring some stability to the price of gold. That third force would be a coalition between Russia and South Africa. As a gold producer Canada plays a small role in comparison with those two countries.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) will remember that when he made wheat sales to Russia payment for them was received in gold. That was when gold was $35 an ounce. But we did not keep that gold. We immediately traded it to the United States so we would not upset the money market.
We are penalizing a whole industry by trying to uphold the American dollar and the American way of life. Eventually somebody will make a change, and the price of gold will be stabilized at a reasonable rate. When that stabilization takes place it will probably be at the expense of the United States, which for many years cheated us on the price of gold by maintaining the price at a level that was not compatible with the cost of production.
Over the years we have paid more than $300 million to support some 84 mines that were initially covered by this program in 1948. At present there are 21 mines operating under the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. The time may come when the production of gold will be undertaken in other mines, and this act should be applicable to them. At present its provisions do not cover new mines. Two or three new mines have been opened in Ontario and a similar number in Quebec, and they are not covered by this legislation. About 1958 the act was amended to prevent its application to new mines.
I support this legislation for two reasons. It is an insurance policy that from now on will not cost the Canadian people any money. As a result of the last revision of the act, mines must co-operate with Canada Manpower in placing employees, some four months in advance of any closure of operations. In Ontario we operate under the Labour Standards Act, but this does not make any difference. However, I am sure all the provinces do not have the same legislation. Further, the committee set up by a previous minister, the hon. Mr. Greene, has been an asset to the miners in the industry.
This is an old industry. Most of the mines are old. Most of them have a limited foreseeable future, no matter what
March 29, 1973

the price of gold may be, but there are new areas that could be developed if the price of gold can be stabilized in the neighbourhood of $100 an ounce.
The hon. member who preceded me said that tax cuts would also assist the industry. That is not the problem. The problem is that almost all of the ground in Northern Ontario, and I believe the same is true of Quebec, has been staked and restaked. Over the years some of it has been sold for payment of taxes. Transactions have taken place in many ways. But in recent years any worthwhile ground has been tied up by large mining companies which have bought up the patented claims and are sitting on them. I believe they will continue to sit on them for a considerable time to come. There is no worse example than Little Long Lac which came in, closed down the mine, liquidated the treasury and went some place else. Not much better is Noranda which also has very large tracts of ground that it holds almost in perpetuity because of the inability of the province of Ontario to make any real decision about making that land otherwise available.
The hon. member mentioned some assistance to prospectors and there certainly should be some. The minister mentioned the help given to the companies. That information all goes in the company files and the government records in such a form that most of the prospectors I know are not able to get much advantage out of it, particularly when prospecting is done with the modern up-to-date devices that are being used for mineral surveys.
It is surprising to note that most of the gold potential in Ontario was known almost at the beginning of the gold mining industry in Ontario. There have been very few finds that have not been listed on maps issued by the Department of Mines for probably 40 or 50 years. I know of no instance where a mine has been developed in which there was not previous knowledge of gold in that particular area.
The minister is relatively new in a department that has had a great deal of difficulty in justifying the payments it has made. This assistance has been a direct handout to an industry. It was never tied to the wages in the area, was never, until the last amendment, tied to the communities, and was not tied to the national interest in any way. It was a handout to the mines for the purpose of their making a decision whether or not they could carry on.
I agree wholeheartedly that the situation has reversed. Even the small amount of gold we hold can repay the Canadian people two or threefold for the expenditure that they made; certainly it can double the payment on the expenditure they made. This is a fairly tidy sum no matter how you look at it. The member who spoke previously indicated that probably a profit of $1 billion could be made on the $300 million paid out; that is a reasonable estimate and it may even go higher if we hold the gold.
I suggest to the minister that while we are in favour of this legislation not very much has been done by the committee that he mentioned involving the communities, three or four branches of government and the Ontario and Quebec governments in particular for the purpose of finding alternative industries for that area. I suggest that the subsidies paid to those secondary industries are more
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
than worthwhile. The boom taking place in Timmins today is related to the incentive that was developed by the finding of copper and zinc in that area but it is really being assisted by the fact that secondary industry is being developed in the form of processing of raw resources. In the end I believe this will produce a greater incentive for other types of industry.
Those who considered this subject in the initial committee which made reports from the gold mining communities to the minister of the day were well aware that the assistance was necessary to carry on for today but it really did not do anything for tomorrow. In some ways I am unhappy about the fact that the price of gold on the international market, where most of the mines are dealing, has gone up because it has relieved the mining industry of its responsibility to participate with community leaders and the provincial and federal governments in providing the incentive to look for other industries.
In my own area I was pleased the other day to go into a small plant which has nothing to do with the gold mining industry. This plant was given a DREE grant of $250,000 to produce 42 jobs. It has not met the criteria yet so has not received the money, but it has created 20 jobs. The production line has to be in full operation for 30 days in order to qualify for the grant and because it diversified the production line for different products it has not reached the 30 days. With the incentive and assistance that were given the plant was able to produce new products. The president of the company indicated that in the first year of operation they had already been able to show a fairly reasonable profit even though they have not yet received the full assistance promised them. Not only is the company providing a profit directly but it is producing a profit through the taxes paid by every one of its employees. There are 20 employees buying goods in that community.
The situation as to the age of miners in the gold mining industry has not changed. Two and a half years have gone by and they are two and a half years older. The ability to bring new people into the industry is limited because the production of many mines is limited. One of the two mines in the Kirkland area has closed in the last year and I am sure in the other gold mining communities there has been a decline. The number of mines has decreased from 28 to 21 in one year.
When the committee meets, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it should give consideration to redeeming or at least reinvesting the amount of money the government now can make on the gold that it holds. If the government finds that this is not to its advantage, maybe it could be put into the northern mining communities in the form of a new subsidy. I think somewhat the same result would accrue- a greater return on the expenditure.
Some of our problems in Northern Ontario, are problems of the Ontario government. I am told that this has been changed in Quebec to some extent. In my part of Northern Ontario we are interested in reopening a great number of small mines. The town of Cobalt for some years has operated on two or three different mining systems. There is one large company that comes in and plays the stock market; others come in, do the development and actually do some mining. Most of the mining operations,
2742

March 29, 1973
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act however, are under a lease whereby they do the work underground, contract for the milling and employ eight or ten men. I suggest that this can happen in the gold mining industry.
At present there is an over-capacity of milling facilities in Northern Ontario and there are certainly a great number of mines that have been closed for a long period of time which have shafts for underground workings and would lend themselves to the type of lease operations whereby someone with a reasonably small amount of capital could start mining the ore. A custom mill operation could be set up and the end product could be sold after it had been processed by that custom mill. It seems to me that this would provide a large source of employment for miners. In addition, it would permit our people to enter a field that is exciting and holds out reasonable expectations of profit. That would suit the character and nature of our people who have been pioneers, willing to gamble and willing to engage in ventures that hold out an opportunity of profit provided that the necessary hard work is done. This cannot be done, however, until we do something about the holding rights of large companies that own large blocks of land. The minister and the committee ought to consider that question. It is of interdepartmental importance because it involves relationships between the provinces. I hope that when the two and a half years have expired our gold mining industry will not be in the position we thought it was in two or three years ago. I hope that our gold mining industry will prosper and that Canada again will be among the leading producers of gold ore.


Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Bill C-130, an Act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
Mr. Speaker, gold mines are now in a good financial position because the current price of gold on the free market has reached $90 an ounce, but, as a consequence, gold mine operators have had to increase salaries considerably. In 1971, it was nearly impossible to find experienced miners willing to work for $2.43 an hour. But in 1973, the salaries are close to those in other industries. Thanks to plenty of manpower and the new price of gold, many mines would like to invest in operating and expanding the mines, which would create thousands of jobs.
Mr. Speaker, with the instability of the price of gold, it is nearly impossible for the mines to expand. At present, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is in force and it does not cost a cent to the government.
I find strange that the government has decided to continue giving subsidies to gold mining until 1976. In the past, delegations from my constituency and from other areas of Canada came to Ottawa every two years with briefs for the minister, asking him to retain the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, yet today the minister appears so generous by wanting the law applied until 1976.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see why the minister does not increase the subsidies to $18 or $20 an ounce: it would not
.'Mr. Peters.]
cost anything and it would give some guarantee to the gold mines. .
Mr. Speaker, I met some gold mine managers to find out what they think about the new bill. As I said a while ago, they are willing to expand, to operate, but they have been given no guarantee. This is what they told me: If we had a guarantee that the price of gold would not go down below $60 an ounce, we could keep on improving the situation in the mines. But now we have no guarantee.
I therefore recommend that the committee urge the minister and the government to increase the subsidies to $18 or $20 an ounce, which would give the gold mines a minimum guarantee of $60 an ounce.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) says he has heard debates like the present one over a long period of time. So have I. I recall his speaking in 1958, and his message still concerns one theme, the interests of the communities and workers in the mining areas.
My opening words in the debate on this amendment are that the name of the act is a misnomer. We call the act the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. It has been in existence for nearly 30 years. Some emergency! As the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) made dramatically clear, Canada has been handed a windfall. To use the crude expression used by the military during the war, we are like someone who fell into an outhouse and came out smelling like roses. We certainly have come out of the situation in wonderful financial shape.
The theme of my remarks will be, what lessons should we learn from this fortuitous happening that has added so greatly to the monetary and financial assets of the people of Canada? I will come around in full circle as I talk about these lessons to some of the remarks I have heard the hon. member for Timiskaming make concerning development during the last 15 years. Before I do that, however, I want to talk about something the minister and the hon. member for York-Simcoe mentioned, stabilization.
The first lesson that the legislators of this country must learn is that the stabilizing of prices of basic world commodities is no longer something to be dreamed about or practised now and then but something to be practised systematically. We should recognize that certain products are inelastic in nature and very necessary to the world, and we should begin to build through legislation a price structure for those products. The value of such stability to producers is obvious. We are now recognizing with brutal clarity that consumers of goods around the world are taking a terrible beating because of the failure not only of the government of Canada but of many governments of the world to stabilize commodity prices through legislation. I am referring to legislation dealing with basic world products. We, in Canada, have had the lesson dramatically brought home to us with regard to food products. Planning has been based on mistaken notions of world demand. As a result, Canada, the United States and other countries are critically short of basic commodities with which to feed their people, not to mention the other peoples of the world.
March 29, 1973

Every bit as important as food in the provision of a better way of life for the peoples of the world are the basic products which are absolutely vital to the future success of industrialization in newly developing countries. Gold is one of those inelastic commodities to which I referred. Copper is another. Such inelastic commodities are vital to the carrying out of the world's business and the development of the world's industries. When their prices rise too precipitously, the newly developing nations are forced to spend so much of their international exchange in purchasing these products that all the good that has been provided since the war through the over $100 million in bilateral programs by the wealthier nations trying to help these nations has been wiped out two or three times over by the rise in price of these inelastic commodities.
The first principle the committee should work on is the principle enunciated by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Now that we have come through this period of emergency for 30 years, let us take a look at the principle of stabilization and see if we can put this principle into the bill in order to give some assurance to the mining industry on the business side, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe said, and also with regard to the labour component. Because of the precarious position of gold prices these past 30 years, families in these communities have had to eke out an existence at levels of wages far below the minimum standards even available in these northern communities where costs are so much higher. The principle of stabilization would not only benefit the producers in the form of management, the owners, if you like, and the labour component but it would also be in the general interest of bringing some help to people all over the world who need stability with regard to these inelastic commodities. That is a principle we could well adopt. That is the first suggestion, thought or thrust that will come forward in committee if the party on this side of the aisle has its way.
I now want to discuss a point raised by the minister when he spoke about international monetary arrangements having such an impact on the situation in relation to the present gold mining industry in Canada. I think it is a bit beyond the terms of reference of the committee to which this legislation is being sent to discuss this, but it has a bearing and I will raise it in any event. I refer to the fact that by this windfall there has been an increase in the genuine price of the gold in our international reserves to over $1 billion, and it will probably be more before the price levels off. We should be thinking about how we can best utilize this excess or increase of money in trying to increase the whole industrial fabric of our country and at the same time help our neighbours and customers all around the world.
One thought that passed through the minds of some people this past year was that with our tremendous surplus of almost useless American dollars in our reserve fund, now buttressed by the doubling of the value of the gold in our reserve fund, we should begin thinking in terms of previous precedents in this regard. We should put some of these American dollars, which are only yielding us a little over 5 per cent, into the purchase of equities
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
of large multinational companies, mainly those with headquarters in the United States. I say the United States mainly because the health of the gold mining industry and the health of all our exporting industries are dependent on getting our dollar down to a value roughly equivalent to the true balance of trade between our two nations.
We have large investments from the United States, mostly in the form of investments in multinational companies. These bother and concern the Canadian people, and rightfully so. If we were to move $1 billion into the purchase of equities-some people prefer bonds but it makes no difference-this would provide a flow of those almost useless dollars back to the American side. This would have the effect of bringing down our dollar to about 95 cents. We could establish this value by the amount of purchases.
There are other advantages. First, we have the useless American dollar. It is only $4 billion of the $70 or $90 billion available in the reserve funds of many countries, but we could put these assets to work. From the ownership of these equities we would not only get the dividends flowing back into Canada to balance the flow of our dividends to the United States but we would get the appreciation of their capital value. Above all, this would give to the people of Canada a sense of assurance and security by recognizing that the multinational corporation is here to stay.
We recognize the tremendous power, strength and good this can bring to the nations of the world in facilitating trade. Nothing will stop their economic efficiency, but the people of Canada would feel happier if they owned a good chunk of General Motors, XEROX, IBM, machinery companies and so on. Over a period of years we could come very close to a substantial controlling influence over the multinational companies that currently own so much of Canadian industry. I hope this policy will appeal to countries like Japan, West Germany, France and Switzerland which hold so many so-called useless American dollars in their reserve funds. Not only would we be helping Canadians but we would also be helping our friends and customers, the Americans.
There are two well known precedents for this. In 1914, when our comrades in the United Kingdom got into trouble with the Kaiser, it was the Americans who came to their help. They provided them with the dollars. In return, the Americans took the equities that United Kingdom residents owned around the world. As a result, the United Kingdom was able to survive the war of 1914-18. When the war was over the American people owned the bulk of their equities around the world. This formed the basis for the present large proportion of multinational companies that seem to dominate and seem to be able to dominate the ownership and control of products around the world.
I think the clock has now turned full circle. If we would use the excess American dollars in our treasury and utilize the extra value of our gold by buying either equities or bonds, and they are there now, we could not only help ourselves but bring help to the American people in their hour of need. They are going to be in need for, I think, at least another decade. I have references to support this view. One of the better known American bankers in Chicago stated publicly that if the Canadians are not
2744

March 29, 1973
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
smart enough to do this the American government should buy up equities on the Wall Street market and provide them for our exchange funds in lieu of sending their dollars here.
The United States is desperately short of dollars. Their international liquidity is quite tight. Canadians, for intelligent self-interest, should think in terms of helping the Americans in their hour of difficulty. If, after 20 or 30 years, we end up owning, with our tremendous saving power in Canada, big blocks of these multi-national corporations, with their tremendous earning power we will have moved and moved well for Canada.
This seems a long way from the usual type of debate that we have on the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. I simply wish to say that it is very pleasant to be in the House at a time when our fortunes have turned so much in our favour. I hope we can take advantage of these lessons and use them for good purposes.
The second suggestion I want to make deals with communities. There is no question in my mind that in our efforts to save the gold mining industry we thought just in terms of keeping that industry alive on a bare existence level. The people who have suffered are the families of the workers and those who serviced these workers in remote northern areas of Canada. Another lesson we should learn from this windfall is that we should begin thinking seriously of placing revenues derived from our nonrenewable resources into development funds, the principal to be used only for the development of this country; all the Canadian public should have the right to dispose of would be the interest or dividends from its investment. Such is the tremendous volume of wealth that would come from our resource industries in the non-renewable sector that within a very few years a fund amounting to many billions of dollars would have been established and the interest from it would be much greater each year than the annual revenue from the sale of those resources. In other words, we should think of our resources as belonging not only to this generation but to many other succeeding generations. Such a fund as I have suggested could be operated by the government alone, or it could be operated in co-operation with private industry. I would hope that once the program was under way, the government would get out.
When this measure is referred to committee I believe we should look at this legislation not merely as a makeshift to enable us to get by for another three years but as an opportunity to establish something of more permanent value. Consider the name of the legislation. Consider the principle of the legislation-stabilization. Consider its impact on monetary affairs, not only of this country but of the world. We should recognize that sometimes, when we are trying to keep an industry alive, especially when that industry is providing a product that is needed, we end by benefiting not only ourselves but the whole world. If we approach the legislation from this point of view we can introduce a concern for stabilization which can be applied to other products of the resource industry whose supply is inelastic and which are so needed by the people of the world.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take part briefly in the debate on Bill C-130. I should like to draw the attention of the minister to one or two aspects which so far have not been raised.
I was here in 1970 and was a member of the committee that dealt with the bill before us at that time. I believe you were a member of that committee, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At that time suggestions were put forward not only by members of the committee but by senior civil servants that the government should be moving into these mining communities and endeavouring to lay out programs which would make them less dependent on the gold mining industry. Going through the notes I made at that time I see that an interdepartmental study was proposed early in 1970 along the very lines to which I have drawn attention. It was suggested that the various departments of government concerned get together with the municipalities, mining companies and unions in an effort to devise a plan to diversify industry in these mining communities. One of the witnesses at that committee hearing put on record three recommendations which apparently had been made in a report to the government of the day. They were as follows:
(a)	Co-ordinate activities within the federal government, industry and the unions;
(b)	Establish a firm federal position and enter into negotiation with other parties; and
(c)	Undertake an ongoing appraisal of developments in the communities and the effectiveness of various programs.
He added that an interdepartmental committee had been established but had not yet made any concrete proposals.
I ask the minister what he has done, or what his department has done, or what his predecessor has done to follow up this suggestion which was made in 1970. The committee at that time approved an extension of the legislation to 1975, if necessary, on the basis that the committee to which I have referred would be taking certain action and making recommendations in the hope that something permanent could be achieved in areas where gold mining is the basic industry.
In endorse the bill and intend to vote for it, believing it would be unwise at this time to do anything that might upset areas where gold mining is on the verge of going out of business. We have enough unemployment in Canada as it is and, as the minister said earlier in his speech, the price of gold is so high now that the companies concerned would be foolish to sell to anyone except on the open market. After the $45 per ounce production cost has been met they get no increase in assistance from the fund.
I urge the minister to tell us, either in his closing speech or during the committee stage, what progress, if any, has been made in the effort to bring other industries into gold mining communities. The situation presently is an example of what has happened as a result of Canada's failure over the years to establish basic secondary industries in communities where the raw materials are produced, though I agree that gold mining is somewhat different from other mining operations. But whether in lead, zinc or other fields the need is to set up extensive job-intensive secondary industries in areas where these raw materials are produced. I will close on that note, but during the
March 29, 1973

committee stage I will come back with a number of questions, and I hope to pursue the line on which I have suggested the minister provide information.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
* * #

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House, Ottawa March 29, 1973
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable D. C. Abbott, P.C., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 29th day of March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,	*
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier General
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian National Railways:-Discussions on amendment of pension plan to provide payments on the basis of 2 per cent per year of service; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Government administration-Increase in departments and buildings in Ottawa-Future policy; the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard)-The Canadian economy-Proposed guaranteed annual income to curb unemployment.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers).
Motions for Papers



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 15, consideration of the motion of 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.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting me to rise on a point of order with respect to this motion. In doing so I think I can clarify the situation and also report an agreement that I believe has been reached.
At the end of this hour on Thursday, March 15,1 asked that this motion stand at the top of the list of this category of motions. There was some fear that if that happened the question of tabling the Bryden report would still be under debate. Since the government was in a position to say no to such further debate, I made it clear that my request for the motion to stand at the top of the list was so we could deal with the question of referring the guidelines on the production of papers-the set of guidelines tabled on March 15-to an appropriate committee.
I rise now to confirm that understanding, at least as far as I am concerned, and also to confirm the fact that having this matter debated again is not for the purpose of entering into further argument about the tabling of the Bryden report. Later I understand that a member across the way may seek to move an amendment suggesting that this order be discharged, and that instead of passing this order we refer to the committee on statutory instruments the set of guidelines tabled on March 15 so those guidelines can be studied in that committee.
I hope that that procedure, though it sounds a bit complicated to my hon. friend from Timiskaming, will commend itself to the House. I hope something may yet be done to resolve the impasse that we seem to have reached regarding the Bryden report, but I think that an even more important issue has arisen out of the discussion, namely, the guidelines used by the government in saying no 99 times out of 100 to our requests for the production of papers.
With that explanation I only want to say that if such a motion does come, namely, that this order be discharged and that, in its place, there be a reference of the guidelines to the committee on statutory instruments, I would be quite happy to agree to such motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would Your Honour excuse me? Just as I sat down I thought of some-

March 29, 1973
Motions for Papers
thing I forgot to say. My agreement to all of this is on the understanding that the decision to refer these guidelines be taken before we go to the other place at a quarter to six.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that the understanding that my hon. friend has is agreeable to us. I have a draft motion that I might read to the House, and perhaps I could speak to it afterwards. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster):
That the order be discharged;
That the document entitled "Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers", tabled March 15, 1973 be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments;
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that the said document has been referred to their committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the motion proposed by the parliamentary secretary be presented?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, before I go further I wonder whether it would be agreeable to the House to have Your Honour interrupt the proceedings at about 20 minutes to six in order to have the opportunity to put the motion to the House. I think that would be agreeable, and if it is perhaps we could have a House order to that effect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will see the clock at 20 minutes to six precisely for the purpose of putting the motion moved by the parliamentary secretary. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) is proceeding to the House to participate in this debate. He is chairman of the committee to which the document is being referred, so we will await his remarks with some interest.
The question of how much information a government should make available to Members of Parliament is one that has bothered many governments and many Members of Parliament. The thirst of private members, both members of the opposition and government members, for information seems to be insatiable when it comes to documents. Of course, the more privileged a document in terms of government understanding, the more that document is required or wanted by members of the opposition. The matter really comes down to a question of balance. It does not matter what kind of regulations, written or unwritten, are in effect; it depends upon the way these regulations are administered and the way they are applied.
The difficulty we have in a parliamentary cabinet type system is that so much of the decision-making takes place in cabinet and other closed circles, and making documents available before a decision is made compounds the work of the government. The basic principle in respect of documents which we are discussing is that all documents

shall be made available. This, in Canadian parliamentary terms, is a considerable change from the practice that applied before. Before the practice was that a document being requested, if it was not inconvenient to the government, would be made available. We have reversed that principle and are now saying that any document which is requested ought to be released unless there is some overriding reason it should not be released.
It is quite true, as hon. members pointed out in the previous debate, that the exemptions the government claims are extensive. Nevertheless, if anyone takes a look at the private bills that have been presented to the House by the House leader of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and also by a member of the NDP, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather), he will see that these bills also contain a sizeable number of exemptions.
Why should this be so? I suggest it is so because those gentlemen do realize that not all information can be made available and, even where it can be made available, there ought to be some room for discretion in the interests of security of the state and for other good reasons.
One thing that frequently crops up in debates of this kind is reference to other countries. We are urged to look at other countries and model ourselves and our behaviour upon principles which are unique or acceptable to countries other than our own. So it was in the previous debate when we were urged to look at the system that functions in Sweden, where it is claimed that all documents are made available to the Swedish public with no restriction or with very few restrictions. That, of course, is nonsense.
In the intervening period of time I have had an opportunity of looking into the way in which the Swedish system works and of finding out what kind of restrictions they have and how they are applied. At the same time I have also had an opportunity of looking at the way the United States applies procedures for the release of documents.
Generally speaking, the Swedish principle is that documents should be made available without restraint. However, there are examples of cases where the authorities will decide a document does not have to be released. There are appeal provisions and appeals are heard by a form of administration court. However, I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the refusal to release a document by a cabinet minister is not appealable. Any cabinet minister in Sweden who refuses to release a cabinet document does not have to release it and there is no appeal from his decision. In many respects that is the application of a far more stringent doctrine of secrecy than anything Canada has, and certainly under the proposed guidelines our concept is light years away from the one which applies at the political level in Sweden.
In addition, there is a comment that should be made about secrecy and confidentiality of the workings of the governmental process. It is a well known fact that the effective functioning of government requires the use of confidences between different parts and agencies of the government. It is also a well known fact that if these confidences are not respected the machinery of government begins to break down. The difficulty in putting things on the record on a confidential basis is that if these
March 29, 1973

confidences are violated you reach the point where the government, the cabinet in particular, can no longer be assured of getting the best advice in confidence that it requires to make decisions. This applies to interpretations of what is going on in the government and its agencies and also interpretations of government relationships with other countries and provinces in a federal system. It also applies to interpretation of the ability of individual people and agencies, so there can be on that basis alone a whole host of exemptions.
In Sweden this policy applies in a general way, but as a result of Swedish law where the spirit is to release documentation there has been a development toward a form of oral briefing rather than putting the information on paper. The reason is, of course, that if a briefing is oral the information conveyed is in an oral form and obviously cannot be produced in a meaningful way before a House of Commons or to a citizen who requests it. What this does, in fact, is destroy to some extent the reliability of the information being communicated because there is no way of checking out that information except in so far as the person who is giving it or receiving it is capable in the oral tradition. Fortunately, in our society that does not happen to be the case. It might be said that, as a result of this extensive freedom the Swedish government has accepted and applied, the greater use of personal meetings and oral presentations means that far less information is being presented to the government and the public, and to some extent the quality of decision-making and work going into presentations has been deteriorating.
It would seem that a close look at the Swedish system would indicate basically what the government has proposed in its guidelines is quite close and similar. It would also be fair to say that, just as good law can be ruined by inept application, bad law can be made to seem much better by the application of the law and regulations. So it is the spirit behind the regulations permitting production and release of documents that is more important than any written or agreed upon guidelines.
It is in this sense that the changes and guidelines the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has introduced to the House of Commons are most significant. They take the position of the government of Canada from that of being secretive, releasing documents only at its own whim, to the position that it accepts the principle that documents ought to be and should be released, exempting only those that fall into a limited sort of exemption.
It is possible to look at the way the United States and Sweden have operated their systems to find out what kind of exemptions they have accepted and what kind of exemptions we are proposing in these guidelines to the House of Commons. Perhaps I might run through a brief table of these to indicate to hon. members which are accepted and which are not accepted as between the United States and Sweden.
For example, legal opinions or advice provided for the use of the government are available for release both in Sweden and in the United States. Papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the state, are not released in either the United States or in Sweden. In respect of papers dealing with international relations, again both countries do not permit their release. Concern-
Motions for Papers
ing papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations, this is not a problem of course in Sweden. In the United States system, because it is a federation, these are released. In respect of papers containing information the release of which would allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons, neither Sweden or the United States releases them. With regard to papers reflecting on the personal competence or character of an individual, neither country releases these. Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to produce are released by both the United States and Sweden, but I understand that the person who requests them must pay the cost of producing them, which thereby acts as a very effective check. In respect of papers relating to the business of the Senate, Sweden does not have a senate and the United States has nothing on that.
With regard to papers, the release of which would be personally embarrassing to Her Majesty or the Royal Family or official representatives of Her Majesty, Sweden does have a monarchy and the United States not, but in the case of Sweden they apparently would release these papers if available. Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract, until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded, are refused both in Sweden and the United States. Then we have cabinet documents and those documents which include Privy Council confidence. Sweden would release them and the United States would release them, but again I draw attention to the different nature of government in these cases. The proper example in our case would be to compare our situation with that of Great Britain. In Great Britain these documents are not released either. In respect of any proceedings before a court of justice or a judicial inquiry of any sort, both the United States and Sweden refuse to release these documents. Sweden does release and the United States does not release internal departmental memoranda. In the case of papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government, these are released by Sweden but not by the United States.
The point I am trying to make is that the principle the government has accepted in respect of the release of documents is a new one for Canada. These exemptions that the government claims are those which stand on their own; for example, those which have to do with papers which would come from the Royal Family or from the Governor General or which apply to the particular nature of Canada as a federal country in which the powers are split more or less between two centres. I feel this is a significant step. I think I can assure the House, as I have some responsibility for the application of the guidelines, that every attempt is being made to make as much information available to hon. members as we can within the scope of the guidelines. I think there will be increasing use of the formula that papers will be released subject to the reservation in respect of confidential documents and other matters that are confidential that these not be included in the papers to be released. We are certainly trying to take steps in that way.

March 29, 1973
Motions for Papers
As recently as Wednesday last we accepted three motions laid down by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) where some information requested was confidential. The papers have been gone through and the confidential parts have been removed. These papers will be available to the hon. member. Before these guidelines had been made such a motion would have been refused. I think because of the way in which the guidelines read and are being applied the result will be that Members of Parliament and the Canadian people will have access to far more material from the federal government than has been the case previously.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, even on a rainy day I love to hear Liberals argue "ill-Liberal" principles. Of course, my friend's argument was destroyed today a little earlier in our proceedings when the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) was asked to make available to parliament a document which assessed the efficiency and so on of the opportunities for youth program, an important document to those of us who must consider the votes for the plan. The minister hid behind the usual phrase that the document was an internal document. No matter how good the guidelines are, if we have to put up with this it means that the guidelines are not guidelines or that the guidelines enunciated up to this point are much too restrictive. When governments talk about guaranteeing the security of the state in so far as secrecy or accessibility to information is concerned, the truth is that the guarantee and the fear are for the security of the government. This is not a bad objective, I presume, depending on where one sits. As I have said before, sometimes we are captured by our own rhetoric.
I think the United Kingdom really is a very bad example to use when we consider the whole matter of availability of documents and secrecy. They have worshipped far too long at the altar, if I can say that, of secrecy or anonymity. Being from Fundy-Royal, with my background I prefer looking at the French experience. Many senior civil servants in France not only are not anonymous but enunciate public policy quite freely. This is acceptable in the process of giving the public information about various policies. By a curious coincidence I was reading, because this whole matter is very much in the public mind in the United States as a result of the Ellsberg trials-presumably they are not sub judice in this place-that somebody had the good sense to take a look at what Dr. Johnson said. I am sure the minister is interested in Dr. Johnson. In 1756 Dr. Johnson in a book called "Observations on the Present State of Affairs" in so far as accuracy is concerned-and the state of affairs in 1756 was about the same as today- wrote:
The time is now come in which every Englishman expects to be informed of the national affairs; and in which he has a right to have that expectation gratified. For, whatever may be urged by ministers, or those whom vanity or interest makes the followers of ministers-
Presumably that includes parliamentary secretaries.
-concerning the necessity of confidence in our governours, and the presumption of prying with profane eyes into the recesses of policy, it is evident that this reverence can be claimed only by counsels yet unexecuted, and projects suspended in deliberation.
Dr. Johnson put it pretty grandly. But if we want to come to a contemporary critic of the British scene we find

one in Bernard Crick's Essays on Reform 1967. Included in these essays is an excellent comment by Professor J. A. G. Griffith in an article entitled "On Telling People". Professor Griffith says:
The wish to take the lid off the machinery of government, to see how it works, who says what to whom, at what level decisions are taken, what private criteria are used, how far 'politics' is allowed to override those criteria, on what statistical and other 'facts' the decisions are based: this wish does not derive only from curiosity or from party animosity but also from self-interest, from quis custodiet-
I translate that as a guardianship feeling, guardianship of the public interest.
-and from a feeling (by some) that governments represent another group interest.
A series of comments on the matter of secrecy was published in the London Times a few years ago in which the author listed various items. First, we should be told much more about the background against which decisions are taken. Second, there is a vast shaded area about which most of us know nothing but generally suspect the worst.
If the Secretary of State had released the report on the OFY program, I suspect the report would have relieved the mind of many people who now have every reason to be suspicious of the program. I believe that probably 98 per cent of the information marked "Restricted", "Secret" and "Confidential" would be so utterly boring that nobody would look at it anyway. In fact, I have met many officials in departments who themselves deplore the overuse of the labels "Restricted" and "Confidential."
In other countries, the passion for secrecy has not abated the cynicism of the public. We all have an obligation, as we try to arrive at ways to reform our procedures, really to believe in what we are doing and let the public have access to documents, with very few exceptions; in fact, a much narrower group of exceptions than the guidelines announced the other day.
Another point I wish to stress is that this year's estimates will show the largest amount ever spent by a government of this country on consultant services contracted outside the regular public service. I am not criticizing that situation particularly at the moment, because others will do so. But all through the estimates examples can be found of sums provided for consultant services, and practically all of them-even under the guidelines recently announced-will result in the information stemming from them being stamped, sealed and put away from public view. The only way to get information will be to wait for the inevitable leaks. There is no mystery about leaks: they occur when things are too watertight. When a government tries to run things in a restricted way, inevitably there are leaks. The way to end the leaks is to throw away the "Restricted" and the "Confidential" stamps except when matters go to the very security of the state or to the privacy of the individual.
Perhaps on another occasion we will have a chance to debate one or two more of the announced guidelines. Recently somebody told me that since the end of the Korean war the United States have amassed 450 billion restricted and confidential documents. I say, God help the
March 29, 1973

United States! What has happened, with the proliferation of confidential and secret documents, is that nobody can find anything anyway. This just shows the preposterous levels we have reached.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure when the knock will come to the door, but I gather that the purpose of putting the limit of 5.40 p.m. on the debate was to make sure we had carried the motion by the time the messenger arrived from the Senate. However, because there are a few minutes left before that deadline, I would like to make a few comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. To enlighten hon. members, perhaps I should point out that the Chair does not expect the messenger from the other place much before five minutes to six o'clock; at the earliest, ten minutes to six o'clock. The minister and other members who wish to contribute could take at least another 10 or 15 minutes, and we could forgo the order to put the motion at 20 minutes to six o'clock. It will take just a few seconds to pass the motion, if hon. members are agreed. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will not repeat the comments I made on another motion some time ago when I tabled the guidelines that are to be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
Probably, when guidelines are tabled indicating several categories of restrictions the immediate reaction is to feel, as one editorial put it, that the object is to tighten the screws and prevent information being made available. Perhaps presentationally, in the circumstances, in view of those categories, it was impossible to avoid that impression. However, in the cabinet, over the past several years, we have grappled with this problem in an effort to determine what basis there is, and ought to be, to withhold documents from publication.
We started with the laudable proposition of attempting as much as possible to run an open government and to make available as much information as could be made available. Because we started with that proposition, we attempted to examine the situation to find out whether we could make public at least the principles upon which our conduct was based. After a great deal of discussion we produced the guidelines and sent them to departments for their direction, and now we are sending them to a standing joint committee for examination to get the views of the committee on whether the guidelines indeed are sound in principle.
Is it sound, for example, to withhold legal opinions that the government receives? Is it sound to withhold information that is given to the government in confidence by an individual or by a corporation? Is it sound to withhold information or papers that might be embarrassing to Her Majesty? Is it sound to release papers, while contracts are being negotiated, that might have the effect of prejudicing
Motions for Papers
one party or the other? On many of these guidelines we reached the conclusion that in themselves they were soundly based. But we want the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments to examine the guidelines and have them fleshed-out by examples that might be produced by witnesses so that the committee may reach some conclusions.
I believe we are fortunate in having the joint committee available to take on this work, because of the status of the joint chairmen, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the distinguished member of the other place. I am sure that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal is committed, as we all are, to obtaining the greatest possible availability of information and that he will examine the situation objectively with the members of the committee. We will have the benefit of their advice on whether, in certain cases, the guidelines are sound or can be elaborated on or developed in certain ways so that additional information can be made available.
I think the first question is: Are they sound in principle? The second question is: How are they to be administered? After all, an individual in a department, and ultimately the minister or the government, must decide in a particular case whether a document comes under the heading of a particular guideline.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question? This is separate from the matter of the guidelines. Has the minister considered reviving a practice that used to be quite prevalent years ago in this House? When a member wanted a document produced, he was allowed to see it privately on his own good will and honesty that he would not quote directly from it. I recall times when we asked for documents and were allowed to see them privately, provided there were no direct quotes. I am not quarrelling with the government for not doing this, but has any consideration been given to it? I feel that the practice of the British House in this regard, of letting members see documents privately, would get around some of the problem.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that is a good suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I am sure if this were done, hon. members would respect the confidentiality of the document. Possibly the committee could consider it and make some recommendations.
At a certain stage someone has to make the decision whether a document is to be produced. In the past, the decision was sometimes taken on very general grounds. In the guidelines, we are attempting to specify the grounds so that members will know why a document is being refused. I am aware that probably in the government generally, and certainly in departments, there has to be developed a greater awareness of parliament, the requirements of parliament and a much more responsible system of answering the questions of hon. members and their requests for the production of documents.
There was a system in the House by which motions for the production of papers were called during routine proceedings on certain days, and a vote was taken and the decision of the House was final. That procedure was found to be unsatisfactory and changes were made in the

March 29, 1973
Motions for Papers
rules, so that now if there is a desire on the part of a member or the government to proceed further, the motion is transferred for debate and it is possible to debate the issue. But normally it is not possible to reach a decision, for obvious reasons.
It may be that the committee could take that matter under consideration and determine whether at some point, retrospectively, a committee of the House ought to review the practice and whether refusal by the government in a particular case was justified, so that as we developed the procedure a more open system would be in existence and would be seen to be in existence.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal mentioned consultants' reports. There is no doubt that there has been a growth in the use of consultants, and as a result numerous motions have been put on the order paper asking for consultants' reports. There is no doubt that if you ask an individual in the government or outside for advice, if the advice is to be delivered privately it is couched differently than if the advice is to be delivered publicly. I have no doubt about the validity of that assertion, for obvious reasons.
We have now asked ministers who engage consultants to determine before the work is done whether it is expected that the report will be made public. If it is, the consultant ought to know so that he can defend the document in public. It seems somewhat unfair to ask an individual to make a report or give independent advice which he expects is to be rendered in private, and at a later stage to change the rules of the game and have the document made public. I hope that as a result of this specification in the guidelines, when consultants are engaged greater emphasis will be placed upon the practice of having the reports prepared so they can be made public, and that the consultant will know this when he begins his task.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Having produced these guidelines, I wonder whether he gave any consideration to listing the kinds of documents that would be tabled. He calls this document a set of guidelines, but to me it is more like the Ten Commandments: it tells you all the things you cannot do. This reminds me of the dear old lady who said that all they do is put ideas into one's head.
Why not a list of the kind of documents that would be tabled? It seems to me that we are not getting anywhere in this discussion, and maybe that is an argument in support of the matter going to committee. We all agree that everything possible should be tabled, but the minister gives negative guidelines that in the end say that something can be tabled but an awful lot would not be. Can the minister not produce something more positive than negative guidelines?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, probably it would have been a lot better if we had begun with 60 categories of documents that should be made public, then the 16 categories of exemptions would have appeared less suspicious to my hon. friend. The principle was that we proposed to make public everything that is available, with the exception of these restrictions. Looking at the guidelines, they do not encompass all the areas of government but there are rather specific areas included.

The committee may want to reverse the procedure and make a statement that is more positive, along the lines of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I realize I have mentioned that, presentationally, the conclusion or impression could have been created by the guidelines that the purpose was to tighten the situation. The opposite was the case. We wanted to open the flow of information, but in opening it we wanted to make clear to the House the principle that there ought to be exclusions. That is the point I made earlier and it is the point my parliamentary secretary made.
I had something to say about consultants' reports. I believe we would adopt a sounder approach if we could determine at the beginning what is to be made public, so that the man writing the report and giving advice would not be faced with the knowledge, several months later, that the document was to be made public. If that were the case, he would have a legitimate cause of complaint.
In the case of evaluation reports, it seems to me there is another difficulty and perhaps the committee would want to consider it. Departments are constantly evaluating their programs, either informally or in a formal way, and reports are produced for the use of the deputy minister or the minister. Persons making these reports are bound to be influenced by the knowledge that the reports are for the private use of officials. Are they to be made public for the use of all the people of Canada? I believe that if evaluation reports are to be made, it ought to be with a view to having them made public is such a request is ultimately made; but the request must be made that they be made public. Obviously, the same reasoning applies to other reports. I am sure many evaluations are made with the full knowledge, backed by a promise, that the reports are intended solely for the confidential use of officers within the department concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Reid) agreed to.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
March 29, 1973
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-31, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter No. 6
Bill C-156, an act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter No. 7
Bill C-166, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Chapter No. 4
Bill C-167, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1974-Chapter No. 5
At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Eugene Whelan: that Bill C-129, to amend the Crop Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne reference was made to the government's intention to amend the Crop Insurance Act so that the cost to farmers of this protection would be reduced.
Bill C-129 provides that when a province agrees to increase its financial contribution to the program by paying all the administration costs, instead of being reimbursed to the extent of 50 per cent of these costs by the federal government, the federal government will increase its contribution to the premiums from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. In this way, both levels of government will increase assistance to farmers so as to reduce farmers' contributions from 75 per cent to 50 per cent of the premiums necessary to cover indemnities.
I have heard from the ministers of agriculture of all provinces which now have agreements with the federal government under the Crop Insurance Act and I am assured that this amendment has the endorsement of their respective governments. In fact, three provincial governments, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba, have recently made plans for their crop insurance agencies to sell crop insurance to farmers in 1973 using a rate structure based on the increased government contribution set out in this bill. Several other provinces planning to do so are hoping that this legislation will soon become law. It is understood that until this bill is passed, these provincial
Crop Insurance Act
governments will advance 50 per cent of the premium to the respective crop insurance funds and pay all administration costs.
The Crop Insurance Act was passed in 1959 and has been amended three times to make improvements to the program and to increase its usefulness to the farmers of Canada. Crop insurance was first sold to farmers in Manitoba in 1960 and the program was expanded to include Saskatchewan in 1961, Prince Edward Island in 1962, Alberta in 1965, Ontario in 1966, British Columbia in 1967, Quebec in 1968 and Nova Scotia in 1969.
Farmer participation has increased slowly and in 1972, the year just passed, 49,268 farmers purchased insurance worth $160 million, for a total premium of $11,172,000. Total indemnities which we expect will be paid on last year's insured crops will exceed $13 million, the largest crop losses occurring in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec.
I have said the number of farmers protected by crop insurance in 1972 was 49,000. This represents less than 20 per cent of the number of farmers who are eligible to purchase this protection. There are, I believe, several reasons why many farmers have not used this program, and Bill C-129 before the House is one major step toward meeting farmers' objections, particularly the objection that the level of the guarantee is too low and the premium is too high.
Variation in crop yields is one of the major risks of farming. This variation can be caused by a number of unavoidable actions of nature. The cost of any insurance program that might be designed to compensate a farmer for any crop damage would be prohibitive. Therefore, crop insurance is a program to guarantee a level of production on a farmer's total crop up to 80 per cent of a farmer's previous average yield, so that when a crop is seriously reduced the farmer is assured of a return which will generally cover his investment in the crop. While many farmers prefer the higher guarantee, the premium cost is often prohibitive when added to all the costs that a farmer faces each spring of the year. The most common level of coverage is 60 to 70 per cent of average yield, and the average premium for this coverage has exceeded 7 per cent.
In the 12 years that crop insurance has been sold in Canada, $73,187,000 has been collected in premiums, of which the farmers have paid $52,643,011, and $70,800,000 has been paid to farmers whose crops were less than the guarantee. Thus, for each premium dollar paid by farmers in total, farmers in total have received $1.35. Each year improvements are made in the terms and conditions of crop insurance plans to meet farmers' needs, but this bill will be a big step in permitting improvements in the size of the guarantee in relation to the cost to the farmer.
I expect that the number of farmers who buy crop insurance in the next few years will nearly double. The basic idea of crop insurance, that a farmer decides to purchase protection before he sows a crop, is new to many farmers. Many farmers continue to self-insure, to take a chance, to diversify to reduce risk of crop loss, or to rely on government emergency grants. My experience of this sort of thing is not good. All it amounts to is a lot of buck-passing between the two higher levels of govern-

March 29, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
ment and the farmer generally ends up holding the empty bucket.
As all provinces step up their efforts to explain the advantages and operation of crop insurance, and particularly with the ever increasing need for higher cash investment in every crop, I can see the majority of farmers using this program in the near future and benefiting from the stability of income that it provides.
I might add that since being appointed Minister of Agriculture I have visited and consulted every one of my provincial counterparts and discussed the changes that we think are desirable in crop insurance for Canadian farmers. I am still receiving suggestions from them. I have done the same thing with all the farm organizations. I have attended many public farm meetings and asked farmers to suggest the changes that they think would be practical to make crop insurance more enticing to the agricultural industry as a whole.
At the first federal-provincial meeting of agricultural ministers this has top place on our agenda, so that new and even better legislation than that which is on the books will be presented to farmers in the crop year 1974-75. Crop insurance, I think, is something they all want. They want an insurance plan that is closer to their idea of what real insurance should be, that is closer to the principle of insurance as we all know it.
I might also add that I know a bit about insurance since I sold casualty insurance part-time for seven and a half years and was director of Co-operators Insurance, the largest casualty insurance company in Ontario. I must say that I think our crop insurance program has a long way to go before it is what many producers and farmers in this nation want it to be, that is, real insurance that guarantees them against loss. I am willing to listen to any reasonable presentation by any member of this House, by any group or by any one of my provincial counterparts, so that we have the most advanced and progressive type of crop insurance in the world.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has taken this opportunity to introduce an amendment to the Crop Insurance Act. Crop insurance is a prime topic among farmers today due, I think, to the terrible experience that farmers in various provinces have had because of weather, flood conditions and so on, all of them acts of God. Not only were farmers unable to cope with these disasters and prevent the tremendous damage that was caused, but farmers found themselves in most instances unable to cope with them financially.
When one thinks of crop insurance from the farmer's point of view, he thinks of an investment in the form of a premium to safeguard against partial or total crop loss which might place the farmer in an economic strait-jacket as far as financing further crops or other farming activities is concerned.
We have had the matter of crop insurance before us for a number of years. As an indication of the fact that something is drastically wrong, let me point out that in 1972, of the hundreds of thousands of farmers in Canada

who could take out crop insurance only 46,000 availed themselves of this opportunity. This was a decrease of almost 7,000 farmers from the 1970-71 crop year. This would lead one to believe that the farmers are not satisfied with the present crop insurance plan. They are discouraged to the extent they are not taking advantage of the minor provision available to them at the present time.
What is the basic problem? When you talk to farmers, as most of us have, who have experienced flood, hail, rain, wind or fire damage, you will find that farmers are very blunt. You ask them why they do not take out crop insurance and nine out of ten will say quite bluntly, "Because it is not worth a damn." That is their attitude. I think you will find that their experience has not been happy in respect of crop insurance. You cannot point the finger of blame at any one segment of government or any particular administration.
One of the basic problems which we face is related to the structure of crop insurance. It is initiated by the federal government and administered by the provincial governments in ten different ways; they are not universal in their application or methods. When you have a situation like this you are bound to have disruption, time lapses and maladministration, all of which leads to dissatisfaction.
The minister stated-I was happy to hear this-that the government is going to try to initiate coverage up to 80 per cent of loss. This sounds reasonable on the face of it, but in the actual application so far as the farmer is concerned, it does not work out that way. A farmer may have one field, part of which is on a slope and part of which is on the level; one part may be along a river flat and one part on an incline. Part of this field may suffer 40 per cent crop damage, while the other part is not damaged at all. When this happens the farmer is not eligible for any compensation because in total he has lost only 20 per cent of his crop. This is just one example; there are many.
The decision as to whether a farmer is eligible for compensation is a human one. Let us consider a crop of tomato plants, potato plants or tobacco plants. Such a crop, when hit by hail or a rain deluge, suffers a great deal of damage. The plants sit in water for a week or so and the roots are killed because of lack of oxygen. An inspector comes in to assess the damage. His assessment is never in accord with the damage the farmer believes he has suffered; the farmer feels he has suffered much greater loss than the inspector is willing to admit. We have many instances of crop loss which work severe economic hardship on the farmers involved, yet under the administration of the crop insurance plan they receive absolutely no payment. This is why farmers have lost faith in this particular type of coverage.
I know the minister was earnest and sincere when he said he was willing to hear suggested improvements. He has travelled across the country and talked to provincial ministers of agriculture, and I know he appreciates the difficulties. I am delighted that this bill is to be sent to committee where we can call witnesses and study it in detail, following which we can draw our own conclusions. There is no objection on the part of this party to sending the bill to committee. We believe crop insurance is an absolute necessity for farmers of this nation.
March 29, 1973

Under the economic situation which faces Canada today, farming is not a simple operation; it is a very complicated and high-investment industry. When this industry was new, $400 would buy all the machinery and equipment necessary to operate a 150-acre farm. But $400 today would hardly pay for the forms of energy required to turn over the machinery on the average farm for a week. That is the problem we face today. When we speak about farming today, we are not speaking about a $3,000 or $5,000 investment; in many instances we are speaking about an investment of $250,000 to $1.5 million. The operators of farms are interested in crop insurance to protect their investment.
We must not approach this matter on the basis of a simple bill relating to a primary industry, but as a measure for the protection of a very complicated business enterprise. Unless this crop insurance program is a businesslike proposition, the farmers will not be interested in it. It is our experience over the past number of years that they are not interested; this is borne out by the small number of farmers who have availed themselves of the plan.
Some 46,000 farmers have taken out crop insurance,
13,000	of whom are located in the western provinces, the birthplace of crop insurance. Therefore the House can understand the hesitation of farmers to participate in this program in other provinces. This is why we look forward to getting the bill before the committee, at which time members of this party will have suggestions to make and perhaps will move some amendments.
Let me go back to the principle I dealt with a moment ago in respect of differences in administration. Today the minister put forward a simple proposition to increase the federal contribution to the administrative costs of the program in an attempt to lower farmers' premiums. The idea is that if a farmer has to pay $1 an acre for a very simple crop insurance plan, the government will pick up, depending upon the province involved, 25 per cent or 50 per cent of the premium.
This is not the only type of insurance required by farmers. When we speak about crop insurance we cannot confine ourselves to small payments for a portion of a crop which may not be harvested. Such an approach has proved to be very unsatisfactory in respect of some segments of farming. If hon. members wish specifics, I will be specific and speak on behalf of the dairy farmers or those who produce beef. It is very difficult to compensate such a producer "X" number of dollars an acre for the amount of hay he was unable to take in because of a deluge of rain.
When such a disaster occurs, it affects not only one farmer but his neighbours in the next concession, those in the next township and often those in the next country. So we have an entire area that has lost the necessary forage. When you compensate the farmer by "X" number of dollars per acre on the basis of the hay he did not take in, you are only paying him on the basis of normal production. When we have a disaster such as this, the farmer is forced to pay for forage at a price which is sometimes tremendously high, not only because of an increase due to scarcity of supply but often due to the necessity to truck forage or take it by rail hundreds of miles into the area. All these
Crop Insurance Act
things add to the cost, and the only avenue available to farmers is through supplication to the Minister of Agriculture and the federal government for extra grants and loans to take care of the situation.
Is it not more logical or sensible, when we are setting up a crop insurance program, to design it to provide most benefit to farmers? Farmers to whom I have spoken across this nation-I, too, have been across this nation-are not too concerned about the actual insurance premium per acre. Certainly they do not want to pay more than they must pay, but they are not too concerned about the degree of premium, that is, whether it be $1, $1.50 or $2 per acre. They are more interested in what it will buy if they should be faced with a catastrophe. They are more concerned about whether it will help them in the event of flooding of their entire crop, destruction by hail, by early or late frost, or by fire. This is what farmers are interested in.
However, unfortunately it seems that the total emphasis of the government continues to be on providing an extra 25 per cent of the premium per acre or in helping the provincial governments in respect of their .administrative costs. It is all right for the minister to tell the House, which either he or his parliamentary secretary probably will, that the administration of these policies comes under provincial jurisdiction and that the province works out the actual mechanics of crop insurance. This no doubt is true, but the fact remains that there is a federal responsibility in the entire scheme. It seems to me the onus is on the government, through the Minister of Agriculture, to work out with the ministers of agriculture of the provinces a plausible, practical, logical crop insurance program which would be universal to the degree that it would be attractive to farmers, that they would have confidence in it and would feel their desires were met.
I am not impressed by the argument of the minister tonight when he told us that for every dollar in the form of premium which farmers invest in crop insurance, they receive $1.30. I am not impressed because many farmers who would receive $1.30 are today working in the towns and cities because they went bankrupt on the farm. They are there because disaster broke their economic backs. This is why we must look at this problem in a little different light. If the federal government is sincere in its plans to develop a viable, economic agricultural industry in this country, it must consider long-range plans.
First of all, this government must decide whether it believes an agricultural industry in Canada is indispensable. Never on this side of the House have we been able to determine, from the actions of the government, whether it feels this industry is indispensable. If the government believes it is, then it is time it started a long-range policy designed to put the business of agriculture on the basis on which it is entitled to be. When I speak of it being on a business basis, this is what I have in mind. All the farmers of this nation wish for an economic climate, not in which they need subsidies, not in which they need hand-outs or small loans from the governments at low interest rates, not all these tools for cripples but, rather, an economic climate in which they can receive the same return for their labour and capital investment as that received by all

March 29, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
other segments of the Canadian economy. If they get this, they will be satisfied.
We have an opportunity tonight, through this bill, to take one of the first steps in changing the policy and directing it so that the farmers will know that the Parliament of Canada feels their industry is absolutely necessary and that we are starting to take steps to make it possible for them to survive under the really tough international competition with which they are faced. The way to do it is by starting to lay the basis of an insurance plan that will give them some confidence in their own longterm investments, so that they do not have the absolute dread that one disaster, one act of God, in one year could wipe them out of business.
When we have succeeded in doing this-and I think we can-when we have established an insurance policy for Canadian farmers all across Canada which will fully compensate them for complete crop failure due to an act of God, then this parliament will have begun to do something worth while for the farmers of this nation.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I think this is the first bill amending an act which has been introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I congratulate him on taking some action in respect of the crop insurance legislation. Part of the question-this was touched on by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) who spoke immediately before me-is whether the changes proposed by the minister will make this program really operative and one that will attract farmers to use it and have the protection they need. I wonder if it will.
We know the experience up to 1971-72. I am referring to the 1971-72 annual report in respect of crop insurance. It states that 46,326 farmers in Canada purchased crop insurance in 1971, and this was 13 per cent fewer than in
1970.	So actually crop insurance has been attracting fewer farmers as time goes by. I do not have the figures here for Manitoba, but I have talked to some of the people in that province. Manitoba really tried to use crop insurance, but I think participation in the program is starting to decline.
In this bill the government proposes to increase to some extent the amount of money which it will pay. It will pay up to 50 per cent of the premium and the provinces will cover the administration costs. These are the essential features of the bill. Again I ask: Will this be sufficient to attract the vast majority of farmers into taking out this kind of insurance and paying the premiums? I have spoken to people in my constituency in Saskatchewan. I spoke to a man who is actively selling insurance to farmers in the area. There is a real drive to get farmers to take out crop insurance. If they had coverage, it would be protection against some of the disasters that we have experienced this year.
I would have liked to learn from the minister whether as a result of these new proposals he was expecting to absolve the government from responsibility to meet the kinds of disasters that occurred this year in Ontario, Quebec and the Peace River area of Alberta and British Columbia. I still have my doubts that this type of insur-

ance will be able to compensate for those kinds of disasters, especially if farmers encounter a situation where they suffer drought or flooding for two or three years in succession. Is it the government's belief that, having enacted this kind of crop insurance, it can opt out of giving special assistance in such cases? I think it is taking the wrong attitude, if it believes so. Individualized insurance such as this will not cope with those situations.
I was interested to hear the minister say he wanted to get this scheme on a straight insurance basis. He said that he had sold insurance and that this was the way he was thinking. I am convinced that ordinary, straight-ahead individual insurance will prove to be the answer for the farmers. Some years ago I hoped that in western Canada some minister or some government would be imaginative enough to try to tie in PFAA with a crop insurance program. It could have worked in the three prairie provinces at least. One could take the major crops and make a deduction, at the same time use the individual insurance approach, and by amalgamating the two achieve over-all coverage. It would mean collecting premiums from the farmers. From the deductions you could build up a fund of considerable magnitude which would cope with a disaster when it occurred.
I am sorry to see the principle behind PFAA, which was to make a deduction right across the board in order to provide protection right across the board, being written off in order to go back-the minister may say, go forward-to a simple, straight insurance scheme where each farmer carries his own risk, with a certain amount of contribution for the premium being paid by the federal government or the provincial government as the case may be.
I think it will take some time before we get the vast majority of farmers covered under the scheme as it is now established. Some years ago I went to a meeting in my municipality which was attended by farmers from all around the area. The local ag rep attended, and we discussed this idea at length. We asked the farmers whether they would buy insurance to get this kind of coverage. The answer we received was that they would not. I would point out that the area around Rosetown and Biggar is representative of the central grain growing region of western Canada. If the crop insurance scheme is to be successful, it must appeal to that type of farmer.
The minister says he has gone across the country and spoken to farmers and to governments. I wonder if he really thinks that the farmers in Kindersley, Alsask, Medicine Hat, Maple Creek, Swift Current and all through that area, who farm one or two, or even four or five sections will use this program; or does he think there will still be a significant number of farmers in certain categories who will not use it? This is the question that needs to be answered, because most people would agree that if an insurance program is to be effective it must be universal.
I have my doubts whether the legislation that will emerge as a result of these amendments will achieve that objective. But we will have to wait only three or four years to find the answer. Instead of covering 46,326 farmers, if the scheme that is proposed tonight really is the answer it will cover 300,000 to 400,000 farmers. Does the minister expect this to happen? Quite frankly, I doubt
March 29, 1973

that it will. I do not particularly want to run down the idea, but if we are to have a program, it had better work and we must have good reason to believe that it will.
As I say, there is no special provision for disaster years; or at least the minister has not said there is. I think I am being fair when I say that his predecessor gave a clear indication that his objective was to establish policies which meant we would no longer have to ask the federal government for special assistance for the farmers. I believe that the amendment to the Crop Insurance Act was meant to achieve that major objective. That thread runs through the policies which this government and the one before it have proposed to the House. It ran through the policies in connection with the grains stabilization bill, that is, to have the government move out of any special category and adopt an automatic program that would meet the farmers' needs when incomes dropped.
As well as crop insurance we should look at the income policies of the government. After all, this kind of insurance is meant to maintain income in years of disaster. Over-all income is what the government should be concerned with. As well as this, we should be talking about changes to the Agricultural Prices Support Act. Either deliberately or by accident, some of the policies that we thought would be fairly effective-and were at one time- have become ineffective. I think part of it has happened by design. The Agricultural Prices Support Act has a ten-year average for the main basis of support, and 80 per cent of that is offered to farmers as a support price. Surely the minister and the government know that this act is largely inoperative because of the rise in prices. Just take the example of pork. When the price of hogs went down to $19 and $20 a hundredweight, the amount provided in the act was so low that for shame they dared not offer it to the farmers; they had to use an arbitrary figure, a large figure. How long is the government content to leave this situation as it is?
In his speech the minister said there might be some suggestions from this side. I suggest that he can start by shortening that ten-year average to five year, and by changing the 80 per cent to 100 per cent. He should then get somebody with a slide-rule to find out what the figures show. They might show a price support program that would be worth having on the statute books. Sheep men have come here time after time in the last three years and pleaded with the government for help in this regard.
The farmer is logical enough that he will not pay for insurance unless it will guarantee him an income on which he can live. One of the major reasons the insurance program did not grow, and instead declined in Saskatchewan and Manitoba through 1969, 1970 and 1971, was that the farmer's income was so low that it was not worth insuring, and he could not afford to insure it. The minister knows that; it is in this report. It does nothing for the farmer to offer a program to insure an income which in a year or two from now may not be worth insuring.
I have listened to the minister when he has spoken before the food committee, and I have read some of the speeches he has made across the country. He tells consumers that the farmer is giving them bargains. He is
Crop Insurance Act
right; this government has helped the farmer to give bargains. The program which he proposes tonight assumes that there will not be disaster years. Of course, disasters are not the minister's fault but if there is not an agricultural prices support program to protect the farmer, it will be his fault; he will be responsible and should be called to account in this House. I see no sign that the government intends to deal with this matter. I see signs that they are proposing to let supply and demand make the decisions in the market.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board says he is interested in farm income, although he never says what kind or at what level. Someone asked what he is going to do about putting rapeseed under the Wheat Board, and he said: Maybe this year, next year, come day, go day, God send Sunday; I am going to do something-maybe. He comes to this House and tells farmers what is the initial price for barley and wheat, and that he would like them to grow more rapeseed, too; but he does not offer any kind of support or price for rapeseed. Again, the farmer is to take the whole risk; he is to insure a crop when he has no guarantee of its value and no support against a disaster price. He just has to take his chance.
The same minister says he will keep supplying wheat to the millers at $1,951. Even the farmers of Ontario are starting to plead with him to have the millers pay what the wheat is worth, because this is denying them a fair price for their product. Nothing is being done about it. This is the second time this sort of thing has happened; the first time was during the Second World War. Why not take the necessary action to increase the price of wheat to millers? Speaking of that portion of the wheat payments which comes from the treasury, the minister responsible for the *Wheat Board said it is "clearly a consumer subsidy holding the price of bread down instead of letting it reflect world prices for wheat." This must be the biggest laugh in the world. Tell that to the consumers. Tell them the price of bread is held down. Somebody should go through the country and tell the people that, so they will know. That is the kind of irrationality we have been fed from time to time.
Speaking to the bill before us, I am in favour of developing crop insurance protection that the farmer can purchase and that will protect him against flood, hail, drought, and so on. Let me say to the minister, however, that this will only work and be accepted by farmers if they are given the opportunity to realize an income that is adequate for their needs. If farmers find themselves in the position of obtaining an adequate income, they will not run to the minister or anybody else looking for hand-outs: they will carry all the insurance they need and will look after themselves. We do not yet have policies that would place farmers in that position. Let me leave this thought with the minister: if he wants this program to work, he must acquire a better grasp of the situation and look at it in a broader context than he has until now.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words about the suggestions of the

March 29, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
government, and especially on Bill C-129 the purpose of which is to give the farmers better crop insurance.
For a few years now, that insurance has certainly helped the farmers, but all are not insured; several were, but when time came for them to claim insurance benefits, they had a very hard time getting their losses assessed.
I know the inspection must be made in co-operation with the provincial governments; I also know that everything does not depend on the federal government, but I ask the minister whether he could-or perhaps has he done so already-consult with the provinces that a body might be appointed in each one to inspect the damages and so enable the farmers to collect their insurance.
In fact, a number of farmers suffered substantial losses and were unable to collect insurance because the damages to their crops could not be evaluated. It often happened that they called on inspectors in due time to look at the crops and the inspectors came around three months later, right in the middle of winter, which is certainly not the right time to evaluate crops. It was therefore decided that a number of farmers could not collect insurance, for the reasons I have given.
I agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) when he says the insurance did not fulfill the required purpose. In my riding, which is semi-rural and semi-urban, a number of farmers declined to take advantage of the insurance. About 25 per cent did use the plan. I wonder why farmers did not take advantage of this insurance. Probably because they thought it did not offer enough advantages or because inspections are not made on schedule when damages are to be assessed. At any rate, only 25 per cent of farmers are insured and 75 per cent are not.
During last summer or fall, because of large losses in crops, caused by too much rain, the government decided to grant $400 to each farmer to help with the damages. About half my constituency was declared a designated area whereas the other half had the same damages and could not obtain these benefits because it was not designated as such.
In the course of the election campaign, this became a political argument and it was said that one area of the constituency was not recognized as designated because of its member sitting in the opposition. Yet, in the other part of the constituency, each farmer was granted $400 because it had been recognized as a designated area.
Mr. Speaker, there is certainly something the matter with this situation. I suggest it is unreasonable to do such things in a constituency. I don't know whether this has occurred elsewhere-I have not inquired, I have not pushed the matter further. In any case, this is what happened.
The $400 grant benefited to some, but others who incurred losses of more than $6,000 received only $400. There is again something that is not entirely fair in this. Many farmers are still dissatisfied that they received only $400, whereas they incurred much heavier losses. So, there is some injustice in this.
The initiative of giving $400 to farmers who suffered rain damage is contrary to the principle of crop insurance. This does not encourage farmers to buy more insur-
(Mr. Latulippe.]
ance, because probably they think that if they suffer damage, they need not pay insurance premiums because the government will subsidize damaged crops.
I think, moreover, that the minister should intercede with the provincial authorities so as to clear up this matter. There is definitely something unfair about the present insurance plan, which in no way solves the problem. Under the proposed insurance plan, the federal government undertakes responsibility for half of the insured parties and pays 50 per cent of the premiums, which I am not opposed to.
We shall definitely support this bill, although it will not directly solve the farmers' problems. It is a pretty lame sort of aid, as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar said just now.
It is true that the provinces are the ones who decide; so the ministers of agriculture of all the provinces ought to negotiate clear agreements with the federal government. What is needed is insurance that would really cover crops that were ruined; if there were such a crop insurance plan, the government would not be obliged, as it has been in the past, to pay out $400 subsidies to help farmers whose crops have been damaged.
And so we need to set up a crop insurance plan that would really be of help to Canadian agriculture; if we did, I think all farmers would want coverage. Something must be wrong if only 25 per cent of farmers buy insurance.
I am no expert on insurance, but I know that there is something wrong since farmers are hesitant about insuring their crops.
As to the establishment of insurance policies, they should really insure crops, and when damage occurs, there should be an organization ready to take the proper steps and inspect where needed so that our farmers could benefit from this insurance which must insure and not only appear to. It should not be an insurance that does not pay when it is time to pay. When damages suffered by farmers must be paid for, this should be done quickly. This organization should operate in such a way that our farmers could really benefit from it and would be truly insured in an adequate manner.
I also doubt that this bill will be satisfactory to the great majority of farmers. I do not think there are that many changes in this bill. The bill should have been better explained. It should be referred to committee for a more thorough examination by agricultural experts who would give their views and bring valid solutions to allow our farmers to really benefit from crop insurance.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this evening to speak about Bill C-129 because it shows that the present government and especially the Department of Agriculture, through the minister, are trying once again to give all Canadian farmers a tool enabling them to live comfortably and above all in security on their land.
As the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) pointed out just now, last year in Quebec-I refer to Quebec because I am a member of that province-some weather
March 29, 1973

problems have inflicted rather heavy losses to farmers. Unfortunately, most of those farmers were not covered by crop insurance, which means that very few were insured.
Thanks to this bill, all Canadian farmers will be happy to find out that the government intends to give them a coverage which will enable them to remain on the farm when facing problems such as those that occurred last year.
Bill C-129 provides for another way of cost sharing between the federal government, the provinces and the farmers. Pursuant to this legislation, the contributions of the federal government, under the terms of a federal-provincial agreement, may reach up to 50 per cent of the total premiums, provided the province pays for all administrative costs. The producers' share would be 50 per cent of the premium. The federal contribution provided for in the bill would be paid by way of refund to the provincial government for the amount paid into the crop insurance fund of each province.
In 1972-73, the farmers of Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario have taken out crop insurance by paying 50 per cent of the premium. In the other provinces where crop insurance schemes are in force, the farmers had to pay 75 per cent of the premium. The cost sharing arrangements provided for in Bill C-129 will allow all Canadian farmers to take out crop insurance by paying 50 per cent of the premium.
Greater federal participation will result in more crop protection at a lesser cost per acre to the farmer. In addition, with the experience gained by the provincial administrations, the protection offered the farmer by guaranteeing that his crop is protected, will be of considerable value to all Canadian farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I trust all hon. members will support this bill which will give every Canadian farmer more security.
Crop insurance schemes have evolved somewhat. The Crop Insurance Act was passed by the federal government in 1959. Afterwards, it was applied in 1960 on a trial basis in Manitoba. Since then, eight provinces have provided crop insurance programs for farmers, namely Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia.
Initially the Crop Insurance Act entitled the federal government to enter into agreements with the provinces and to assume 50 per cent of the administrative costs and 20 per cent of the necessary premiums to apply the insurance. It also included provisions enabling the federal government to make loans to the provinces in the years when compensation requests would by far exceed the available reserves to indemnify the claimants.
Amendments have been made to the 1959 act in 1964, 1966 and 1971. The amendments of 1964 did away with loans and the federal government agreed to reinsure part of the risk incurred by the provinces, through an approved crop insurance plan. Then, when provinces decided to join the crop insurance plan, the federal government was willing to do something in this area.
Services offered through crop insurance are numerous. As a matter of fact, services offered by the Department of Agriculture of Canada under the Crop Insurance Act include assistance to provinces in order to promote,
Crop Insurance Act
improve and change their crop insurance plan; the central co-ordination of programs designed to improve and further expand the insurance of crop losses for Canadian farmers; studies aimed at setting crop insurance plans on sound actuarial footings, and the carrying out of financial commitments involved in cost sharing agreements between the Federal government and the Provinces, as regards the share of premium and administration costs as well as the reinsurance of risk.
In 1971, crops have not been too good in most regions of Canada. Important crop losses were recorded in some regions of Canada, for various causes. In Quebec as in other provinces, bad weather during the sowing season or during crops was responsible for farmers losing considerable amounts of money. As we know the problems of farmers who suffer such important losses, we must support this new bill on crop insurance in order to help them.
The financial contributions of the federal Department of Agriculture to the crop insurance program cover the administration costs of the crop insurance division as well as payment made under the agreements between the federal and provincial governments. The Department of Insurance also offers at no cost continuing advisory services.
If indemnities to be paid exceed premiums collected, funds are advanced by provincial governments or under federal provincial insurance agreements.
The administrators of the crop insurance program are continuously trying to improve the provisions of crop insurance contracts to meet the needs of farmers in various areas. However, it seems administration should be improved so a larger proportion of farmers will understand the program and feel confident enough about it to use it regularly.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should all try to make farmers understand that crop insurance is really intended to help them survive periods as dead as those we knew last year and to prevent the same problems from re-occurring.
Mr. Speaker, it gave me great pleasure to say a few words tonight on Bill C-129 designed to help the farmers of Canada.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the crop insurance bill. I wish the minister well with regard to it. It is a small step in the right direction. I have to say, though, that it is late. In my area of Saskatchewan crops are already being seeded and the government of the province has not seen fit to offer lower premium rates to producers. So the sign-up out there is slow.
It seems to me the changes proposed in this bill are administrative rather than anything else. Looking over the annual report on crop insurance, I see there are 18 administrative costs to be borne by the insured farmer, which amounted to 18 per cent of the premium in Saskatchewan in the last three years. It makes one wonder. Really, the amount of money involved, $4 million last year, is so small in relation to the value of the industry as to make the plan almost worthless.

March 29, 1973
Crop Insurance Act
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) suggested that crop insurance and PFAA might have been put together. That is a very sensible idea. Surely we need an agricultural insurance policy which covers a farmer's total income, which includes livestock enterprises as well as crops. The sign-up on the Prairies has been very slow for crop insurance, particularly in the province of Saskatchewan. The reason, of course, is that in the spring we are asking farmers to pay a stiff premium. On 200 acres, in the area I represent, the premium is about $476, and on 400 acres it is around $1,000. Admittedly, the government is proposing to take up half of this charge, but the remainder is still a lot of money to ask the farmer to lay out before he seeds a crop.
I should like to deal for a few minutes with the industry we are insuring. Canada is the second largest country in the world and we are rich in resources and opportunities. Yet the policies of the federal Department of Agriculture in the last few years have been inward-looking. We have become preoccupied with regional squabbles. In the west, we realize that our problems and our priorities are not the same as those of other regions of Canada. We know that steps must be taken to equalize standards and opportunities across this land; so once again I welcome this bill.
Our main crop in western Canada is wheat. Only two other countries in the world grow the hard, red spring wheat that we do-the United States, in its northern part, and Australia. We are the only three countries which grow this bread-making wheat for export. No other grain can be substituted for this wheat. This wheat can only be grown to best advantage in semi-arid conditions. This makes us extremely vulnerable to the whims of mother nature. So the Government of Canada has a real responsibility to help protect this wealth-producing industry. We have to carry over a large stock at the end of each crop year in order to be classed as a dependable supplier by the rest of the world.
The importance of grain to the Canadian economy can be considered in a number of ways. The commonest way is to take account of the direct contribution of grain sales to farm income and the amount added to the gross national wealth. But a more revealing way is to take account of the economic activity generated by wheat sales in various industrial sectors, since so many jobs and enterprises depend, direct or indirectly, on agricultural output. The production, distribution and export of 600 million bushels of wheat at the present price of $2.75 a bushel-which amounts to $1.4 billion-generates a total domestic output of $4.4 billion. The Agricultural Economic Research Council has all the figures. Total government revenue from the 600 million bushels exported amounts to $675 million. So the effect generated on the economy corresponds to $4.4 billion, direct income amounts to $2.1 billion and $675 million goes to the federal government. And I would remind hon. members that important though these exports are, western production of other grains used for processing, and so on, has an even more important effect upon the economy. It is now obvious it would have been possible to have sold, at competitive world prices, the production from 10 million acres removed by the government's Lift program. This was a direct loss to the Canadian economy of over $500 million, and to the food system of over $700 million.

We can turn the question around and ask, what could the government afford to pay in the way of market development, export assistance or price subsidization and be no worse off? Several partial analyses have revealed that a government promotion of $1 per bushel could be provided for wheat, and this would result in direct and indirect benefits accruing to all sectors of the Canadian economy. I suggest that the federal government could well afford to be more generous than they have been in the provisions of Bill C-129.
As I have said before, it is now a fact that Canada is a wealthy country. The financial resources of the federal treasury are such that if these moneys were redirected with a greater input toward agriculture, new concepts could be developed. Of primary importance is the realization that the producers in this country are entitled to a satisfactory return for their labour. In other words, they are entitled to prices to ensure their continuation in business and the accepted standard of life and opportunity Canada affords. If the marketplace cannot provide these requirements, then it is my contention that Canada should.
Agriculture is a permanent foundation for economic activity, as contrasted with resource-depleting industries. One thing is important to keep in mind, however. Whatever is done must not be done at the expense of soil deterioration. The land should not be overworked in order to compensate for excessive grain shortages, nor should it be considered worthless in times of overproduction. Our main objective has to be to increase food output. Food is so basic a commodity and so necessary that the federal government must be involved. In effect, only three areas of the world produce more than they consume-Canada, the United States and the European Common Market. New prosperity around the world and new political realities ensure demand for better food.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that a journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. I think this is a single step that we are taking tonight, and I look forward to dealing further with the bill when it reaches the committee.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take too long tonight so we can get this bill through second reading as quickly as possible. I should like, first of all, to say on behalf of my party that we welcome the bill. We feel it is a step in the right direction. At the present time, farmers in my province have been subsidized to the tune of 25 per cent of their premium for crop insurance. Now they will be getting 50 per cent of their premium through the auspices of the federal government.
One thing that does bother me is this. In my province, in fact in the prairie provinces, there was a decrease in participation in the crop insurance plan during the crop year 1971-1972. In Saskatchewan and Alberta I suppose we could put part of the blame on Lift, the Lower Inventory for Tomorrow program-or, as some people in Saskatchewan call it, "lower income for tomorrow"-and the grasslands incentive program.
Saskatchewan has the largest cultivated acreage in Canada. According to a report that I received some time ago, we have the third highest insured acreage. One
March 29, 1973

matter that the committee on agriculture will have to delve into very seriously is how we can get more farmers involved in crop insurance. I suppose we will have to convince the farmers that crop insurance is good for them, and make it so attractive that all of them will want to participate.
This report, the annual report of the minister under the Crop Insurance Act for 1971-72, is not completely up to date since we are now in 1973, but I should like to put on the record what measures have been taken in my home province to extend the crop insurance scheme. What the provincial government of Saskatchewan is doing, together with the proposed amendment in this bill to the Crop Insurance Act, should make crop insurance more worth while for Saskatchewan farmers.
To begin with, in the early phases of crop insurance in Saskatchewan, which commenced in the early 1960s, not too much progress was made during the seven Liberal years that we had. There was a Tory-Grit coalition to keep us out of power. But then we managed to get back in. Since 1971, crop insurance has been extended to include all agricultural areas of the province. Originally it covered only the eastern section of the province; now the entire province of Saskatchewan is covered.
The minister's report for 1971-72 indicates, on page 4, that in Saskatchewan the lands available before 1964 were for wheat, oats and barley only. I should like to inform the House that more crops have now been added and at the present time there are eight crops included under the crop insurance scheme in Saskatchewan. These are spring wheat, Durum wheat, barley, oats, fall rye, flax, sunflowers and rapeseed. Furthermore, coverages in general have been increased with inclusion of the latest yield data. A 70 per cent basic level of coverage is available for all crops included in the plan, in addition to the 60 per cent basic level of coverage. Also, a coverage adjustment feature which is based on individual crop insurance experience for insured crops is included.
A quality guarantee is included in addition to the quantity guarantee, and provides that if production is reduced in quality due to an insured hazard, the grade is also considered in determining the loss in production. Hail losses will also be adjusted on an individual field and on a spot loss basis. This provides protection against partial losses through hail and at the same time maintains an over-all guarantee as provided under the basic crop insurance plan.
In addition, an expanded program of information and promotion is being carried out. This is something the federal government could be doing. We must have a change in the method of selling and servicing so that more farmers in Saskatchewan are involved. In my constituency, and I live in the fringe area of agricultural land in Saskatchewan, about one-third of the farmers suffered heavy frost damage. Farmers who held crop insurance had an advantage over those who did not.
Since this is a federal-provincial program, I should like to indicate that the province of Saskatchewan is considering at the present time how it can better insure the farmer. In the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Crop Insurance Act
Manitoba, insurance is more or less based on the average yield for the last 25 years. One of the problems of determining whether a farmer should be insured on the basis of 5 per cent or 10 per cent of average yield is lack of statistics. At the present time, the government of Saskatchewan is trying to develop a system of establishing coverage for each insured based on the actual yields. This will require collecting yield data on an individual farm basis.
At the present time, risk area boundaries are based on municipal losses, which results in different rates of insurance on almost identical land and even within units. It would appear that rate areas should be segregated with land boundaries in respect of irrigation, soil and such things. It has also been contemplated that other crops should be insured under this new crop insurance scheme in addition to the eight I have already mentioned. One crop being contemplated is mustard seed.
A major concern of the farmers in Saskatchewan is that the crop insurance program by itself will not provide the production protection required if several consecutive disaster years should occur in a particular area. Since crop insurance guarantees only a portion of the long-term average yield, with present markets in respect of farming a farmer cannot survive at this level of production over a period of years. The increased contribution under the proposal should in no way relieve the Government of Canada from responsibility under adverse conditions such as I have mentioned. Once again, I feel that the crop insurance scheme has come a long way in Canada. It has made progress over the last 10 or 15 years, and I believe this is a step in the right direction. But we still have a long way to go.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing what the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) had to say when he suggested farmers would be proud of a government that brought in a crop insurance policy of this kind. Let me suggest that Ontario farmers are receiving virtually the same kind of deal this year, under this policy, that they received last year, and they will not find this acceptable. The hon. member is a long way out in left field in this regard, and if he continues to make statements like that he will find that he is not on the ball team at all.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) said the government would be required to convince the farmers to buy insurance. I can only suggest that if he were acquainted with farmers he would know that you do not have to convince farmers about policies.


An hon. Member:: He is a farmer.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Farmers know what they want, they know when they have a good deal and they will participate without being convinced.
I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-129 because crop insurance is a matter of urgency. I had hoped the government would place before this House a crop insurance policy at an earlier date, in view of the fact that the fruit season in British Columbia commences on October 1, at which time there is danger of a first frost. Nevertheless, Bill C-129 must be considered and forward-
March 29, 1973

Crop Insurance Act
ed to the committee as quickly as possible. I would urge the government and the committee to accept reasonable and logical amendments such as those which have been suggested. No doubt there will be more. The minister has said he welcomes suggestions by members of this House, and I hope he will make use of them.
I realize the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has problems in attempting to have his proposals accepted by the cabinet. I hope he knew what he was talking about when he said he would accept the ideas of hon. members and use them when bringing forward new crop insurance legislation. Let me quote from the statement he made during the debate on the throne speech. As reported on page 344 of Hansard, the minister said:
These problems concerning crop insurance are hard to overcome. In view of these difficulties I believe it is time to re-examine the entire crop insurance program, to set out goals firmly in mind, and to develop a better program. During my trip across Canada, there was not one provincial minister of agriculture who did not bring this to my attention. They want the real principle of insurance embodied in crop insurance. They feel it is not in the program at the present time.
Again, I am open to suggestions from anyone who has any ideas on how we can improve the crop insurance program.
I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture is disappointed with the results of his efforts as exemplified by Bill C-129, having made a statement of that magnitude? Although administrative costs are being shifted to provincial governments, with the federal government assuming responsibility for 50 per cent of the premiums, in most cases the farmer does not receive any greater protection. Bearing in mind the difficulties experienced by the minister in getting his point across to his colleagues, I wonder if he was forced to adopt a third official language which he now refers to as "Whelanese" in order to mesmerize the farmers into believing that his new policy would provide the answer to agricultural problems.


An hon. Member:: The farmers understand him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Come on John; you wouldn't know a soybean from a golf ball.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Being a new member, I find there is a great deal to learn about parliamentary rules and procedures. If we also need to learn "Whelanese" to properly understand the Minister of Agriculture, it will be an unexpected addition to the list of parliamentary rules and practices which every newly elected member is endeavouring to master.
In attempting to assess what the Minister of Agriculture has been saying, whether or not in "Whelanese", his phraseology has to be decoded. Once a person has the formula, or code, he has a better opportunity to understand what the minister means. For instance, when he spoke during the budget debate the minister said, as recorded at page 1580 of Hansard:
This is a budget for little people. They have benefited a great deal from the budget, more than others. Secondly, farmers will benefit from the changes made in the capital gains tax as it applies to transfers of farms from a father to the mother or child. This is a major concession, one that I am very happy to see in the budget.

What the minister is saying, in his third language, decoded, is that it was a stupid piece of legislation to begin with, which would eventually have destroyed the agricultural economy of this country; that the federal government admits that its inception was an error and is now trying to rescind the regulation. Actually, all that is being done is allowing transfer of a farm of a deceased to his wife, son or daughter without imposing the capital gains tax. In other words, a farmer, after labouring all his life to develop and maintain a farm for his own and his family's future, has to die to receive his just dues from this government. Apparently this is the way to say it in "Whelanese". Shakespeare put it more aptly, thus, "The good that men do is often interred with their bones".
To continue with the interpretation of "Whelanese" as shown on page 1248 of Hansard, when referring to fertilizer the minister said:
There is to be no price increase. The price will be the same as it was last August for all Alberta; it will not change in that area ... They have ample supplies ... At least that is one good bit of news, Mr. Chairman.
The truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, fertilizer is scarce and the situation will worsen, because many farmers do not have storage facilities, and therefore rely on its availability at seeding time to meet their needs. The price of fertilizer, quoted by one of the major retailers, if not the largest in Alberta, in January, 1972, for ammonium nitrate 34-0-0 was $63 per ton bulk. In January this year the same fertilizer cost $76 per ton. I want to stress the point that the minister either did not know what he was talking about, or he was deliberately trying to imply something which is not the truth, when he stated that the price of fertilizer in January would be the same as it was last August.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am having difficulty because the hon. member seems to be dealing with the price of fertilizer, and Bill C-129 amends the Crop Insurance Act. Perhaps the hon. member would bring the two matters a little closer together.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your guidance. I am guided by what you say, but I wanted to relate the cost of fertilizer and what the minister said to the bill with which we are dealing. Perhaps Your Honour would bear with me for a moment.
Those who purchase fertilizer know that the high price for the year is during July and August, and in the off-season during the months of September to January companies either lower prices generally or give a percentage discount. In the period to which I refer, the crop year 1970-71, there was a 7 per cent discount on fertilizer. During the 1972-73 crop year, the same company allowed a discount of 6 per cent. The minister ought to know that it is not honest to compare the reduced price in January to the high-season price of August. In addition, there has been an increase of $3 per ton right across the board for fertilizer. This is another example of "Whelanese" and of a government giving farmers and Canadians generally a false impression or a direct shafting.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what has been said is a misinterpretation of the words I used. I said the information given to me was that if there were any
March 29, 1973

increase, it would be reasonable. I asked that if any member of this House had any information otherwise, he should bring it to my attention. It has been brought to my attention just recently by one member, and we are investigating it now. Fertilizer was delivered in my area this January at the same price as last January, and all the other checks in my area show very nominal increases in fertilizer up until this date.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Each year, as the farmer's costs of production increase, crop insurance becomes more vital to his operation. Farmers must have a policy of crop insurance which is acceptable under present circumstances; a policy which is related to current problems; a policy of protection against partial or total crop loss; a policy that allows him to remain in production. If a farmer has the opportunity of participating in this type of crop insurance, he will purchase it. Last year only 18 to 24 per cent

this was mentioned by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth)-of those engaged in the production of food were able to afford crop insurance.
Something must be done to place crop insurance within financial reach so that every farmer can have its protection. Although the proposed legislation would be of benefit and will be supported by our party, if there is nothing better forthcoming we would like the minister to live up to his word by including suggested amendments to improve the crop insurance policy. I also hope the minister realizes it will take more than "Whelanese" to establish satisfactory crop insurance.
Last year in Canada the cost of production of agricultural products was approximately three times as much at it was 25 years ago, with grain selling at 10 per cent to 20 per cent less than during that period. These producers must be protected so that they can continue in business. If they do not lose their crops, they can survive. When their crops are destroyed and they do not have the protection of insurance, they are in serious trouble. When the crop insurance bill goes to committee, as was mentioned by my colleague the hon. member for Kent-Essex, we intend to propose an amendment in the hope that the government will accept it.
Some provinces are at present considering the implementation of a spot loss clause. I am convinced that crop insurance will never be a complete success unless this government permits the provinces to establish a spot loss policy on an acceptable maximum market value level above that established by the provincial governments on the basis of the market value of the crop. The federal government has failed to initiate proper leadership in the area of crop insurance. But if the Minister of Agriculture can convince his fellow cabinet members that inclusion of this type of plan into the formula which has been suggested in Bill C-129 is reasonable and practical, I believe it would be acceptable to the majority of farmers.
A successful crop insurance policy would help not only the farmer but every Canadian by their having an opportunity to buy food at lower prices. This would be an excellent way for a government to ensure that farmers are not forced out of production through crop loss. It is to the advantage of everyone to see that farmers continue in business if they so desire. Crop insurance most suitable for farmers can be provided through the federal govern-
Adjoumment Debate
ment working in co-operation with provincial governments. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture forget about trying to mislead the Canadian farmers. They are much too smart. What the farmers want is the truth and a crop insurance program that works.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


John Napier Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether there is a disposition by the House to bring this debate to a close.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will understand that some of our members who wish to participate in this debate unfortunately had to attend a funeral in the west. In the circumstances, I am sure the government would be disposed to allow the debate to continue on another day.


John Napier Turner: We understand that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette will be recognized when the debate resumes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 15, 1973, as recorded in Hansard at page 275,1 asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister having discussions with Canadian National Railways concerning the desirability of amending the Canadian National pension plan to provide for pensions on the basis of 2 per cent for each year of service as is the case for Air Canada employees and federal public servants?
This was the reply of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand):
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific are now negotiating with the railway employees' unions and this is one of the items to be discussed. When I met the two presidents a few weeks ago, I indicated that I was certainly interested in the issue of the pension fund and I expressed hope that they would find a solution to this problem which has been pending too long already.
That was a good statement. The trouble is that "too long already" can go on until it becomes far too long. Subsequently, on Thursday, March 22, as recorded in Hansard at page 2489, I asked the Minister of Transport a question again on the same subject, using these words:

March 29, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Is the minister yet in a position to make a statement to the House concerning improvements in railway pensions, both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific? Also, can he tell the House whether he has been able to persuade Canadian National that its pensions should be at least equal to the pension provisions enjoyed by Air Canada employees and by employees of the federal public service?
The minister's answer was as follows:
I think the hon. gentleman knows that negotiations are presently going on between Canadian National, Canadian Pacific and the railway unions and that this subject is being discussed by the parties. I hope this very important problem of pensions will be solved this year, and I am ready to do whatever I can in order to obtain a just solution for the employees.
My purpose in rising tonight and recounting these two questions and answers is to express the hope that the minister is doing something in order to obtain a just solution of this problem. As some hon. members may be aware, reports have been leaking out to the effect that certain matters are being settled between the railway employees and the railway management. I do not have any definitive word as to what the terms of a possible settlement are. As a matter of fact, there is still a fair amount of confusion, but I am disturbed most of all over the fact that it seems some agreement is being reached with respect to the pension plans of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, but that this agreement relates mainly, if not exclusively, to employees still working or, at best, with respect to very recent service.
One report that has come is that there will be pension improvements for those who were in service up to the end of 1972, and that an adjustment may go back as far as 1956. But for those who retired prior to 1956 on either railway there seems to be nothing in prospect so far as these reports are concerned.
Now, Mr. Speaker, because I have admitted that I do not know the details of any settlement that may be in prospect, it would not be proper for me to say much in that respect. However, 1 do want to impress upon the government, even though we are talking about something that is the subject of collective bargaining, that it has a responsibility to the employees of our major railways who are already retired.
Any settlement that is made that does not take into account the position of the older employees of Canada's railways should be reviewed by the government, and the government should do something about it. One of the railways is owned by the government, so surely the government can have some input into the question with that railway. I do not accept the argument so often advanced, that because the Canadian Pacific Railway is privately owned the government can do nothing about its pension plan. As a matter of fact, the Canadian Pacific lives in the public domain, has public support and has had a great deal of public money. I suggest that the federal government does have authority over that railway as well as over the Canadian National.
What is required in this area, Mr. Speaker, as a very minimum, is a pension plan that provides for a 2 per cent pension for each year of service that an employee has given to the railway. I believe a calculation along those lines should be made for employees already retired. There is also required a formula for the escalating of pensions, after retirement, better than the 2 per cent they now get

from the CNR. It should, in fact, be equal at least to the cost of living or, better still, to the rising standard of living.
There also needs to be an improvement in the position of widows of retired employees. At the present time, when a retired employee dies his widow gets a pension of only 50 per cent; most of us think it should be much more. There also should be provision for early retirement without severe penalty, as is now the case.
These are the things that ought to be enshrined in railway pensions. They ought to be at least as good as the best provisions there are for Air Canada and federal public servants. As a matter of fact, I would like to see their pensions as good as pensions provided for members of the House of Commons.
My plea to the government tonight is to recognize the fact that even though this subject is being dealt with at the collective bargaining table, the government has a special responsibility to those already retired. I hope this year will not go by without something substantial and meaningful being done for all retired railway employees.


M. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, to date the Canadian National Railways board of directors, who are trustees of the pension fund, have authorized all changes to the pension plan. The plan is administered by a pension board consisting of an equal number of labour and management representatives with whom the company discusses proposed changes in the plan and from whom the company receives proposals for changes.
On the pension issue, I am informed that this year, for the first time, the unions included pension demands in their notices to bargain. The major demand is that the present plan, which provides a pension of li per cent of the average of the best five years' earnings per year of service, be raised to a 2 per cent pension. CNR management and union representatives have agreed, subject to the conclusion of an over-all agreement, to adjust the present pension plan from the 1J per cent formula to a 2 per cent formula back to 1956.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that all you have to say?


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION-INCREASE IN DEPARTMENTS AND BUILDINGS IN OTTAWA-FUTURE POLICY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on February 8 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what, if any, are the limits to government growth in Ottawa. That question was sparked by news that the government had bought the Metropolitan Life Insurance building and the Orme building for $15,450,000 and intends to buy more property on Wellington Street for expansion of government departments. The Prime Minister answered by deflecting the question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube).
On February 22 I asked the Minister of Public Works how the huge government spending program in Ottawa
March 29, 1973

could be reconciled with "an effort to develop government services throughout western Canada." The minister seemed to treat the question lightly by pointing out that "obviously there are more government services in the capital of the country than elsewhere." However, he added that he agreed with me that "there could be some redistribution of power." It is redistribution of power in a physical and intellectual sense that this country urgently needs.
When I asked these questions, an Ottawa journalist wrote that I was "knifing" the city of my boyhood and forecast that when I rose tonight it would be to make an "anti-Ottawa" speech. This speech, Mr. Speaker, is not anti-Ottawa but pro-Canada. The unlimited growth of the federal bureaucracy in Ottawa is a reflection of the superman philosophy that characterizes this government. With every passing day as a Member of Parliament in Ottawa, I become more convinced that the federal government is too big, too dominant, too expensive and imposes itself too much upon people's lives.
Will this bureaucracy ever be limited? Obviously, it will not this year, Mr. Speaker, for the Department of Public Works is rushing along a spending program for Ottawa that exceeds the total amount of public works spending in the four western provinces and the two northern territories combined. The 1973-74 estimates show that the department is working on 22 major projects in Ottawa at a cost of $26.3 million. In the entire west and north, the department is spending $25.7 million on new projects. Similarly, the full spending budget for all operations in the city of Ottawa is $97.4 million, while the full spending budget in the west and north is $73.1 million.
On March 19, 1973, appearing before the miscellaneous estimates committee, the Minister of Public Works justified this enormous spending program in Ottawa because the number of civil servants is increasing by 5 or 6 per cent a year, "and you do have to find space to house them." Then he went on to make the incredible statement that because Canada is prosperous "it is normal that the capital of our nation does increase; we are all in favour of that."
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of this never ending escalation of civil servants who need ever more office space, and neither are millions of Canadians who do not live in the capital city, however majestic its scenery especially at tulip time. No wonder the federal government's budget has tripled in ten years and that the 1973-74 fiscal year will see a 17 per cent increase in expenditure. Ten years ago there were 197,998 civil servants, and today there are 277,336. Ten years ago the government payroll for civil servants was $852,731,321, and now-hold on to your hat, Mr. Speaker-it is $2,284,666,035. As if the number of permanent civil servants is not high enough, the total projected costs for 1973-74 for professional and outside services are $600 million. This is an increase of $60 million over last year.
So I return to my first and basic question. What are the limits to government growth in Ottawa? Obviously the Minister of Public Works will go on putting up buildings until the philosophy of government changes. We must rank as the most overgoverned nation on earth. The Economic Council of Canada has warned that the federal
Adjournment Debate
government is chiefly to blame for the fact that government at all levels occupies 36 per cent of the gross national product. Why do we need 5,000 civil servants in Statistics Canada, many of whom spend their days writing harassing letters to business people in my constituency demanding all sorts of answers to questions? Why do we need 9,000 people in National Health and Welfare? Why do we need the small army working in unemployment insurance offices? Somebody has to blow the whistle and yell, "Stop. The taxpayers have had enough." We are not going to finance this bureaucracy any more, especially when, with all this expertise, the government cannot solve the unemployment and inflation crises.
Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that western Canada feels what I have just expressed, and it is time the government listened to the west. The federal government is now preparing, in conjunction with the four western provinces, a conference on western economic opportunities. I hope this conference is a vehicle to move the country ahead positively and that the federal government will listen to our ideas on taxation, energy, agriculture, distribution of powers, transportation and the development of manufacturing. As a starting point for the conference, I commend to all its participants the excellent series of articles entitled "What Does the West Want?" now appearing in the Edmonton Journal. I want it to be a success, and so do other western MPs. Consider, then, how shocked I was to learn that Members of Parliament will have no part to play, even as observers, in this historic conference.
I want to warn the government that if it holds this conference behind closed doors and excluses western Members of Parliament, this will be the ultimate sham in ignoring that noble phrase of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), "participatory democracy." The conference will doubtless import many civil servants from Ottawa, some of whom know nothing of conditions in the modern west, to advise it. The very people who know a lot about the west, who have been elected and have the confidence of westerners-the MPs-will be excluded.
In the case of Alberta, which elected 19 Conservative MPs, which means that there is no MP in Alberta with a direct link to the government, this situation will be ludicrous. In effect, the government will be penalizing Albertans for voting Conservative by keeping out of the conference any federally-elected Alberta voice. This is hardly any way to start a western conference of rediscovery and reconciliation. The west wants to be heard. We want the federal bureaucracy stabilized and decentralized. The Department of Public Works spending program shows that, however beautiful the words, we have a long way to go in this fight.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks which I hope will be pro-Canada. I say to the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) that there is no need to be anti-Ottawa or anti-public service to be pro-Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I am surprised that a person who grew up in the nation's capital should have so little sensitivity, as

March 29, 1973
Adjournment Debate
has been reflected tonight, for the greatness of this city which belongs to all Canadians, and the quality of our public servants who work here for all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I ask the hon. member if he would leave the Parliament Hill area to the whims of commercial development, as he implied tonight. Would he make the Government of Canada the prisoner of commercial developers of office buildings in this city, as he implied?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish you would stop the developers now.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: It is easy for the word "bureaucracy" to roll off the tongue of a politician, but it is hardly fair to those people who serve all Canadians in the public service of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: If the hon. member were accurate, his remarks might be forgiven. But he is not. His assertion that the federal public service has increased by 10 per cent over the past year is simply not founded on fact. The latest figures released from Statistics Canada on this subject are for the third quarter of 1972. On September 30 of that year, total federal government employment, which includes employment in all departments, departmental corporations, agency corporations, proprietary corporations and other agencies and corporations, stood at 417,487 persons. This figure compares with 402,079 persons at the end of September, 1971, an increase of 3.8 per cent in that period, far below the 10 per cent figure suggested.
The hon. member also spoke of growth in the public service over what he referred to as a period of "several years". Over the period 1963 to 1971, the latter being the latest year for which data are available for the full year, the record shows that total federal government employment has increased at an average annual rate of just under 2 per cent. This rate of growth compares favourably with the average growth of total employment in the provincial public service of 5.9 per cent, and the 2.7 per cent rate of growth in the total number of employed persons in Canada over the same period.
In terms of manpower strength with regard to the measure of full-time, continuing employment used by the Treasury Board to control manpower authorization in the public service, the average annual increase over the period 1963-72 has been 1.72 per cent, considerably less than the 2.71 per cent average annual rate of increase in total employment in Canada.
The hon. member also called the increase in payroll costs-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but the time allotted to him has expired.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete my question of February 21 which appears on page 1520 of Hansard and which reads:
Since the minister recognized that it is impossible for him to find a satisfactory solution to the problems of unemployment and that, consequently, the rate of unemployment, already heartbreaking, particularly in the case of the young, will go up unavoidedly, could the minister tell us if he considered setting up a guaranteed annual income as a possible solution to that unfortunate situation?
Mr. Speaker, the necessity for a guaranteed and vital minimum income for all Canadians 18 years old and over is quite obvious. Present programs fail to stimulate the flow of products towards consumers.
In the past, capitalists asserted that salary increases were to be compensated by higher productivity.
According to a Financial Post article which was printed in La Presse of last March 6, productivity has increased by 28 per cent since 1966 but manpower in the manufacturing industries has expanded by only 6.5 per cent.
The financial weekly comments particularly upon the decision of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to revise completely before 1974 the fiscal provisions which allow for the fast write-off of capital expenditures, and all the other tax incentives designed to stimulate investments in the manufacturing sector.
Now, even if the accelerated write-off helps reduce costs, promotes modernization and benefits the economy, such a practice seldom creates new jobs directly and promptly.
If capital cost allowances must continue as part of financing enterprises, the revision ordered by the Minister of Finance could show that at best they serve to prevent losses in jobs.
For, taking into account the huge and universal impact of technological advance on the manufacturing industry, employment in manufacturing plants does not expand significantly in any industrialized countries. What does increase is competition on the markets for disposal of a rapidly rising production.
Therefore, the core of the matter is not so much a race between countries to increase employment as an endeavour aimed at maintaining employment at a stable level.
According to us members of the Social Credit Party, the logical solution, a solution which is gaining currency among a large proportion of our people, would be to grant a compensated discount and a guaranteed vital minimum income to each citizen of this country, which would allow production to reach the consumer, the consumer being the first aim of any production.
Moreover, the guaranteed minimum income would result in levelling regional disparities.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see two hon. members rising. I shall have to exercise the wisdom of Solomon here. Per-
March 29, 1973

haps the two hon. members can make the decision themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just like the Tory party, with its two financial critics.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois).
(Translation]


Mr. J. Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) never said of course that he considered it was impossible for him to solve the unemployment problem. On the contrary, he has always claimed that creating jobs is and has always been his first preoccupation. Besides, statistics confirm that the picture has improved; for instance, more than 350,000 jobs have been created from February 1972 to February 1973. The last estimates of the Minister of Finance give eloquent evidence of his firm will to boost the Canadian economy. In the budget highlights we notice to this effect the following words:
The rate of expansion this year should provide jobs fast enough to bring about a significant reduction in unemployment. A year from now 300,000 more Canadians should be holding jobs.
Expansionist measures have been adopted to create this favourable economic environment. These measures include notably an increase in the basic exemption for all taxpayers from $1,500 to $1,600 as of January 1, 1973; an increase in the exemption for married couples from $2,850 to $4,000 as of January 1, 1973, a reduction of 5 per cent in the basic federal tax, the maximum reduction being $500 and the minimum reduction $100, also as of January 1, 1973.
Moreover, the federal government has set a series of additional employment programs, including the Local Initiatives Program, on the Job Training Program and Winter Capital Projects Fund Program, etc. which are particularly directed to those aspects of the unemployment problem which react very little to the traditional tax mechanisms.
Adjournment Debate
As to the guaranteed income, in the Speech from the Throne, the government clearly enunciated its position on the matter of amending reconsideration of the social security system in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a few excerpts of that speech, which, in my opinion, are quite relevant.
In the area of social policy, the Government considers that Canada's total social security system-including both federal and provincial elements-must be reconsidered and reorganized, and made more sensitive to the needs of people in different parts of the country.
The Government intends that this reorganization should be based on five principles which, taken together, comprise a statement of the Government's commitment in respect of social security.
First, the social security system must assure to people who cannot work, the aged, the blind and disabled, a compassionate and equitable guaranteed annual income.
Second, the social security system as it applies to people who can work must contain incentives to work and a greater emphasis on the need to get people who are on social aid back to work.
Third, a fair and just relationship must be maintained between the incomes of people who are working at or near the minimum wage, the guaranteed incomes assured to people who cannot work, and the allowances paid to those who can work but are unemployed.
Fourth, it must be recognized that Provinces may wish to have the structures of social security vary in accordance with the social needs, income standards and the cost of living in different communities.
Finally, it must be accepted that the reconsideration of Canada's social security system must be conducted jointly by the Federal Government and the Provinces. It is not that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned till tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to special order made earlier today.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Friday, March 30, 1973