1973-02-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in agreement with the premier of Alberta I should like to table under Standing Order 41(2) correspondence between myself and Mr. Lougheed concerning the royal visit in Alberta in July.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege refers to an answer that I received, as recorded on page 4893 of Hansard of April 5, 1971, to my question No. 1,184 on the slaughter of polar bears. The minister's assistant replied: "No polar bears were shot in 1971". Figures released yesterday at the Northwest Territories Council revealed that 2,735 polar bears in the eastern Arctic in a six-year period, an average of 450 bears a year, were slaughtered.
Obviously the information supplied by the government was incorrect and deliberately evasive. I bring this to the attention of the House because it indicates the lack of respect with which this House has been treated, and I request a complete investigation by the responsible minister. I find, Sir, that this is a clear case of contempt of parliament by the minister or his officials to cover up a situation that is focusing the attention of conservationists and nature lovers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I have to interrupt the hon. member. He knows that the rules require that according to the Standing Orders, notice must be given to the Chair of a question of privilege. No notice has been given so the matter cannot be considered. The hon. member cannot rise on a question of privilege in these circumstances. Perhaps he would like to give notice of a question of privilege for tomorrow and the House will hear him then.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me a question about the time of release of two Canadians who are prisoners in Viet Nam. I am very pleased to inform the House that Mr. Marc Cayer who has been held in Viet Nam for five years was released in the custody of the Canadian representative in Hanoi at 1000 hours local time today, Tuesday, February 13, 1973. The initial report indicates that Mr. Cayer is well and in good spirits and that he is looking forward to rejoining his family in Canada. Mr. Cayer's father was informed of his son's release early this morning by officials of my department.
Arrangements are being made for Mr. Cayer's quick return to Canada, taking into account his condition after his long captivity and the possible need for medical consultation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FINANCE
Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, at 10.30 last evening the Secretary of the United States Treasury announced that the United States dollar would be devalued by 10 per cent. He announced further that new trade legislation would be proposed to the Congress shortly and that the interest equalization tax and capital controls would be phased out and terminated at the latest by the end of 1974. Secretary Shultz kept me posted on developments in the situation in the course of yesterday and informed me of his proposals shortly before announcing them last evening.
This action should help to restore balance to the United States international payments position. Such a restoration is a prerequisite to progress in the basic reforms of the monetary and trading system now in train. To the extent that countries whose currencies appear to have been undervalued now adjust in response to the United States action, there will be a better equilibrium in the world economy. Such a development will be beneficial from the world point of view and is welcome to Canada.
We are, of course, pleased that no measures have been taken to restrict trade. We welcome the United States undertaking to present early a comprehensive trade bill to
25789-5J

Devaluation of U.S. Dollar
Congress, directed to the reduction of tariffs and other restrictions, and to the expansion of trade generally.
The Canadian dollar has been floating. The market has been determining its value in relation to all other currencies. Canada is now running a current account deficit with the world and also with the United States. The changes announced by the United States do not alter the fundamental position of our currency in relation to theirs. We shall continue to float for the time being.
There is bound to be considerable activity in exchange markets in the wake of the United States devaluation. We shall be watching developments carefully and will continue to operate to maintain orderly conditions in our own exchange markets.
Crises events such as we are now passing through underscore our need to do all we can to maintain the health and competitiveness of our own manufacturing and export industries.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for having sent a copy of his statement to us before the House met. I must say that, having read his statement and heard it now and also having heard and read what the President of the United States has said in this regard, I am afraid I cannot quite share the optimistic note the minister has attempted to strike this afternoon.
We welcome with relief the knowledge that we will not have a prolonged crisis such as the one in the fall of 1971 and that the United States has taken action to devalue its currency. Having said that, I think this action, followed by the statement of the President leaves a number of questions unanswered that the minister has not attempted to answer in his statement.
First of all, with the lifting of the interest equalization tax and capital controls one might ask what will be the quid pro quo. In addition, I do not share the optimism of the Minister of Finance in respect of the trade legislation likely to be passed by the United States Congress. The President has made it clear that for all things that go down others must go up. Therefore the bill is not going to be merely a measure for the reduction of trade barriers in the United States. We in Canada have our own problems with the United States, and I do not think we can say that what the President said yesterday and this morning will provide a permanent solution.
There are other factors that must be taken into consideration in respect of the future of the Bretton Woods agreement. Will the continued floating of the Canadian dollar and the floating by other countries of their currencies mean that this may be the rule rather than the exception under the Bretton Woods agreement? Are we going to have continuing uncertainty? There is a long-range problem here. Until we resolve the international monetary situation this uncertainty will persist, and we might well have another crisis within six months. We must also look at our trade relations with the United States.
As I have said, we welcome the apparent ease with which devaluation of the United States dollar tqok place at this time and the fact that there has been no major disturbance so far of the equilibrium of Canada's dollar.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the action announced last night at 10.30 has a strange appearance. While it is being called a devaluation of the United States dollar, it seems that what in fact the United States has done is to bump up the currencies of other countries. It is pretty hard to say that the reserve currency is being devaluated.
I think we can be very thankful that Canada floated its currency at the time it did. We in this party have always advocated that position and I think the wisdom of it is being demonstrated. Had our currency not been floated, I believe we would be in serious trouble as a result of the events that have transpired during the last day. The alternative would have been worse. Therefore, to the extent that the currency situation has been resolved in this way we are very happy. The alternative proposed by the United States was the imposition of an import tariff on goods entering that country. This would, of course, have affected Canada as well as the other countries which were largely responsible for her problems. As a result of having this relative position in respect of currency exchanges and with our own currency floating, we will not be affected to the same extent.
However, a number of questions arise from the minister's statement, and I think he should give us very quickly an explanation of his intentions. There was an ominous ring to the concluding words of one sentence in the minister's statement, that we shall continue to float our dollar "for the time being". As the minister came to the words "for the time being", there was a significant pause. Does this mean that the minister has made some arrangement with the United States that we will go back to a fixed exchange rate? It is important for us to know what the intention of the government is. If such an arrangement has been made, I think we should oppose it. On the contrary. I think other countries should emulate the example we have set by floating their currencies. In this way I think adjustments would be far more gradual and there would not be a tendency to work the world into a monetary crisis position.
While the government says there has been a free float of the Canadian dollar, it should have also added that there is a little bit of a dirty float involved, and the governor of the Bank of Canada has had his finger on it for a long time.
On the whole we are very glad to see that the monetary situation has been resolved, but we also think a more comprehensive statement on the government's future policies needs to be given to this House. We look to the minister to make such a statement quickly because some real questions were raised in his statement that have not been answered.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the announcement which has just been made is very important for us.
Yesterday, the United States, undoubtedly after having taken the advice of the authorities of the International Monetary Fund, have decided to devaluate their dollar by 10 per cent. From a practical point of view, the price of gold has been increased, but since this can be done only
February 13, 1973

with the consent of the American Congress, which could be delayed, the American government has decided to devaluate its dollar immediately. In short, this means that the American dollar will be worth only 90 cents, since its value will be 10 cents lower.
Practically speaking, the price of goods purchased by the Americans abroad will increase. Thus, the ton of paper for which the United States paid $100 in Canada will from now on cost $110 in devaluated U.S. dollars. Consequently, the Americans having to pay more for their imports-for instance, paper from Canada-will purchase less of this product in Canada which will result in a slowdown of our production and a higher rate of unemployment in Canada.
This devaluation will enable the United States to export their unemployment abroad, being unable to export products. Will Canada be spared? First of all, we must bear in mind that this monetary crisis stems from the fact that the United States have a deficit in their commercial balance of payments with the rest of the world, particularly with Japan and the members of the Common Market.
During 1971, the deficit of the American trade balance amounted to about $2 billion. In 1972, despite price controls and other measures taken by the American government, the deficit rose to $4 billion.
This means the United States were buying $4 billion more in products abroad than they exported to other countries. This results in a flow and overabundance of American dollars, in the form of letters of credit, credit notes and other accounting entries.
Countries in possession of these titles are not using them for purchases in the United States because they are in a position to fend for themselves. Therefore, the United States find that they cannot pay for their purchases abroad because of insufficient imports.
It must be remembered that the golden rule in international trade consists in balancing imports and exports, perhaps not in each country but generally on the world market. In so far as Canada is concerned, our current accounts with the United States show a $120 million deficit for the third quarter. On a world basis, we had a deficit of more than $400 million in the same period.
To the question will Canada be exempted from the consequences of devaluation, the answer seems to be no. If the United States simply decided to apply an excise tax on their imports, Canada could have negotiated at least a partial exemption. In view of the devaluation of the American dollar, it will be almost technically impossible to spare our country the consequences of this devaluation.
What are the results of this devaluation, Mr. Speaker? In my opinion, we will feel them in the months to come. As the United States are dominating international trade, the changes in the exchange rate might result in increased prices for imported products and through the interdependence of prices we will end up on the whole with higher prices in Canada.
Heroin Addiction


HIGH WATER LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity has arisen because of the fact that the forecast of higher water levels in the Great Lakes water system presents a very real threat to the lives, homes and property of Canadians living along or near the shoreline and to dikes already severely damaged by storms and the present disastrously high water levels. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That the appropriate officials of the Department of the Environment be instructed to seek ways and means to finance and begin an emergency reconstruction on the said shorelines and dikes and report back to parliament through the minister forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member proposes a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.


INCREASE IN HEROIN ADDICTION-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the sharp increase in heroin addiction in this country. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to table forthwith two documents presented to the cabinet on March 20, 1972, and April 10, 1972, warning the government that the use of heroin is rising rapidly among young Canadians and that the cabinet should act promptly, and that these documents be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

February 13, 1973
West Coast Oil Spill


FINANCE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I solicit unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity for all Canadians.
As a result of the decision taken by the United States government to devaluate their dollar, which will seriously affect the Canadian economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That a special debate take place in the House as early as possible in order to discuss imperative measures for the protection of Canadian production and to avoid major economic problems, such as beset Canadians when the United States dollar was last devaluated.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and the hon. member's motion under Standing Order 43 cannot therefore be put to the House at this time.


POLLUTION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 43, on a matter of most urgent and pressing necessity arising from the recent west coast oil spill. The district office of the Department of Transport now reports the estimated cost of the clean-up to be $325,000. The amount now held in court is $20,000. No legal proceedings have been commenced to effect seizure of the vessel. In view of the fact the Canadian taxpayer does not appear to be secured against this loss, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That the matter of securing the loss suffered by the Canadian taxpayer in this oil spill be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the motion proposed by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


MAIN ESTIMATES. 1973-74 EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I would ask leave of the House to introduce a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The need for rapid action on the subject matter of the motion is obvious, and I believe it should be possible for it to be passed without debate. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the estimates of the Departments of External Affairs and National Defence be referred, immediately upon being tabled, to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so as to permit immediate consideration of Canada's truce supervisory role in Viet Nam and the matter of the NORAD agreement which is due to expire May 12.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-142, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is simply to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women by removing the subject of abortion from the Criminal Code, implementing recommendations Nos. 126 and 127 of that report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the views of the House might be recorded on the request for first reading. Mr. Leggatt, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves that the said bill be now read a first time and be printed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 13, 1973


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently there is a division of opinion. In the circumstances the motion will have to be put. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Leggatt, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), moves that the said bill be now read a first time and be printed. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
And immediately before the recording of the division:


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. While I realize that-


An hon. Member:: You can't.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council cannot rise on a point of order at this stage, or even on a question of privilege, unless there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is obviously not unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the motion of Mr. Leggatt, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre), for leave to introduce a bill entitled: "An act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion)".


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. There is no point in hon. members shouting at one another across the chamber. This achieves nothing at all. I suggest to hon. members that we allow this bill to stand. I suppose there is no point in suggesting that, by leave, it be read a second time now, so it will be at the next sitting of the House.


BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-143, to amend the Broadcasting Act.


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

[DOT]	(1530)

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on a press report which was just brought to my attention a few moments ago. It is written by a Citizen staff writer, Dennis Foley, and concerns the filing of returns on election expenses and my legal right and that of other hon. members named in the article to sit


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I submit that it is his responsibility to communicate those expenses to the Chief Electoral Officer. Articles like this should not be allowed to emanate on the basis of misinformation supplied by that office to the press.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege, I should like to associate myself with the statement made by the hon. member for Yukon because I have been given to understand that my name is also included in the list. I have contacted my official agent and he assured me that the returns were all filed on the first or the second day of December and that everything is in order. May I say as well that we endeavoured to get in touch with the returning officer for that area but I believe he is also on vacation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Liberal appointees.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the statement just made by the hon. member for Yukon. I too filed the returns more than two months ago and as far as I know they were submitted to Mr. Hamel. I spoke to him about half an hour ago and he told me he had received the returns from the returning officer and he did not know how the report got into the Ottawa Citizen.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I also would like to associate myself with the statement of the hon. member for Yukon. My returns were filed on December 13; I filed them personally on that date. I have read in a local newspaper an account of the amounts of money that were spent by the three candidates in the riding, and I certainly do not understand why this sort of thing should happen.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed that I am on the list also.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I want to say that my official agent was a former member of the House and he has assured me that the election expenses information was filed in due course and before the expiry of the time within which it was required to be filed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -I rise on the question of privilege. I should like to know whether hon. members opposite know where Murray McBride is so he can file his returns also.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it arises out of the statement he made in the House a while ago. Has the government of Canada received any suggestion or request from the United States authorities that the Canadian dollar should be valued by Canadian authorities above the level of the U.S. dollar, as was apparently suggested by former Secretary of the Treasury Connally at the time of the Smithsonian agreement?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. On both occasions when I spoke yesterday to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Mr. George Shultz, I advised him of our intention to keep the Canadian dollar floating.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising from the feeling of pleasure the Minister of Finance expressed that the United States had taken no trade initiatives so far. Has the minister received any assurance from the United States government as to the nature of the trade initiatives that the United States proposes to take? I ask this question particularly in view of the statement attributed to the President that tough trade legislation is needed and that "only by being able to go up" in some trade categories "will they be able to get others to come down". Can the minister give us any assurance that the United States does not propose to take any initiative comparable to that which was taken the last time?


John Napier Turner: We do not know, of course, the content of the legislation which the President will be bringing before Congress but Mr. Shultz, the Secretary of the Treasury, is well aware of the representations I and my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade
Oral Questions
and Commerce, have made to the effect that the current trade position of the United States is not attributable to Canada in that at the moment we run a current account deficit both with the United States and with the world.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I only hope that the optimism of the minister turns out to be justified, although there seems to be little ground in the present statement for complacency about the matter. I should like to ask the minister whether there was any significance in the rather pregnant pause, which was noticed by the hon. member for Waterloo, following the statement he made that he would maintain the float and before uttering the words "for the time being", was it simply the minister's intention to announce the government's continuing policy in this regard?


John Napier Turner: I want to assure the hon. gentleman that when it comes to pauses I am not in his league.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The position of the Canadian government remains the same, namely, that we will continue to float the dollar until there is some evidence of a return of stability in the international monetary situation. We feel that that terminal date at the moment is at least a new international monetary agreement now being negotiated by the group of twenty.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the Minister of Finance that I do not expect him to be able to compete with me as an orator.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEVALUATION OF UNITED STATES DOLLAR- REPRESENTATIONS BY CANADA ON REMOVAL OF DISC PROGRAM AND OTHER TRADE BARRIERS
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister indicated that he had had discussions with the United States government regarding currency realignment and the removal of certain barriers to trade. Has he asked the U.S. government to remove some of their barriers to trade such as the DISC program?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that matter has been under advisement by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We have made representations to the United States that we support any effort they can make toward moving toward more liberal trading arrangements in the world and a more liberal monetary arrangement. That, of course, would exclude any type of export subsidy or investment subsidy represented by the DISC legislation.


Max Saltsman: In the light of what is happening with currency realignment, is it the intention of the minister to alter his budget proposals to take those changes into account?
1224

February 13, 1973
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is a little hard for me to explain because the hon. member would not know what the proposals were in the first instance and so I could not explain how I would alter them.


DEVALUATION OF UNITED STATES DOLLAR- REPRESENTATIONS BY UNITED STATES CONCERNING FLOATING OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Have there been any representations whatsoever from the United States government about the nature of our float?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the United States understands that we intervene in the market through the exchange fund in order to maintain an orderly market, and that during the period since the Smithsonian Agreement we have intervened through the exchange fund on either side of the market in order to maintain an orderly progression of the dollar.


James McPhail Gillies: Is it the position of the government that an orderly market means that the Canadian dollar shall be relatively at par with the American dollar?


John Napier Turner: No. It means that the Canadian dollar will respond to market forces but those forces must adjust in an orderly manner, and to achieve that orderly manner the exchange fund will intervene.


DEVALUATION OF UNITED STATES DOLLAR- SUGGESTED RESUMPTION OF TRADE DISCUSSIONS IN LIGHT OF PROPOSED U.S. LEGISLATION
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of Secretary Shultz's statement that the proposed U.S. trade legislation, in addition to those positive aspects mentioned by the Minister of Finance in his statement to the House this afternoon, would provide safeguards against the disruption of particular markets and production from rapid changes in foreign trade, and protect the United States external position from large and persistent deficits, will the minister take the initiative in resuming Canada-U.S. trade discussions in order to state Canada's position and reconcile differences before the legislation is presented to the U.S. Congress?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly stated to the House that we are after multilateral solutions. We have been in contact with the United States on these matters and, as my colleague has stated, I welcome the statement of the secretary that he lays great stress on the legislative groundwork for broad and outward looking trade negotiations. If that is the particular stance of the United States government with respect to its trade bill, it is a stance that we welcome.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that the total statement of Secretary Shultz contains certain aspects which are not nearly as liberal or outgoing as those referred to by the two ministers this afternoon, will the minister undertake to prepare contingency legislation to protect the jobs of Canadians engaged in manufacturing and offset the effects of any United States legislation incorporating any of the protectionist aspects of the Hartke bill?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has made clear on a number of occasions, the May budget measures were aimed specifically at assisting the competitiveness of Canadian industry and offsetting the effects of DISC and other protective measures.


RESERVE FUND HOLDINGS OF UNITED STATES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on June 27 last I asked the Minister of Finance whether, with the monetary problems we then faced and international monetary exchange problems throughout the world, we had any guaranteed exchange rate with the United States government in view of our increasing appreciation of a decreasing asset, namely, our large holdings of U.S. dollars. In view of the fact that we have continued to increase our holdings of American dollars and the fact that they went down 10 per cent overnight and Canadians lost $430 million with the swipe of a pen, I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has a policy to seek a guaranteed' rate for our holdings of American dollars, or do we intend to start to unload them at once?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me some latitude in replying to this question because the hon. member has gone into some detail and I think the answer has to be specific in order to set aside the preamble with which he prefaced his question.
The Canadian dollar value of Canada's international reserves, including its holdings of U.S. dollars, varies according to the relationship that exists from day to day in the exchange market between the Canadian dollar and the U.S. dollar. Following the announcement of the change in the parity of the U.S. dollar, its value in terms of Canadian dollars declined by three-eighths of one per cent in the market this morning. I am advised that there has been no significant change in the exchange market during the last few hours. In other words, what the hon. gentleman has suggested to the House is not true.
If I may add to that, Mr. Speaker, because I am not responsible for the complexity of the question, and because the sensitivity of international markets makes it important that I answer fully, the 10 per cent change in the value of the U.S. dollar which became effective today will have the effect of increasing the value of the non-U.S. dollar assets included in Canada's holdings of international reserves, the value of which is expressed in U.S. dollars. These assets consist of gold, special drawing rights, working balances in several foreign currencies, and Canada's reserve position in the International Monetary Fund.


Therefore the concern the hon. member expresses in his question is without foundation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate in part the answer I have received from the minister, but in view of the fact that we have continually increased our holdings of American dollars, to the tune of over $4.3 billion, does the minister have a policy, or does he intend to discuss with his counterpart in the United States some plan to attempt to obtain a guarantee from the Americans of the value of those holdings, as they have done with other countries in the past, or are we going to pursue an active policy of diversifying our holdings?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the efforts to which Canada is a party, and which we support, result in our obtaining a new international currency, whether that be new international special drawing rights or not, then that type diversification will be possible, but the factual basis of the hon. gentleman's question is not valid at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we might go to another subject now and return to this matter later because it is obviously one of concern to many members who want to ask supplementaries. For the moment we will go to the next subject and recognize the hon. member for York South.


INCOME TAX
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance on another topic. It arises out of the report of a survey of corporate profits for 1972. In view of the fact this survey shows an increase in corporate profits of 20 per cent in 1972 over 1971, an increase of 21 per cent in chemicals, 46 per cent in food processing and so on, is the minister reconsidering the additional concessions to what I have called the corporate welfare bums that he suggested last May?


John Napier Turner: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, the percentage increase depends on the base against which the hon. member is comparing that increase, and that base was not particularly reflective of a strong year. If I might remind him of the remarks of his colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo, the current situation in monetary and trade terms, with its emphasis on the competitiveness of the world situation in the next five to ten years, underlines the necessity for Canadian manufacturing to remain competitive, to protect our markets abroad in these uncertain times, to protect our share of the market in Canada, and to protect Canadian jobs. That is the reason for those measures, Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the historical evidence that that kind of concession to corporations, manufacturing and others, does not produce the results the minister complacently suggested it produces, and in view of the very substantial increase in the profits of the manu-
Oral Questions
facturing and processing industries, can he assure the House that that kind of concession will now result in more jobs rather than fewer jobs as has been historically the case?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is being inconsistent because he has been concerned in the House, and rightly so, with the effect of DISC on our own investment and industry in Canada. DISC is merely a lower tax rate, and one of the aspects of the tax rate I introduced last May was to make our tax rate competitive with the American tax rate as reflected in DISC.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask one further supplementary question. The minister is perhaps innocently confusing two things. I am asking the minister whether the fast write-off, which is an entirely different business from the tax rate and which gives the corporations an opportunity to defer taxes and get what in effect is an interest-free loan for many years, if not forever, is being reconsidered by him in view of the profit situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the capital cost allowance is, as the hon. gentleman says, a deferral of tax in terms of increasing cash flow. That does not in any way minimize the tax payable. However, I think this whole subject is a matter for debate.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF PRIME MINISTERS' REFERENCE TO JOB CREATING PROVISIONS OF MAY, 1972 BUDGET
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Since, the Prime Minister made a statement on Sunday evening that the May, 1972 budget contained provisions for the corporate tax adjustment and also had provisions to ensure that the adjustment would result in job creation, I wonder if the minister can tell the House what provisions were referred to by the Prime Minister?


John Napier Turner: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course that question should properly be referred to the Prime Minister, but I can suggest to the hon. gentleman that we put 250,000 new jobs into this country in the year 1972-


Mr. Hees:: Compared to 330,000 the year before.


John Napier Turner: -compared to 200,000 the year before, an increase of 25 per cent over 1970.


George Harris Hees: Three hundred and thirty thousand.


John Howard Lundrigan: To the hon. Prime Minister-George!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary to the right hon. the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that on May 9, 1972, in answer to a question from the hon. member for York South the Minister of Finance indicated
25789-6*

Oral Questions
that the government would not consider any monitoring provisions to ensure job creation, I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell the House what he meant when he indicated that there were provisions in the May, 1972 budget to ensure that the corporate tax adjustments would result in job creation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to understand the question well. I understand it to refer to a statement by the minister on monetary provisions. Well-


An hon. Member:: Monitoring.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On monetary provisions-


Some hon. Members:: No, no! Monitoring.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, I have not understood the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my Anglo-Saxon accent is confusing the hon. bilingual Prime Minister. I should like to ask him what provisions he was referring to on Sunday evening when he said that there were provisions in the May, 1972 budget to ensure that the corporate tax adjustment would result in job creation in view of the fact that on May 9 the Minister of Finance indicated that he would not consider any monitoring provisions to ensure job creation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I really would have to refer to the speech by the minister on budget night in which he introduced these measures for tax reductions for corporations and in which he indicated the firm wish of the government that this would result in the creation of jobs or in lower prices and not increased profits by the companies. I think the words are paraphrased, but the essence is about right. The result has been the figures the Minister of Finance just quoted, for indeed a great number of jobs were created this year-much more than previous years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have been essentially on the same subject since the beginning of the question period. A number of hon. members are anxious to ask their questions so I think we should try to move on. We have not yet finished the first round of questions and the hon. member for Shefford is waiting for his chance. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is very brief. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether the Minister of Finance has informed him that between May 1972 to September 1972 jobs in the manufacturing industry- employment in that sector of the economy-were reduced by 1.6 per cent?


George Harris Hees: Did you know that, Pierre?


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being pondered the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Shefford.


GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Following the publication yesterday of a news release by his department, could the minister tell us how it is that the department, in the reference map dealing with the results of the October 30, 1972 federal election, used the wrong colours to identify the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party of Canada, since green has stood for the Social Credit party since 1935 on that map, and mauve for the New Democratic Party. Could the minister explain why a mistake was made in the colours of those two parties?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that this question could be put on the order paper. The hon. member should be satisfied with a written answer. If there is any urgency, which does not seem obvious, perhaps the hon. member could give notice that he would like to bring this matter up at the time of adjournment.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF INCOME STABILIZATION MEASURE
Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Is the government going to introduce a new grain stabilization bill and if so, when?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, discussions about the issue of the stabilization bill have been going on, but we do not have the specific time and date for its reintroduction.


Harry Kuntz: A supplementary question. Has the minister had any negotiations with the provinces and, also, will the cost of inflation be a factor taken into consideration?


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the confused circumstances surrounding the vote just taken on the abortion question, and in view of the possible public misunderstanding of how some of us voted-for example, I voted yes, to allow the debate-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot reflect on a vote. He should ask the question directly.


Douglas Roche: In view of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, may I ask this question: what is the government's policy on the removal of abortion from the Criminal Code?


An hon. Member:: If there is a policy.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, that is not a matter under my responsibility.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary to whatever minister is responsible-the Minister of Justice, perhaps. What is the government's policy on the removal of abortion? Subsequently, is there going-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that a member having a question as general as this should give notice by way of a request for a statement on motions, unless the minister can respond briefly. The minister might be able to respond briefly to the hon. member's question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is not our intention to introduce any bill like the one to which first reading was just given, and we do not intend to support that bill.


Mr. Bell:: You supported it.


POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF SECTIONS ON ABORTION-REQUEST FOR DESIGNATED DAY FOR DEBATE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: A supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is it his intention, within the next two or three weeks, to bring on the long awaited one-day debate on this very vital question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government House leader, in consultation with the other House leaders, would be agreeable to allowing one of the opposition days to be used for this purpose.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Following the publication of the Quebec Planning and Development Bureau white paper on the socio-economic situation in the Eastern Townships, could the minister tell us at what stages are the federal-provincial negotiations regarding the possibility of designating Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships as a special area?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the particular matter to which the hon. member refers is one that has been under discussion between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec. We are carrying on these discussions with the hope of concluding some kind of firm agreement with regard to either a continuation of, or expansion of, special areas or variations in them within a short time. [Translation]


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. Can he tell us when he expects the end of the negotiations and the announcement of an agreement between the two governments?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the next set of meetings which are set for about ten days from now would conclude the negotiating portion of the discussions, and that we could then move into what I might describe as ministerial level meetings with an announcement by the end of March or sometime in that neighbourhood.


POSSIBLE ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER AT MEETING OF HERRING ADVISORY COMMITTEE IN VANCOUVER- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DISPOSAL OF DOGFISH
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, who I understand is attending an FAO conference of fishing nations, may I direct this question to the acting minister or parliamentary secretary. May I ask if the Minister of Fisheries is attending the meeting of the Herring advisory committee this week in Vancouver, as requested by the United Fishermen's and Allied Workers Union, and whether he will be indicating to that committee that his department is making arrangements for the market disposal of dogfish caught by fishermen for predatory control in connection with establishing a herring catch quota?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, may I take the question as notice and provide the hon. member with an answer at a later date.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister responsible for mul-ticulturalism. Following the meeting with one of the cultural groups of this country yesterday, can the minister inform the House whether it is his intention to take steps

February 13, 1973
Oral Questions
to ensure that the Canadian content rule applying to the broadcasting media can be adjusted in such a way as to allow a certain percentage of time to be devoted to multicultural programs?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the report of the officials of the CBC on their multicultural programs.


MULTICULTURALISM-REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO ASSIST PROVINCES ON THIRD LANGUAGE TRAINING
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Could the minister inform the House whether, in preparing his budget, he has considered the advisability of increasing substantial budget allocations for multicultural purposes in order that the federal government can assist the provinces in various aspects of third language training schools?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that as a strong representation from the hon. member.


COMMUNICATIONS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications. It has to do with the field of broadcasting and communications. In view of the speech he made the other night in which he suggested that proposals would be laid before parliament involving a green paper on the question of broadcasting and communications, could he be more precise and indicate to the House just when we may expect that so-called green paper and if the rationalization of federal legislative and regulatory provisions to do with telecommunications and broadcasting will involve the merger of the CRTC, CTC and DOT regulatory functions?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The date of publication, Mr. Speaker, is now set for the second or third week in March. Unfortunately, it will be necessary for the hon. member, who is deeply interested in matters pertaining to communications to wait until that date to find out what the proposals of the government will be.


MAIN ESTIMATES
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury

Board. Would he tell us whether he is to table the main estimates tomorrow or on Thursday?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: On
neither day, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is it to be on Friday, then?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the government of Canada, through Canadian Forces salutes and so on, participating in the official welcome to several French ships of war visiting Vancouver today? If so, does this welcome indicate a more cooperative attitude on the part of Canada, if that is possible, towards nuclear testing in the south Pacific?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I cannot answer the first part of the question; I really do not know whether we are participating. Our relations with the French government, as I am quite sure hon. members would wish, are on a normal and happy basis. We hope they will take our advice not to hold tests in the Pacific.


VISIT OF FRENCH WARSHIPS TO VANCOUVER- RELATIONSHIP TO NUCLEAR TESTS
Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government of Canada any information as to whether this particular flotilla visiting Vancouver today is on its way to participate in nuclear tests in the south Pacific, or, at the very least, to prevent the peaceful passage of vessels on the high seas, in connection with those tests?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no information of that kind.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the recent decision by the government of Manitoba to proceed with further development of the Nelson River Hydro-Electric Project and the diversion of the Churchill River in Northern Manitoba, despite the objections of residents of the area, will the minister advise the House when some action will be taken

to protect the rights and property of native peoples who will be affected by such projects?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that question as notice.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?
Would the minister tell us whether the industrial investment incentive programs will be continued in the city of Montreal and whether Montreal will receive a priority over other areas in the province of Quebec?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as to the first question, whether the incentive program will be continued for the so-called Montreal region, that is one of the matters now under active consideration. As to the other question, whether one region will be preferred over another, the answer is that no region of Canada will be preferred over any other so far as the programs of my department are concerned.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, would the minister tell us whether he recognizes that in the area distribution and establishment of the incentive programs, it had been decided that the basic purpose was the decentralization of industry for the benefit of underdeveloped areas? What steps does the minister intend to take to this effect?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member must have been reading some of my speeches. I could agree on the premise on which his question is based. I think there are those who recognize that in and around the Montreal region there are several depressed areas. We are anxious to do what we can about those, as well.


MANPOWER
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that a LIP grant, being Project No. K 1286 has been awarded to Daniel Burns of Golden Lake, in view of the fact that this project is for the production of a 35 or 40 minute videotape to assist adults
Oral Questions
from certain towns to adjust to city life, and in view of the fact that all the applicants but one are United States citizens who have deserted the cities of the United States to live in a hippie commune and, as local citizens-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech. He ought to ask his question. We are running short of time. If all hon. members take two or three minutes to ask a question, it will not be very helpful.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had only used 20 seconds. I am coming to my question. Would the minister undertake to consult with local Members of Parliament, the hon. member for Frontenac, Lennox and Adddington and the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East, and would he reconsider the spending of the latter two-thirds of the $17,600 and perhaps hold the Canadian taxpayers' money for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that that is a representation rather than a question. If there is urgency about the matter he can give notice to the Chair, for the purpose of considering it at the time of adjournment.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the continuing deterioration in the postal service and the statement in the Speech from the Throne that the government plans urgent remedial action, would the hon. gentleman inform the House when he will be restoring the six day a week delivery as a step in this direction? [Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, if the labour agreement is ratified within the next few days, I believe we can expect much better postal service in the coming weeks. I do not feel that we can say at this time that the postal service is deteriorating. I believe instead that it is improving.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Postmaster General aware that his own Post Office Department has been unable to reach media deadlines because of the slow-down in service?


ALLEGED INCREASE IN USE OF HEROIN-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COUNTERACT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the announcement made by the minister yesterday that the final report of the Le Dain Commission on the non-medical use of drugs will not be com-

February 13, 1973
Oral Questions
pleted for several months, does the minister intend to take action to counteract the increasing use of heroin, as was suggested over the weekend?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, many steps have been taken during the last year in this regard and many more steps will be taken.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Hopkins:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton referred to me by name, or at least named my constituency, I should like to say that I have communicated with all the high schools in the area, and they are against it. The statement which appeared in the press was inaccurate, and cannot be substantiated and therefore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that that is not a question of privilege.


RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ADDICTION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that a recommendation was made to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in November, 1971, calling for the establishment of a national institute on alcoholism and drug addiction, and in the light of the delay surrounding the Le Dain Commission may I ask whether it is the intention of the minister to proceed to establish such an institute?


Marc Lalonde: With regard to such a proposal it is the intention of my department to await the report of the Le Dain commission.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can he tell us why some unemployed are receiving T-4's for income tax purposes even before they have received unemployment benefits?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am not aware of the incident to which the hon. member refers. I guess one department is a great deal more efficient than the other. But it seems, somehow, to be altogether backwards.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CATEGORIES OF PERSONS PAYING PREMIUMS BUT EXCLUDED FROM BENEFITS
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Will the minister make a statement on motions as soon as possible setting out the categories of persons who are obliged to pay into this unemployment insurance fund but who are prohibited from drawing unemployment insurance benefits? I ask this supplementary because of the widespread confusion and uncertainty caused by a recent administrative decision.


Robert Knight Andras: I must be able to clear this up very quickly, Mr. Speaker. The sponsors of local initiatives projects, by ruling of the taxation department, are not eligible to receive unemployment benefits and should not therefore be paying into the fund.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Can the minister tell us whether there are any other categories of persons who have been paying into the fund for years who may also be excluded?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I address this question to the Minister of Finance. In the light of the present high level of unemployment, does the minister now share the view that job vacancies are close to a minimum keeping in mind that the Canadian work force amounts to some eight million people?


John Napier Turner: That is a debating point, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to deal with it next Monday night.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the light of the fact that less than half the graduates from job training programs were able to find work for which they had been trained, is the government thinking of shifting the emphasis from questionable job training programs, and instead, placing the emphasis on stimulating the economy in order to create jobs,


John Napier Turner: I should like to check the hon. member's facts before answering that question.


POLLUTION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Acting Minister of the Environment or to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the alarming evidence released in the United States yesterday indicating that there is substantial plastic and oil pollution affecting plankton off the east and
February 13, 1973

south coasts of the United States threatening the whole ecological process, threatening the survival of marine resources, I would ask the acting minister or his parliamentary secretary whether the Canadian government has looked into the consequences of this situation and whether a statement can be made on the subject.


Bill Rompkey: I should like to take that question as notice, also, and provide an answer at a later date.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference will be the most vital and far-reaching conference from the point of view of economics, national sovereignty, pollution control and resource development in which Canada will participate within the next 100 years, would the Secretary of State inform the House whether a firm date has yet been set for this conference and will he seek to make a statement on motions concerning the result of our negotiations with France over their undersea ownership claims to the continental shelf surrounding St. Pierre and Miquelon, and also dealing with the results of our negotiations with the United States to determine the ownership of George's Bank-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: In answer to the first question, there is to be an organizational meeting of the conference in New York in late November or early December, 1973. This is a firm date. The first substantive session will be held in Santiago, Chile, in April and May, 1974. That is the present schedule. As to the further questions, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when the estimates of the department are referred to the standing committee an opportunity will arise to examine those other matters.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: A question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of reports that the Council of the Northwest Territories was prorogued while in session by a federal civil servant, the commissioner who administers the territory under the direction of the Governor in Council, and that prorogation took place without the wish of the Council or in the absence of consultation with the Council, would the right hon. gentleman direct the commissioner to reconvene the Council in order to ascertain
Oral Questions the wishes of the elected representatives of the people, and ensure that his government follows a policy which will not allow a federal employee to override the wishes of the elected representatives of the people of that territory in future?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly undertake to look into the facts. They are, indeed, important if as stated by the hon. member. I had no knowledge of them until the question was asked. I might just add that perhaps the request of the hon. member'might set a dangerous precedent if its effect were to withdraw from the head of the territory or, indeed, from the head of the state, the prerogative he has to grant a prorogation or not.


Erik Nielsen: The prorogation was, according to reports, declared unilaterally by the federal civil servant, the commissioner. My supplementary question is this: when will the government bring in its policy with respect to governmental reform not only in the Northwest Territories but, as well, in the Yukon for which the people in the two territories have been crying out for so long?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a matter of policy in connection with which the Minister of Northern Affairs has made statements at various times and there is nothing to add at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the presence in our country of a large number of young Americans who are here because they decided not to participate in the Viet Nam carnage. Many of these people would like to return to their homeland. Is consideration being given to initiating discussions with a view to encouraging the United States government to allow these young Americans in Canada who wish to return to do so under terms of amnesty, particularly having in mind the unemployment situation in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: We did not consult with the United States when these young people came to Canada. They came under Canadian law, but we did not consult as to any changes or as to the law itself. And we do not intend to consult about their return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 13, 1973
Oral Questions


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the government on which it can rest assured that it will never be troubled by the official opposition, particularly its French-speaking members. It has to do with the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages and I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State in charge of a great number of bilingualism programs.
Does the Secretary of State intend to remedy the various situations that the commissionner has diagnosed in his report in order to ensure as soon as possible that the Official Languages Act is observed in all departments and government agencies?


Hon. Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I do not think I can add very much to what I said yesterday. Part of the report of the Official Languages Commissioner does touch upon my responsibility as Secretary of State. I told the House yesterday that I have been studying it personally, the department was looking at it, and I recommended it to all of us.


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF COMMISSIONER WITHIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Transport.
Since the commissioner makes several recommendations for better implementation of the bilingualism policy in the Department of Transport and some government agencies such as Air Canada, would the hon. minister be prepared to give instructions so that the recommendations of the commissioner will be implemented in the current fiscal year?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that Mr. Spicer wanted to see me. I will be very pleased to receive him to discuss the report with him and bring about the corrections he suggests.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the west coast marine pilots could go out on strike this Thursday, which would effectively shut down

west coast ports again, would the minister indicate what steps he or his officials have taken to try to prevent another stoppage of throughput at west coast ports which would be so damaging to Canadian industries on the west coast?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the pilotage authority has been negotiating with the pilots for months now. I think that a conciliator was called in. The Minister of Labour could give the hon. member information on that. Apparently they have not yet come to an agreement. Is there going to be an agreement? I am not sure; but fortunately they do have certain rights under the law and I am not the one who is going to deprive the pilots of those rights.


WEST COAST MARINE PILOTS-POSSIBLE INTERVENTION OF MINISTER OF LABOUR TO AVERT STRIKE
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether he intends to follow the example of his predecessor and intervene in this dispute in order to avert a strike which would close down the port of Vancouver?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport has already mentioned, our officers have intervened and tried to be as helpful as possible in order to obtain a settlement. I realize how serious the matter is. If I were to conclude that ministerial intervention would help to resolve the situation, then it would be given serious consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and deals with the invitation extended to the dictator of Uganda by the government of Canada to visit this country in August of this year. In view of the inhuman and inhumane policies of President Amin in his treatment of non-blacks in Uganda, would the Prime Minister consider withdrawing this government's invitation to President Amin?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is this government's view that it should not intervene in the affairs of other Commonwealth nations. Of course, the Commonwealth nations collectively can express their displeasure, but there is no provision for expelling a member of the Commonwealth. It has happened that countries have withdrawn, but we do not intend to direct the Commonwealth in a way that would involve the censure of one government by another government.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, might I raise a point of order affecting the members of this House. Before the order designated for consideration today having to do with the appropriation bill is called, I wonder whether we could agree to deal with order No. 21 to send the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the committee. I understand agreement has been reached and that this can be done now without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan I. MacEachen (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development), moved:
That the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the year ended March 31, 1972, tabled January 22, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Firth:: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to express my agreement with this action, since it is a matter that is very important to me. I am very happy that this action has been taken.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 12, consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. Drury- Mr. McCleave in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-141, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973. When the committee rose last evening votes 15a and 40a of the schedule relating to agriculture were under consideration.
On clause 2-Schedule.


Mr. Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to clarify for the members on the government side, both NDP and Liberals, what Conservative policy is regarding the marketing of rapeseed. I am really quite surprised they do not know immediately what our policy would be. Since we believe that the individual is intelligent and should be allowed to make up his own
Supply
mind on these matters, and since we do not believe in rule by experts, as do the NDP and the Liberals, naturally this is a decision that the rapeseed growers will have to determine for themselves, and we would welcome a plebiscite on the matter.


Mr. Gleave:: Why didn't you vote for it last year?


Norval Alic Horner: Personally, I would be inclined to let the Wheat Board handle it provided the Wheat Board could be changed somewhat; I shall develop that point a little later. Otherwise, I would caution farmers not to enter such an arrangement on a permanent basis. I know that a lot of people in Winnipeg would be happy to see the Wheat Board handle rapeseed, especially those who do very well on barley.
I was quite surprised to hear the Minister of Justice, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, accuse the NDP yesterday of having the philosophy that the experts ought to tell the producers what to do. I was pleased to hear him say that because, having taken a look at all the reports he has received from the experts and read some of the conclusions in those reports, it is reassuring to know that the minister himself does not do everything the experts tell him to do.
I am concerned with some of the conclusions the experts have drawn in regard to matters of grain handling, trucking and transportation. A lot of these reports were prepared at tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and some of them are dated in 1970. They reached the Parliamentary Library last Wednesday. Apparently it is all right for the minister to have them two and a half years ago but M.P.'s have to wait for them.
I have just gone over the reports quickly, so if I happen to make a mistake I think I should be forgiven by the minister. It is of interest to note that the criteria used by these experts do not relate to any social repercussions there may be in western Canada, and in this regard I think the people of western Canada should be alerted. From listening to many of the minister's speeches recently, it appears to me he is leaning toward a change in the grain hauling system at the 70 inland terminals, something that upsets me very much.
A lot of people have come to the conclusion that the grain industry is labour-intensive and there must be a cut in the number of people employed in that industry. I suppose they have in mind sending them into government programs and projects which would retrain them for something else. We are already losing one seat in Saskatchewan and another in Manitoba, and we now have a report that recommends a reduction in the number of people employed in this particular industry.
One of the factors not considered in these studies was the tremendous contribution made by a lot of the grain growers to rural life in small towns in Saskatchewan. I think the minister is in real danger of being unaware of the realities of life because he stepped straight from school into the cabinet and perhaps cannot appreciate what is involved here. It has been said that the grain handling system was subject to inflation. I do not know what is not subject to inflation these days. One report says that the over-all cost of marketing grain today is 42.9 cents a bushel, and that if we adopted the inland terminal

February 13, 1973
Supply
proposals the cost would be 38.7 cents. They are asking us to look at a savings of three cents. I think the Minister of Justice made reference to this in a speech delivered in Regina a short time ago when he said people should look seriously at how much money this adds up to if they handle a billion bushels a year. For a saving of three cents a bushel, we are asked to continue and accelerate the depopulation of rural Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta.
According to the reports farmers will be asked to use trucks to move this grain to these inland terminals at a cost of approximately 3.8 cent per bushel, and I suspect it would be considerably more. We are also asking the rural municipalities, after the taxpayers have already paid for a rail system which was given very costly land, to build the roads to handle this grain movement. The cost of maintaining these roads is another factor I do not see mentioned in the reports.
Another sad mistake in the reports is the assumption that we are going to continually ship wheat. It has been assumed that we are not going to increase sales of barley and take part in the sale of utility wheat in the Pacific area, in Asia and other points. These utility grades of wheat and barley would perhaps not have to be cleaned, and this would reduce the three cents per bushel saving.
I do not know where this Minister of Finance gets his experts, but he has taken a typical socialist approach by going to the most educated person he can find for his advice. It does not matter whether that person has done nothing more than read a book, the socialist idea is to go to the best educated-experience is not considered. Stage one of this socialistic program is to ask the most educated person to consider the problem and come up with solutions. Once you have the solutions, stage two is to inform the poor and ignorant people what is right and good. I understand the second stage in respect of these reports is to take place next month in Calgary and Saskatoon when this government will try to get the people to see the wisdom of their conclusions.
The Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, said after the election that everything the government did was right but the people did not understand. Apparently Information Canada and all the other facilities the government has at its disposal failed to educate the people. This whole thing is rather like a hard sell advertising program. You have to get people to want something, and then they will be happy with it when you give it to them.
In so far as these inland terminals are concerned, I am concerned that we will have to pay for them. If this program is put into effect we will suffer. This same sort of thing was done by the Liberal government in 1953.1 recall reading a feasibility report on the Saskatchewan dam. It indicated that in straight dollars and cents the dam was not feasible. The writers of this report did not take into consideration the people who live in that province, the recreational facilities provided and that sort of thing. Since that time we were fortunate enough to have a different kind of government and we were able to get this dam for Saskatchewan.
Another thing the experts have not looked at in respect of this savings of three cents a bushel is the amount of grain farmers are able to haul directly from the combine to the elevator. In my own operation I think I haul 20 per cent of what I produce directly to the elevators. I have not had to put it in a bin as I have always hauled direct to the elevator without having to store the grain. If this system is brought in it will result in farmers having to build storage space on the farm for another 200 million or 300 million bushels. I do not know what we will be able to do with the saving of three cents a bushel, but the five or six things I have mentioned suggest that we should go very slowly on any kind of crash program.
The reports suggest that the railways will save 5.7 cents per bushel as has been indicated. I do not know what it is with this man, but perhaps like a lot of us, he grew up in the 30's and did not have a toy train to play with when growing up. He seems to be obsessed with railways. He buys hopper cars when we have not got the money and do not need them. The railways might save 5.7 cents a bushel but the farmers will have to pay out 4 cents a bushel for trucking and probably another 4 cents in other costs.
I fail to understand the railways' position in respect of feeder lines. If they do not have feeder lines to bring the grain out to the main line they will not have anything to haul. This is not to say I think all the lines should be maintained. Obviously, some lines are not really needed, but this is the sort of thing upon which we will have to take action very slowly, while taking into consideration the people living in those areas. Surely, the decisions should not be made entirely by people in Winnipeg and Ottawa.
Let me mention briefly the west coast situation, about which nothing has been done. In the very near future handling through the west coast could double and the bottleneck now at the west would intensify. The idea regarding hopper cars was good if the facilities on the west coast were improved, but they have not been improved. Today, we have rail cars backed up 20 miles. We still have problems there which we have always had but they are getting bigger. The Minister of Justice said yesterday that grain was moving very rapidly. I suggest to him that average car unloadings at the west coast amount to less than 600 cars a day. I do not think that is any record.
Let us consider what some of our competitors are doing. Are they giving hopper cars to the railways and then sitting down with cap in hand trying to negotiate some method of maintenance or some method of repayment? Are they hoping that the railways will buy the cars in a year? I doubt that that is the case. In Kuena, Australia, new facilities are being built which will be paid for through a per bushel handling charge. They are going to provide storage for 31 million bushels at a cost of $41 million. That is close to what it cost to administer the Lift program. This was money the farmers never saw which could have been used to provide a 30 million bushel facility at the west coast.
I suggest the $48 million for hopper cars might well have been used to improve facilities on the west coast, if in fact that was all the minister was able to wheedle out of the cabinet. The capacity at this dock in Kuena, Australia,

February 13, 1973

is 5,000 bushels an hour, twice as great as any facility we have for loading ships in Vancouver. They are also building a port which will be able to handle ships capable of carrying 100,000 tons of grain. If there are ships in the next few years capable of loading 100,000 tons of grain they will have to load out of Seattle. We could save 10 cents a bushel on the cost difference between moving freight to large ships as compared with the small ships we are using today, yet we have a Minister of Justice surrounding himself with one group of experts after another trying to save money at the expense of increasing farm and labour costs.
The same situation exists in the United States where they are building facilities at Seattle and Tacoma. If we get into another situation like that of 1969-70 we pretty well know which country will be left with grain. I am concerned about the minister's attitude. Every time he is asked a question pertaining to anything in the west, he says he is discussing it with farm organizations and will be talking it over with his experts, after which a decision will be forthcoming. I think the minister has forgotten what happened last October 30. We had an election under our democratic process. As a result, people like myself were elected, and I like to think I represent some of the farmers who do not belong to any organization. I am a member of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. I have been a member for 25 years and I haul all my grain there. I am a member of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association. I was elected by the farmers and producers of the Battleford-Kindersley constituency and I am here to represent them. The mere fact that some expert or organization suggests something to me does not cut much ice if I do not think it is right for the farmers in my area.
Was the Standing Committee on Agriculture named just for the sake of naming it? We should be studying a feed grain policy for Canada. It is no wonder this legislation does not have much success in the House. Decisions should be made by the committee, and these matters should not be brought into the House for decision until after a committee has studied them. We are very suspicious of the FAIR formula that the Canada Grains Council is promoting at the present time. This formula does nothing for the western producer and is not in any way related to the cost of production. It is simply that if a surplus of barley or feed grain should arise again on the prairies, the eastern feeders will be allowed to benefit from it. Of course, if we had had a government at all during 1969-70 there would not have been the bootlegging going on in respect of cheap feed in any event.
I should like to make a few remarks about the Canadian Wheat Board. It is strange that yesterday, in answer to some questions the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Wheat Board said "that it was the Wheat Board's decision to raise quotas more rapidly than I would have liked in the fall and early winter that gave rise to the possibility of congestion." It is strange that when the Wheat Board does something correct, then the minister agrees with the decision but when there is an unpopular decision he implies that he cannot understand the board making such a decision.
Supply
There was a period of two or three years when the quotas worked well. All of a sudden there was an election in the country and we had a quota of six or eight bushels. The elevator agents said that they could not handle that amount of grain for months and months. A person in the Wheat Board yesterday informed me that the policy is that the quotas are raised when there is 30 per cent space available in the blocks. I suggest that on September 1 last year there certainly was not 30 per cent space in any of the blocks, and yet the quotas were raised to six bushels. I suggest that the minister should get together with the Wheat Board because there would seem to be disagreement concerning when quotas should rise in the first place.
I think the Wheat Board is a wonderful thing. The other day the minister was quick to answer when someone asked about the Wheat Board selling grain to Eastern feeders at 10 cents below the world market price. He suggested the hon. member was against the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board is supposed to help the farmer. Someone is needed on the board who knows what is going on, rather than someone who does not know what the agenda is and cannot ask the proper questions. There is a need for someone on the Wheat Board who is elected by the farmers. In this way we could be assured that the board would operate in the way the farmers want it to operate. If this were the case, I would be in favour of the Wheat Board handling rapeseed. But that is not the case. The Wheat Board is hallowed ground. One cannot criticize it because then the members of the New Democratic Party and their friends jump up and say that those who criticize it are against it.
Then, there is the matter of the way in which boxcars are allocated. Yesterday the minister evaded a question on this topic. It seems to me the producer is the only one who should decide where the cars go. The grain is supposed to be obtained from the producer and sold for the greatest amount of money possible. That is not what happens. For the last three months of the year, boxcars are allocated to those elevators with less than 25 per cent vacant space. For the other months another formula is used. If it is a good formula for three months, I think it should also be a good formula for 12 months.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, when this parliament began we hoped we had entered a new era in respect of agriculture because we had promoted to the high office of the Minister of Agriculture of this country a member from a neighbouring riding to mine in southwestern Ontario. I supported this move because I felt that this hon. member coming from that area would have a real grasp of the problems of the farmers in that area and now would be in a position to do something about the situation. Having said that, I should like to say that we need more than just words to solve the problems in that area and indeed in all areas of eastern Canada and British Columbia. Words alone will not suffice. We would like to see a little more action from this government than we had from the preceding government and the succession of Ministers of Agriculture. Each minister had pet projects, pet theories and pet principles which he foisted on the agriculture

Supply
industry of Canada, with the result that we have had one of the most chaotic situations. One result has been that there has been no long-term progressive policy for any particular group in agriculture.
I shall reflect on some of the things that have happened in our area. The federal government has brought in a policy to promote the re-establishment of the Ontario sugar beet industry. This is laudible. We need alternative crops to some of the other crops which no longer are feasible to produce. However, when we think back to the year 1968, we remember that the government at that time was trying so hard to get the farmers engaged in the sugar beet industry out of that industry. They pleaded with them not to produce, and asked the sugar refinery of that area to purchase the equipment from the farmers in order that the equipment would not be a liability. In other words, the industry was defunct. Now this government plans to invest millions of dollars to re-establish a new industry. This is not as devious as it sounds because in that era, 1962 through 1966, the actual economic returns to the growers of sugar beets were not comparable to the returns in respect of other companion crops, so the farmers in that area turned from the production of sugar beets to crops which could be harvested with greater facility or with a greater return per acre.
At that time the industry was not assisted. Now, when the world price for sugar is higher and there could be a measure of profit in the production of sugar beets, the government has the idea that perhaps we should have an industry down in that area. If a farmer wishes to become involved in the production of sugar beets his costs are immense. No farmer will become involved in this type of investment unless he has a long-term guarantee of some sort that he will have a domestic market for the product at a profit to him. No longer will he abide by the catch-as-catch-can promotion of a crop which is on again and off again. He wants to see a long-term program with some stability. We certainly have not had such a program from this government.
Every time an election comes along it seems to be a golden year for the producer in Canada. Prior to the 1968 election in my area, one million dollars was given to the sugar beet farmers. Prior to the last election there were payments to the wheat growers, the hog producers and other growers in different areas. It just happened that these promotions took place and that payments were made some weeks prior to the calling of the election in order to influence some of the farmers in their thinking. This, however, creates havoc in respect of the commodity groups.
We have established a special committee to study the high prices of food in this country, but let us look at the record of what has happened in the last three years. We are importing butter into this country. Four or five years ago we had tremendous surpluses of stocks, but the government set up a national dairy committee to look after this, to reduce the surplus stocks. They did this to such a degree that they reduced a great many of our producers to poverty and they had to move off the farms. They regulated production to a sufficient degree to meet domestic requirements, they hoped, but when an invariable factor such as bad weather upset the whole proposi-

tion, the government has had to make the decision to import dairy products into Canada. We cannot import these at a low, basic price; we have to import them at the world market price which is very often greater than the prices charged here in Canada.
Let me say a few words about other commodities. I can recall the time last spring when in my area there was tremendous frost damage which, in most instances, completely wiped out the entire crop of the peach growers. Some of the growers suffered grievously. They suffered a crop loss of perhaps $10,000 to $100,000. They appealed to this government for some help. They wanted direct financial aid, but the government procrastinated. What the government said was what we will do is wait until we see what kind of harvest you have, and then we will act accordingly. The peach growers in the area knew there was not going to be any harvest and that the government was not going to take any action, which is what the government ended up by doing. The government said they would back the farmers at the bank for loans at current rates of interest. Most of those growers who had any credit at all could have taken the same action, which perhaps they did. This is what the government did in this instance.
The government does not have a constant policy. When the hog producers were in trouble a year ago and asked for some help, they got it immediately. They received $5 per pig up to 200 pigs, which gave them $1,000 a farm. Those farmers were helped, and justifiably so, but the same help was not given to other producers. Why do we help one group and not another group? Why is it that when the consumers of Canada are paying the highest price for milk, we fine producers for producing milk? There is something wrong with the system and with the over-all policy. The minister said this morning-and I agree with him-that there is a farmer leaving a farm every two hours, or eleven farmers leaving farms every 24 hours and going to the city where, in some instances, they become welfare recipients. There is something wrong when we lose farmers at that rate.
Do you know, that at present we have more civil servants in Canada than there are farmers in the country? There is something wrong when we cannot support an industry but yet can support a bureaucracy. We must have a policy which will put incentive back into farming. Farming is no longer a has-been industry. It is a very specialized industry which requires extremely long-term financing and capital financing which is comparable to industrial financing. We are not dealing with farmers whose outlays run from $15,000 to $25,000, although certainly there are some of those today who run very successful farms. But in most cases we are dealing with farmers with investments anywhere from $150,000 to one million dollars or perhaps $1.5 million. These are large farming interests. Do not tell me that they are corporate farms. Some of them are family farms according to any criteria you want to apply. They are the people who are getting hurt. They want to know what the government's policies are, where we are going and what we are doing.
Just to add to the confusion that we are experiencing today, we heard testimony from two key ministers of the
February 13, 1973

government. One is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is responsible for the setting up of a special committee of the House to study the trends in food prices and to determine ways and means whereby the consumer would not have to pay exorbitant prices. In other words, they would put a lid on the prices so far as possible. If they could not peg the prices, perhaps they could stop prices from rising so quickly. The minister studied this matter because consumers across the nation were demanding that such action be taken. Consumers felt that in some instances they were paying exorbitant prices for food, which indeed they were. So the government set up a special committee to look into food prices.
Then, we have another minister, the Minister of Agriculture, saying that the committee will not achieve anything and that he can tell us what the result will be after the hearings are over. He believes the price of food will continue to rise. He said in speeches-and I think I quote him fairly-that farmers were not receiving enough for their produce. In many instances, I agree with that statement. On the other hand, he said that consumers in this country are receiving a bargain in food. This is what is upsetting members of the food prices committee. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have two ministers of the government stating directly opposite views if we are to accomplish anything, because all that does is to create confusion. I, and I think most members of the House from all parties who have any connection with the agriculture industry, want to see the family farm and those engaged in farming obtaining a return for their investment and labour comparable to that of other segments of the economy. The minister said that farmers want a fair shake, and I agree with this. There is no argument there. That is what the farmers of this country want. They want to be able to promote and develop a business on a sound footing which will provide a living for themselves comparable to that of others with equal investment.
We are dealing with the prices of food, and this leads me right into something else concerning farmers. We are studying the price of food, and that is the concern of producers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers. I think we should study the price of food as a concern of the government. I would point out the taxes which farmers have to pay now, since the new tax system destroys many of the tax benefits which farmers have been able to utilize through the years and which made it possible to pass on a farm from one generation to the next. This policy will destroy many farmers in the country. These additional expenses must be passed on to the consumer because there is nobody else to pay them.
Then, there are government regulations regarding packaging and distribution, and there are tariffs and taxes. I think we should study what government interference has actually done to the cost of food in Canada today. But we will never be able to do that because the people concerned will not be called in front of the committee. However, we will be digging to see how much the retailers make, how much the wholesalers make, and we will be dealing with how much the producers did not make. Anyone who has had anything to do with agriculture could have told you that this was what would happen before we ever sat on the committee. So, I think we should take a new tack.
Bank of Canada Act


Robert Jardine McCleave: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being five o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again later this day.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 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 Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)- Agriculture-Increase in Price of Fertilizer-Inquiry as to action; the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Now-lan)-Agriculture-Feed Grain-Suggested assistance respecting protein supplement; the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly)-Grain-Provision of railway cars to points with large supplies of non board grains.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Public Bills:
January 15, 1973-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act.-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue.)
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the hon. member for Temiscamingue, and with the unanimous consent of the House, I should like to move second reading of Bill C-14, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to allow the hon. member for Shefford to move second reading of the bill on behalf of the hon. member for Temiscamingue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill C-14 is one of the most important bills ever introduced in the House because it would improve the whole financial structure

February 13, 1973
Bank of Canada Act
not only of the federal government but also of all the provinces which are stagnating.
The bill under consideration would amend the Bank of Canada Act, so that that institution could be permitted to make long term loans to the federal government or provincial governments at an interest rate which would not exceed administration costs.
Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada is an institution which should first be useful to all Canadians and then to the federal government and provincial governments. That is why amendments to the Bank of Canada Act are advocated by the Creditistes.
The bill under consideration would repeal section 18(l)(i) of the existing act which now reads as follows:
The Bank may . .. make loans or advances for periods not exceeding six months to the Government of Canada or the government of any province on the pledge or hypothecation of readily marketable securities issued or guaranteed by Canada or any province.
Mr. Speaker, we suggest to put the Bank of Canada at the service of the provinces and the federal government to prevent this institution from becoming a mere shadow. To this end, we propose three changes to section 18(l)(i) of the Bank of Canada Act in order to change the duration of loans from this bank to the federal government or to a provincial government.
Instead of lending money for periods not exceeding six months, as prescribed in the existing act, the Bank of Canada could make long term loans, for periods up to 60 years, stated in our amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely ridiculous to see the Bank of Canada proposing loans to the central government or to the provinces for a period not exceeding six months. In fact, the governments cannot, in such a short period, make long term investments and avail themselves of the benefits that the Bank of Canada should offer to these various governments.
The second amendment concerns guarantees to be supplied by federal and provincial governments. At present, the bank requires as security readily negotiable transferable stocks and shares because loans are for short terms.
The amendment we are proposing calls for real credit of Canada or of any province to guarantee loans granted by the bank. This would enable the Bank of Canada to make loans to the federal government on the real worth of Canada, and to provinces on their real credit and their physical potential and not exclusively on short term guarantees or transferable securities. The Bank of Canada could thus truly carry out its function as a Canadian financial institution serving central and provincial governments.
The third change we propose for the present Bank of Canada Act concerns the interest rate. Instead of being subjected to exorbitant interest rates that can only worsen their financial position, the borrowers, be they the federal government or the provinces, could obtain loans at a rate of interest not exceeding the cost of administration, as is the case with loans granted to developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, considering that the rate of interest of the Bank of Canada has increased from 61 to 9 per cent within a few years, one must come to the conclusion that

the Bank of Canada in fact has restrained the Canadian economy and induced the rise of interest rates in all financial fields. The Bank of Canada was the direct cause of inflationary interest rates affecting housing, agriculture and production, whereas it should be what the Social Credit party wants it to be, that is a financial institution ensuring an adequate economic balance, viable competition and reasonable prices.
Now, at the present time, the Bank of Canada is not assuming its proper role, and so the members of the Social Credit party are proposing an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act that will have that institution serve the purposes that were intended for it on its inception in 1935.
For example during the last 19 years of federal government administration, 17 budgets have shown a deficit while Canada had only two budget surpluses. The federal government showed up a total deficit of $6,361,000,000 which means a deficit of $300 per Canadian. In 1955, Canada had a deficit of $151 million, in 1965 a deficit of $38 million, in 1967 a deficit of $442 million, in 1969 a deficit of $566 million and in 1972, $600 million. Strangely enough, in all the governments that have followed one another in the House since 1955, all the budgets have shown a deficit. Mr. Speaker, this information can be found in the Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year 1970-71 especially in the booklet entitled "How your tax dollar is spent 1972-73" and in the budget papers tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) on May 8, 1972.
Thus, with the amendments we propose to bring to the Bank of Canada Act today, the federal government could balance its budget and say once and for all that the deficits experienced in the federal administration is a thing of the past because the federal government would be really, financially speaking, a supreme power and the provinces could take the responsibilities inherent in their own jurisdiction. Unfortunately, we are the witnesses of sempiternal federal-provincial conferences that always end up in quibbles over tax sharing.
The federal government is responsible for financial matters in Canada while the provincial governments have jurisdiction over highways and education. But if the federal government does not put the Bank of Canada at the service of provinces to enable them to develop, to grow without being reduced to beggary, without being compelled to go and beg in New York or elsewhere, things will be taking a bad turn.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the amendments we are introducing today, the Bank of Canada could play its part; the federal government and particularly the provinces will not have to lie at the mercy of foreign countries.
We could thus finance our public debt, which has gone up from $17,951,491,464 in 1955 to $45 billion in 1972 and which will increase by a few billions when the estimates are brought forward next Monday. The federal government alone will therefore have a debt of about $50 billion.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the amendments I am introducing under this bill, the Bank of Canada could redeem obligations which are now on the market and pay their
February 13, 1973

holders. In 1973, we could save in interest alone on the public debt more than $2,260 million, 90 per cent of which are not paid out to Canadians but to foreigners. The Bank of Canada could redeem obligations and the money which would be paid to their holders could be used to operate the Canadian economy, to help private enterprise which is being slaughtered by usurious interest rates.
Mr. Speaker, this would enable us to save, 365 days a year, $6,191,780 in interest per day on the Canadian public debt alone.
In addition to that, with the amendments proposed, the Bank of Canada could do the same with regard to the provinces. Indeed, when we look at the debts of provincial and territorial public administrations to 31 March 1970, we notice this:
Short-term bank loans Bills payable Loans and advances Treasury bills Savings bonds Bonds Notes
Deposits and other liabilities
$	47,384,000
734.073.000
527.181.000
127.949.000
190.021.000 10,885,052,000
56,387,000
854.780.000
Thus, the liabilities of the provincial governments total $13,422,827,000. This is not the whole story. The provincial governments have also endorsed debts from some provincial agencies. Such debts have been entered into by municipalities, school boards or Crown corporations such as the Quebec Hydro.
On March 31, 1970, provincial endorsements for these various publics organizations amounted to $10,475,101,000. These figures are taken from annual report No. 68-209 on the provincial administration finances published in June 1972. The cost of the federal debt is $2,260 billion; the cost of provincial debts is $1,195,300,000 and the total cost of the debt, in Canada, is $3,455,300,000, excluding the interest paid to municipal and school organizations as well as to Crown corporations.
Now, these amendments to the Bank of Canada Act would actually enable this Canadian finance institution to play its role of financial organization and would also enable the Canadian government to act as a sovereign government through its own money, its own bank, its own credit, along with the provincial governments which would have Bank of Canada branches available so as to finance themselves within their physical possibilities because the Social Credit theory is that anything that is physically possible should be financially possible. And this can be achieved only by using the Bank of Canada which is the foremost Canadian financial institution and which would be given back its true role. Today it is a ghost institution which was created in 1935 by the then prime minister when, with a view to obtaining the votes of the western Creditistes, he promised in a speech pronounced in Saskatoon in 1934 to create a national bank to serve the interests of the federal government and of the provinces. But, until now the Bank of Canada has been a ghost institution which has not yet played its role because since 1935 the interest rates have increased, the debts have increased while Canadians and their governments have sunk into ever deeper financial slavery towards foreign financial institutions.
Bank of Canada Act
This is why, Mr. Speaker, some international caucuses are now considering a world monetary reform. Today, at the international level, we have reached a dead-end. Over the years, people enjoyed poking fun at the Social Credit party. Now, I think the time has come to put aside the old gadgets and the outdated financial formulas that led us nowhere except to debts, taxes and loans bearing usurious interest rates. Such formulas have reduced the Canadian people to such a state of financial slavery that we cannot see the day when we get out of it. We must turn aside from the beaten tracks and adopt modern and scientific financial solutions placing the Bank of Canada in authority above the other financial organizations, above those financial companies which now control the provincial governments and the federal government and which, as they administer the debts of the whole country, in fact create Canada's monetary policy.
Mr. Speaker, if the Bank of Canada were restored to its real function, Parliament would again become what it should be, a sovereign Parliament possessing a sovereign currency, which does not need foreign countries for monetary purposes but does need them for trade. Unfortunately we are now slaves and beggars in regard to foreign countries. Creditistes do have a solution and I ask those who claim that we never produced a valid, serious and concrete solution to this problem to consider Bill C-14 brought forward in this House by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) and now before us, which does offer such a financial solution, opening the gates to economic prosperity and financial independence of Canadians, of the federal government and of provincial governments.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Shefford's outline of a theory which is going to solve all current problems. Whereas some twenty countries signed an agreement last year and are still seeking a solution, he claims that the Creditistes have found a magic formula, embodied in Bill C-14. Now, none of those countries has found such a solution, such a magic formula.


Henry P. Latulippe: That is not the concern of other countries. It is ours.


Mr. Trudel:: I also noticed that the hon. member did not mention the 1949 agreement, still in force in 1972.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that several Creditistes want to speak at the same time. Actually, they would have been better advised to settle the matter earlier, instead of interrupting me while I have the floor. I not only did not prevent the hon. member from speaking, but I listened attentively to what he had to say. Now, I would ask them to kindly listen to me for a few minutes and allow me a few remarks about the magic formula which has just been expounded to us.
They said they wanted to help the provinces. I think all hon. members agree on that. But before wanting to help some thought should be given to the plans already existing and to which the provinces have participated. The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) took great care not to mention them and merely advocated instead the

February 13, 1973
Bank of Canada Act
adoption of an extraordinary formula liable to solve all the problems.
The hon. member for Shefford has read some figures-I should not say read because he seems to know them by heart-but he has forgotten many others and I would like to quote some of them.
There is certainly a sharing problem in Canada. Now an objective must be attained and there I might meet the hon. member. There is always the taxpayer who pays the bill. Of course the municipal and provincial governments have certain responsibilities as well as the federal government.
I think that if Bill C-14 could solve all our socio-economic problems I would be the first to support it. But, as I pointed out earlier, they do not even want us to discuss a problem for which they seem to have a ready made solution.
I want to talk about the sharing of public funds. We must check to see if the sharing is fair, if the provinces or the municipalities were really given the means they need to attain then- objectives while taking ours into account at the same time.
I have before me a table which I would like to quote and which is a good example of provincial tax sharing, with detailed figures which do not provide all the answers, I agree, and do not set forth all the social and economic problems.
Now, in addition to the transfer payments to the provinces, I should like to quote some figures relating to the federal area. After tax sharing with the provinces, the federal government only has 40 per cent of the tax basis. Provinces and municipalities receive 59.6 per cent. I do not think anybody said during the debate on the estimates that we have the money, but that all the same it is impossible to do more than our means allow us to.
Reference was made to administration costs, to a magic solution, and it was added that the Bank of Canada, since 1935, has not played its role properly. However, we were told things today which are just the opposite of what the member of Shefford has just said: Canada is in a better position than almost any other country because its economy has been controlled, because the dollar was allowed to find its own value. Other countries which did not do so have not found themelves in the same situation. We have done it within our structures.
Moreover, we should at least admit that the Bank of Canada has allowed us to control the economy, to prevent exorbitant interest rates, as somebody said earlier, and to improve the lot of the people.
It was said a moment ago that we have a solution to all problems. I would suggest to the hon. member that he and the hon. member for Temiseamingue (Mr. Caouette), who are businessmen, sometimes need capital. I never saw either of them resort to the formula they are supporting because they too conform to the rules of the game, and I am not blaming them for it because everyone does it.
I should say, however, that there are banks today in Montreal, for instance, that lend money free of interest. I never saw a Creditiste lend money free of interest or at the cost of administration.
The Bank of Canada must operate within the limits of recognized structures. But it is claimed that this is not appropriate and that we should resort instead to some magic solution. It is suggested that the Bank of Canada, which lends money for periods of six months only, should make loans for periods of 60 years. This we have done with the provinces, lending them money interest-free and moreover, provinces and municipalities have obtained millions of dollars from the government and these debts were forgiven or at most recovered at 75 per cent of their value in some cases. This has not been mentioned, but this is done in respect of the provinces now but it is never mentioned. I have here a few copies of joint agreements between the provinces and the federal government. I will just name them because it would take too much time to quote the figures. Anyway, these agreements allow the provinces to manage their moneys and those which are transferred from the federal government.
The Canada Pension Plan was not accepted as such by some provinces and it was amended in order to allow the province of Quebec to use the payments made as contributions to which the provinces have direct access and which amount to hundreds of millions of dollars. That plan was established in co-operation with the provinces that wanted it, while the province of Quebec will have its own scheme. Under this arrangement, hundreds of millions of dollars are made available to the provinces which can use them where needed.
There are also family allowances, Mr. Speaker. These are not loans. I wish to emphasize that youth need loans; the federal government has provided youth, at a certain time with some financial means.
Family allowances, Mr. Speaker, amount to over $600 million; this is money transferred directly to individuals so the provinces do not have to pay themselves allowances to the families which really need them.
Little has been said about the old age security, Mr. Speaker. Pensions amount to nearly $2 billion. There are 1,700,000 people eligible for old age security and among those, almost one million receive the guaranteed income supplement, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of funds which do not go through the Bank of Canada but are collected as income tax and transferred to the provinces which can draft their budget to satisfy the people, realistically if not always fully.
There is also the Canada Assistance Plan under which the government disburses 50 per cent for programs launched by the provinces. We do not mention this too often here, but 50 per cent is quite a lot and it is at the disposal of the provinces. It is not necessary for them to collect taxes representing half the capital. Half of what is being paid out by the federal government can be used for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, all this constitutes a form of assistance to provines, without the services of the Bank of Canada. There are several others. There has been the matter of interest rates which I talked about earlier. Budgets have been mentioned and the hon. member for Temiseamingue has used a somewhat different formula on television. He spoke about a $18 billion budget. On several occasions he


has asked the House how much it would cost to establish the price.
Now, I see that efforts are even being made to prevent Canada from participating in the development of other countries. I have heard it said in the House by several Creditiste members. There is no mention of our programs which are adopted by the House.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue said something about $18 billion, which is more than the entire federal budget. He had found a magic formula and he wanted to create global control at the provincial and municipal levels.
We have a different formula. We say to the provinces: "You must identify your real needs and then we will meet to discuss them." I think, Mr. Speaker, that the few programs to which I referred really show that there is a possibility of agreement to meet our real needs with the assistance of the provinces and municipalities.
I do not think that Bill C-14 is the magic formula praised by member for Shefford, but in my opinion we must ask ourselves if the Bank of Canada is effectively carrying out its duties. I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is. In connection with the trade balance, it has done so well that some economists-I saw few who had structured such a plan-told us: "What formula have you used to compete with your southern neighbours?"
As far as their trade balance is concerned, they are faced with a real problem. As for us, we have at least succeeded in planning our needs, taking in consideration our population and our resources. We have undertaken a tax distribution for all those in need, be they provinces, municipalities or individuals within our structures.
I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, following those few comments, that I cannot see how Bill C-14 can solve all our tax and monetary problems, while 20 countries whose representatives have now been meeting for days and nights, have not succeeded in doing so.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to discuss economic questions of such a scope.
Mr. Speaker, I shall discuss Bill C-14 which has been moved on behalf of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette).
Mr. Speaker, this bill has an exceptional scope. I we passed it-which would require some sort of social and logical reasoning on the part of hon. members-it would be possible and easy to change the structures of the debts which now oppress us.
Indeed, we are riddled with debts of all sorts. Canada has a debt of $45 billion; the provinces $45 billion to $50 billion, which is more than the federal government. Individuals are also endebted with the result that almost all the debts of all Canadians exceed $125 billion.
Mr. Speaker, there is only about $4 billion in legal currency in Canada. The national debt exceeds $125 billion.
The net result is, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are overindebted; they are in a situation where they are incapable of paying just the interest on the debts. There is only about $4 billion in legal currency in Canada and the
Bank of Canada Act
national debt reaches $125 billion. The difference between $4 billion and $125 billion is a matter of accounting and that accounting is done by institutions other than the Bank of Canada. This is exactly what the Creditistes want to give the Bank of Canada, the creation of accounting. Interest is added to the figures; this accounting should belong to the bank of Canadians which should protect individuals instead of protecting only financial institutions.
Our national bank now exists only to favour the large financial institutions and everytime it issues new credits or legal currency it loans that money to chartered banks which turn one dollar in legal currency into eight dollars in accounting currency. Then the Creditistes rise and say that it is wrong to operate this bank at the expense of taxpayers, putting them in debt.
The hon. member who spoke earlier said in his remarks that Canada is a prosperous country, that it pays family allowances, old age security pensions, etc. It does, but after having collected money from the taxpayers.
And when they do not draw enough money from taxpayers, they take out loans and sell bonds. Loans and bonds end up in the public debt which now reaches $45 billion. We shall have a $2 billion deficit by the end of this year. In the next estimates, we shall see a deficit of $2 billion. By the end of 1973, the deficit shall amount to about $3 billion.
As the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) put it earlier, out of 20 years of administration, 17 were deficit years. And with 1973, we shall have had 18 years of deficit.
Conservatives and Liberals are equally responsible for these deficits and it is not logical, Mr. Speaker, to run a country accumulating debts for which the taxpayers bear the burden.
Why do we have to pay family allowances and old age pensions to people who for the majority need those welfare or relief payments? Why do so many people have to live on public assistance? How come a man of 65 has not been able during his life to save enough money to take care of his old days? How is it that people are so destitute? The majority of older persons are beggars and cannot look after themselves because they are penniless. If our system is so efficient, why is it that we take everything away from Canadians? How is it that all these people have to rely on public charity?
When the government wants to help them, under the present system, it can but increase taxes. Money is taken from those who do not have enough and given to others who have nothing at all, and those who do not have enough money at present get into a more and more desperate situation. Indeed, life is very difficult for those Canadians who do not work for large businesses, because taxes are so high that we can no longer operate in such a way.
Under the present system, almost all businessmen, except those who operate their businesses with millions, will soon be unable to make ends meet. All their money goes for taxes of all kinds.

February 13, 1973
Bank of Canada Act
The provinces, Mr. Speaker, will not be able to operate for very long, under the present system, because they have gone deeply into debt; they are no longer able to tax citizens because taxes now exceed incomes. People have to put up their homes for taxes in several municipalities, because a number of citizens can no longer pay their municipal and school taxes.
It is time for us, Mr. Speaker, to intervene through the Bank of Canada, which could issue credits to finance public property. There remains to identify the kinds of property which are to be financed. One must differentiate between public property and private property and indeed between the public and private sectors. What the Credi-tistes are asking for is not the direct payment of family allowances or the direct payment of old age pensions but rather the financing of the public sector, of the provinces-the province of Quebec as all other provinces-so that they can start on their own projects.
In the province of Quebec, Premier Bourassa wants to go ahead with the James Bay project. It is unfair, Mr. Speaker, to allow the Quebec premier and indeed all the other provincial premiers to crawl before the financial magnates of other countries for loans that they could obtain against the same property the Bank of Canada would accept as security. What we are really asking for is that the Bank of Canada grant credits against the same values accepted by other countries. When the United States lend money or grant credits to the Quebec premier they grant credits against the par value, the actual value of Quebecers. The Bank of Canada could do the same.
Mr. Speaker, we could lend money free of interest to the provinces at the administrative cost because it does not cost any more to register $1 billion in a book than to register $1. Indeed one does not need to exert more energy to do so. Therefore, with the same values we could finance our provinces, our own institutions and thus get out of this chaotic situation.
Never, under the present system, will we pull out of our depression. The more we apply the system, the deeper we sink in, the more we get bogged down, and the more Canadians worry because the national, provincial and municipal debts grow daily. Our taxes, of all sorts, also increase constantly.
Day after day, Mr. Speaker, new citizens are being ransomed, and new families have to rely on social welfare and public charity. The country can no longer operate without almost 50 per cent of the people living off public charity. If that is called good administration I really do not understand what good administration is. And the situation certainly cannot improve when 50 per cent of the people live off welfare. This situation will surely not pull Canada out of the hole. That is certainly not how we will help the provinces to develop.
Every time we want to do something under the present system, we have to go into debt. Every time we want to do something in the present system we are forced into debt and have to pay interests, to pay off more than we borrow. That is one of the reasons, everybody is deprived.
When we have to impose taxes, we must ask ourselves where Canadians will get the money to pay them. In fact, they have to borrow that money and to pay it back. And

governments then grab part of the money borrowed by Canadians who find themselves in a position where they are unable to repay their debts, and this no doubt explains all the bankruptcies we witness today. Never in our history have we seen so many bankruptcies. And I will show you later on how much the government lost in terms of the 12 per cent tax or in terms of personal income tax as result of bankruptcy. That amount is fantastic and the government itself is on the verge of bankruptcy because it is no longer in a position to borrow money.
Therefore, if we want to do anything useful we have to change the system and that is the purpose of Bill C-14 which would allow the Bank of Canada to make loans to provinces as we do for foreign countries.
We have nothing against assistance to underdeveloped countries, notwithstanding what the hon. member said earlier. We are far from being against this aid, but if we can make loans to foreign countries without interest, and for periods of 60 to 70 years, we can do the same for Canada and for any province. We would then act as real businessmen, able to obtain credit on the basis of our country's resources. Our currency would be based on the actual values we own, not to create money at random but simply to do the same thing we do for foreign countries. Those credits would be issued by the Bank of Canada which would create credits according to its wishes and the guarantees we could offer; this would enable us to develop our country.
As long as there is manpower, engineers and construction materials to build with, there should be no problem. Every time we want to do something, we run up against a shortage of capital. Few people fear a shortage of materials to build houses, or a shortage of footwear, but everyone worries about finding the "scrap of paper" needed to buy those shoes or build those houses. When it is possible to develop something in this country, it should also be possible to finance the undertaking.
Mr. Speaker, I shall leave it to others to express their views on this point, to agree or disagree with us. We know we will never be gladly supported by all hon. members because they have obviously not understood the workings of our economy. They have failed to understand that it would be logical and healthy to make our own financial means available to the people of Canada to allow them to develop and, at the same time, to stop getting deeper in debt.
Before concluding my remarks, I will say that it is illogical that a government should get in debt with itself. The $45 billion debt of Canada is one that the government has incurred wit itself. It is quite difficult to do so, but that is what is done in the present system, something of which a great many members, citizens or businessmen are unaware. One makes debts with oneself and finds it logical.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have always enjoyed the oratorical prowess of hon. members to my extreme right. When I first entered federal politics just a few months ago I had the misfortune, through alphabetical listing, always to follow the Creditiste member. I have never suggested that I have the brilliance
February 13, 1973

of display and presentation of the members of that party; nevertheless, I have plenty of experience in playing with figures. We can all play this little game of adding up figures and coming up with logical answers. I think today it may be just as well if we put on the record a few facts and statements which will illustrate to the people who take the trouble to read Hansard that there are answers to the kinds of presentations that have been put forward by the proposer of the motion.
Bill C-14 would amend the Bank of Canada Act to permit loans and advances to the government of Canada for a period not exceeding 60 years, rather than for a period not exceeding six months as in the present act. It would also amend the Bank of Canada Act to permit such lending on the "real credit of Canada or the provinces." I wonder what that wording is intended to mean. It would also permit the Bank of Canada to make such loans at a rate of interest which does not exceed the cost of administration. We could really have fun with that one, too.
Similar suggestions for amendments have been made in the past and have been rejected by the government. I would quote from Hansard for March 15, 1967, when the then minister of finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), replied to a similar amendment and chose to quote from a 1964 report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Financing as follows: However, the same section of the act enables the bank to act as banker or fiscal agent to the government of any province by agreement. While never used in practice, we believe it should be removed since the bank could not run an effective national monetary policy if it were to be continually under the obligation to put out new issues for the provinces, at least without conflicting with its fiscal responsibilities to its provincial clients. Adequate fiscal and banking advice is available elsewhere, and the embarrassment which would result from the central bank vetoing an unsound provincial financial program rises all too readily to the imagination.
I read that last sentence slowly and I do not think we need go any further in amplifying that particular point. The minister went on to quote another extract from the commission's report as follows:
We also received a proposal that the Bank of Canada should finance the social capital requirements of the provinces and municipalities either directly or through re-discount facilities, a proposal which would involve major changes in that institution's operating practices and have profound consequences on its ability to promote national objectives. Financing on the scale envisaged could only be supplied by the central bank if price stability were sacrificed, and even on a smaller scale would subject the central bank to intolerable pressures from eleven competing governments. For the latter reason also, we do not believe it necessary or desirable for the central bank to act as an underwriter to these governments, especially in view of the full facilities available in the private sector.
About two years later the Hon. E. J. Benson, also speaking on the same type of proposal, said the following as recorded in Hansard for March 18, 1969, at page 6789: There was some mention with respect to contributions to the provinces. Indeed, the proposition in the motion was that the Bank of Canada buy up provincial and municipal debentures, presumably by printing more money because that is the only source of funds they have. I think a better solution to this is for the federal government to stay out of the financial markets as much as possible and thus make room for the available limited resources to move to the provinces and municipalities. Indeed, that is what we
Bank of Canada Act
are trying to do. In fact, that has been our aim for some time and continues to be our aim.
They argued that implementation of the proposals on the scale apparently envisaged by the proponents would pose a serious risk of inflation. They also argued that the involvement of the Bank of Canada in provincial finances, particularly on the limited scale that would be consistent with sound monetary policy, would risk very troublesome conflict of interest problems for the bank. It would, moreover, simply provide an indirect transfer of funds from the federal government to provincial governments, a transfer which could more appropriately be made directly between governments in the context of federal-provincial fiscal relations. Let me quote as follows from the same 1964 report of the Royal Commission on Banking and Finance:
The Bank of Canada acts as agents for the Minister of Finance in all transactions for the government's securities accounts or the exchange fund. It also has the power to act as fiscal agent for any provincial government and is permitted to invest in provincial government securities, but these powers have not been exercised. In practice the bank would find it extremely difficult to act for provincial governments and deal in their securities because of the virtually insoluble problems of equity among different governments that would inevitably arise. (In view of the relatively small annual increase in the bank's security portfolio, it could make only a limited contribution to provincial financing in any case.) We do not see the same political objection to including provincial securities among those eligible for discount at the Bank of Canada but there would be little advantage in doing so: as a practical matter this would reduce the borrowing costs of provincial governments little if at all.
Although paragraph 18(l)(i) of the Bank of Canada Act, which this proposal wishes to revise, restricts the ability of the Bank of Canada to make loans to the provinces and the federal government, paragraph 18(l)(c) allows the bank to purchase both federal and provincial securities without restriction as to term or rate of interest. Thus there is no legal barrier to the Bank of Canada in fact lending to governments through the purchase of their securities.
Each year the Bank of Canada buys a limited number of Government of Canada securities in line with its responsibilities for a sound monetary policy. The bank currently does not hold any provincial securities and has not done so for many years because of the likely conflict of interest that could arise. There would be great difficulty in allocating the additions to the bank's portfolio of securities among 11 competing governments. This theme is repeated throughout. Furthermore, in a period of monetary restraint the bank might have to sell securities to control the rate of credit expansion. In such circumstances, sales of provincial securities by the bank could interfere with the ability of provinces to finance their cash requirements. Such a conflict can, of course, also arise in the case of the federal government but, unlike the provinces, the federal authorities are directly responsible for monetary policy and economic stabilization.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Perhaps the House would permit us to go back into committee of the whole before the Chair calls it six o'clock. Is this agreed?

February 13, 1973
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering the schedule, particularly votes 15a and 40a relating to the Department of Agriculture.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I rise to touch on two or three points that were raised by the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and by one or two members on the benches to my right. When I spoke previously on these estimates I made the point that due to the inequities and inefficiencies which existed in respect of the marketing of rapeseed, it would be advisable to bring this grain within the marketing operations of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board told us he had said they would be ready to reconsider that matter, and that he was in favour of it. However, he said it would be fine except that he did not want to be like those nasty people in the province of Saskatchewan who moved boldly ahead in the field of marketing but, rather, he would be with those who chose to hold a plebescite and give the producers a choice.
I cannot quarrel with him on that sort of approach. As a matter of fact, in the last parliament, the twenty-eighth parliament, I moved a motion to have the Canadian Wheat Board Act do that very thing. I shall not read the motion to the committee, but I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt remembers that in it I said the possibility of holding a plesbiscite should be put before the rapeseed farmers of the three western provinces. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board and his colleagues voted against that motion; they voted against the possibility of allowing the farmers a real choice.

I listened this afternoon to the hon. member for Battle-ford-Kindersley. He said they had been asked what their position was, and it was that they would like the farmer to have a choice; they should have a plebescite and vote on the matter. If that is so, I ask why his colleagues in the twenty-eighth parliament did not vote to give the farmers a choice: that is all I asked in this House on behalf of the rapeseed growers of the three western provinces, that they be given the opportunity to make their choice.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board knows that. It may be that the hon. member for Battle-ford-Kindersley does not know it, but his colleagues know it. The hon. member for Lisgar knows it. The hon. member for Lisgar is an honest man and he will admit that I moved that motion in the House. I do not propose to be flim-flammed and bamboozled in this House; I do not propose to put up with just shadows.
Let us be honest with one another and look at the situation and deal with it. When farmers have to haul their rapeseed 50 miles or 60 miles to get it into an elevator in my constituency so they can obtain the Vancouver price of another 25 cents, 30 cents or 40 cents a bushel-and it is that much-such an effort and exercise is unacceptable to me. When they have to sit in their trucks in front of an elevator in North Battleford because they have signed a contract, rather than getting the current market price, it is unacceptable to me. These people are very careful with the farmers. There was a famous man in Saskatchewan by the name of Charles Dunning at the time when the farmers were trying to form the Saskatchewan wheat pool. The farmers were out in the country persuading people to sign wheat pool contracts, and he said, "Oh, for God's sake be careful and read the small print in the contract".
There are ways of doing things and there are ways of not doing things. When I read the statement made by the minister when he argued about the Conservatives having promised 30 cents in the last election, my wish was to correct the record, because to be quite fair and to do justice to the Conservatives I must point out that the minister was in error. I think the Conservatives were promising 25 cents a bushel for wheat.
I agree that when we argue about who sold the most wheat and who made the biggest sale, it is difficult to get excited about it.


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, get excited.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: With friends like this, Mr. Chairman, I do not know who needs enemies. I want to put these ideas before the House, to keep the record straight and to keep us on the road regarding what we are really going to do on behalf of the grain farmer to enable him to stay in business, make a living and contribute to the welfare of this country.
I want to say something else to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. I notice in press reports that it is probable that within this year we will start negotiations under GATT to obtain new agreements and trading arrangements for the sale of our grains in the markets of the world. I point out to the minister that the last time we
February 13, 1973

negotiated agreements with the western countries under GATT for the sale of grain, the result for the western farmer was an unmitigated disaster. We came out with the International Grains Arrangement and we locked the western farmer to poverty prices and to minimum delivery opportunities.
I say to the minister and to the government that they should not again try to negotiate trade in western Canadian grains under GATT. There are two or three good reasons for not doing so. One of the major reasons is that a significant amount of our trade has shifted to the eastern countries, to China and the U.S.S.R. which are not members of GATT and do not form part of the western trading bloc. We should try, instead, to conduct a trade discussion within the United Nations which would bring us within the total ambit of world trade in grain.
I do not know whether the government has any such intention, but I would ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board or the Minister of Agriculture to tell the House what their intentions are regarding trade for the farming community in western Canada in the immediate future. They owe it to the House to tell us what their plans are and how they see the present situation. The western farmer will be listening when they do.
When we negotiated the International Wheat Agreement through the United Nations we were negotiating with the people with whom we were trading, the people who were buying our product and who were competing with us in world markets. Under GATT we are negotiating with the western nations, but we do not trade with them to the extent that we once did. Furthermore, we know from the announcements which were made yesterday and the day before that the United States is continuing its restrictive attitude toward trade into that country from Canada and Japan which it developed a year ago. It is at Canada and Japan that the United States is aiming its more severe restrictions. We must protect our grain and livestock industries in western Canada by seeking alternatives. This is probably true to a greater extent in grain than it is in livestock, but our agricultural industry is now starting to look to the Pacific rim countries even for the sale of meat.
I do not mind repeating myself because I think this is very important. I hope that in the very near future we will hear from the two men who are responsible to this parliament for the government's policies on agricultural products. I should like to see them stand in their place and state what their policy is.
The other matter on which we need a clear statement of policy very soon is transportation. It has remained in limbo long enough. I hear hon. members to my right saying that we should use the interior terminals, but others say that we should not.


Otto Emil Lang: What do you say?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Let me say to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that I am quite willing to put my opinion on the line. The minister has not put his on the line.


Otto Emil Lang: After you.
Supply


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is a fine situation for a minister of the Crown, responsible for the Wheat Board, to tell the opposition to state their position after which he will state his. Mr. Chairman, he is hiding behind the Canada Grains Council which is the spokesman for the Liberal party on grain transportation. The people who know a fair amount about handling grain in terms of elevators are the co-operative elevator companies.
I will say this to the minister, that the United Grain Growers, the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the Alberta wheat pool and the Manitoba pool are now developing the type of elevator that we need to handle the large volumes of grain in these areas. But I know that we are waiting for the decision of the railroads. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is anyone big enough in this country to tell the CPR and the CNR what kind of transportation system we should have in western Canada or that we should have there. Their offices are in Montreal, in eastern Canada. But if there were such a person, he could tell the railroads that what is needed is a roadbed to carry the grain.
I think the minister would have been well advised to build roadbed as well as to buy rolling stock. That is just a wild guess, but at present we do not have adequate roadbed to carry effectively a maximum grain load on 50 per cent of our trackage. If the minister will not maintain roadbed himself, he had better negotiate with the railways to maintain it. Surely he knows that grain can be moved cheaper per ton-mile on rail than on the highway.
I should not be giving all this advice to the minister, considering all the high-priced help he has behind him. But, Mr. Chairman, somebody has to say something for the western farmer. Somebody has to say something for the farmers sitting at points such as Kinley, Perdue, Whitco and Assiniboia. We have to ask the people who are responsible what they are doing and, further, when they are going to do it. If there is anything I can do to promote something for the people who live and produce agricultural products in Saskatchewan, I will certainly do it. Perhaps some day the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will rise and tell us what his program is, instead of saying it is referred to the Canada Grains Council, that bottleneck into which ideas come, stagnate, and from which they take a great deal of time to escape. Those are the main things I wanted to say.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Whelan:: Mr. Chairman, I will not take up too much of the committee's time but there are things I should say about some of the comments made during the debate yesterday and today.
It was suggested that the feed grain policy should be discussed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. That is probably a good idea; but if there is one thing that has been discussed more than anything else since I became a Member of Parliament, it is a fair feed grain policy for Canada. Certainly we have had enough suggestions by parliamentarians, farm organizations, farm leaders and provincial governments to have enough information

February 13, 1973
Supply
which we can use to pick out a fair feed grain policy that will suit this nation. If we do not have enough information now we will never have it.
Reference was made to the subject of transportation and how the Canadian Wheat Board should tackle it. It may be wrong to look at the past, but I can remember that when I was chairman of the agricultural committee we made some recommendations when we were talking about the transportation of grain in the west. I remember asking the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board why he was not more concerned about transportation and why he seemed to be more concerned about having to sell wheat. At that time we made certain suggestions. So far as I am concerned they are now being picked up in many ways, but we still have a long way to go.
The suggestion was made that farmers serve in an advisory capacity on the Wheat Board. Personally, I would rather see more real dirt farmers becoming members of the Wheat Board. Long ago the farmer reached the stage where he had to become a businessman. He has to know how to manage his farm and grow the grain. Certainly he should have more say in how it is handled and sold. The suggestion that farmers should be elected to the Wheat Board is a good one. I suggested it myself.


An hon. Member:: Elected by whom?


Eugene Whelan: By farmers through their own organizations, in a democratic fashion. Today the hon. member for Kent-Essex made some comments about there being no action from the Minister of Agriculture in his first three months in office. Mr. Chairman, things have happened so fast that I did not think it was three months, and I had to check the calendar. I find I still have two weeks to go before the first three months are up; but with the insecurity we have in this place, who knows whether there will be another two weeks or not. Anyway, I never made any great promise that I was going to achieve in three months all things on behalf of agriculture.
Before decisions are made I have been trying to speak to farmers and get their opinions. One of the things we were talking about was the re-establishment of the sugar beet industry in a better fashion that would provide stability to the sugar beet producers. The response that I have received from Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario has been much more than I expected from this type of approach. I now know why we lost the sugar industry in that part of Canada; there was no security in the sugar beet industry; there was no stability. I believe that farmers should not be asked to place themselves in subjection to a new sugar beet industry without an assurance of security. Security is what people in other parts of society want whether they work for government, industry or for railroads. This is what the farmers want. To get a new national sugar beet policy is not going to be easy. It must be a policy that will last for a long time, one that will provide security for sugar beet producers.
Sometimes I find difficulty in organizing a program for certain commodities that are affected by the variety of provincial programs presently in existence. Sometimes when you compare the agricultural programs of one province with those of another province you would think they were two different countries altogether: they could not be

more different if they came from different countries. It is hard for me to understand how a federal minister can be expected to act as an equalizer in some of these problems.
I do not think the criticism that we did not allow enough dairy quotas is justified. Last year the Dairy Commission, after consultation with all the dairy associations and marketing boards in the country, increased the dairy quota by 71 per cent. Perhaps they should have changed the weather while they were at it, because the cattle did not get enough feed and dairy production decreased by 141 per cent per county in most areas. Not enough butter to meet our needs was produced and we had to import 20 million pounds. Luckily, it was brought in at a low price and put on the market at the same price as our own in order to provide stability in the industry, so there was no extra cost to the consumer. Indeed, more stability has been provided to the dairy industry than any other sector of the agricultural industry in Canada.
Last year peach growers in my part of the country lost their crops because of a freeze in February. They said they never received a penny of help from this government. It is the general policy that a request for federal aid must come from the province concerned. I have checked into this matter and no request was received from the province of Ontario on behalf of peach growers, though it is claimed that this was the sole livelihood of some of them and, of course, the orchards had to be maintained for the year.
The dilemma of the hog producers in the last year has been mentioned. Mr. Chairman, the legislation is there for the hog growers that will perhaps provide stability for their industry if they want it. I do not think that when they get into difficulty they should come to the government to be bailed out. When you look closely at what they are doing, it is evident that they will create chaos in the marketplace if they continue.
I have said before, Mr. Chairman, and I say again that my main concern is to see that all the people get a square deal-not just the producers of the primary products but also the consumers.


Mr. Knight:: Did you say that this morning?


Eugene Whelan: I have stated this in all my speeches. The hon. member for Assiniboia might not think it is possible to ensure a square deal for all the people, but I think it is. In the committee on food prices I stressed that farmers should not be expected to carry the full load of what we call a cheap food policy. We have to guard against this type of thing. No other part of our society has been as productive as our farmers, and all they want is their fair share.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to keep out cheap food in order to protect them?


Eugene Whelan: If I had my way there would be no tariffs whatsoever; no food would be allowed into this country unless we needed it.


An hon. Member:: You have been telling us in good "Whelanese" that you are running the show.
February 13, 1973


Eugene Whelan: Just give me a little more time. I can think of ministers who have been here a lot longer than 21 months; that goes for all parties.


An hon. Member:: How about next Monday?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


Eugene Whelan: They never put into force any of these programs that should have been put into force.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West on a point of order.


Mark Willson Rose: I hate to deflect the hon. member from his course when he is in full flight-perhaps a little out of control, but nevertheless in full flight. However, he made the statement that if he had his way he would keep all food out of the country unless we needed it, Canada is a net importer of food, and he would not move toward tariffs. I ask the hon. minister how he would achieve this kind of imperviousness to the importation of food if he did not use tariffs.


Eugene Whelan: Many of the countries that we deal with do not import Canadian goods without a permit. Just try to export something to the United States and find out how restrictive they are. This country's policy toward free trade is one of the best. I certainly would not be so restrictive that I would not allow food to be imported if we needed it or if a marketing board got out of control. I do not think our producers want to cause a rip-off; they just want a square deal. We have no intention of allowing a smart operator to bring in cheap products in order to make a fast buck and the consumer not get any benefit.


An hon. Member:: You would agree that Canada is sinned against and the rest of the world is a sinner.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the minister. He has spoken explicitly and strongly on this matter-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Before allowing the question I should bring to the attention of hon. members that they should not take advantage of points of order or questions of privilege to ask a question. They should get the consent of the hon. member who has the floor because the time taken up by a question is part of the time allotted to the hon. member who has the floor.


Mark Willson Rose: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I ask permission of the minister, through you, to ask a question. If the minister declines to reply, he has a perfect right to do so. But if he is willing to entertain the question, I would be pleased to hear his reply.


An hon. Member:: He answered it. What more do you want?


Mark Willson Rose: The minister's reply to the question is most satisfactory to members who represent rural or semirural ridings, and I congratulate him on it. However, he said, "if I had my way" and I should like to know if he has brought that type of representation to cabinet and, if so, what kind of results has he been getting?
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was a personal assessment.


Erik Nielsen: Don't pay any attention to it; just carry on.


Eugene Whelan: I want to tell the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, that I am still talking and he can take it from there. I am still allowed to express my opinion, my suggestions, my philosophy. Anyone who wants to check can find out that I have been most successful in many of the things that I have tried to do. Persistence pays, Mr. Chairman, and even the cabinet may give up on some of these things.
Any effort to bring in cheap food to break the market should be treated the same as any effort to bring in electricians or pipefitters. I have a brother who is an electrician, and one who is a pipefitter. They would not want me to bring in 1,000 electricians tomorrow to cause chaos in the labour market. Anyway, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration would not allow it.
So that was one of the things that I thought would be good for one part of our society and it ought to be good for all parts so far as I am concerned. We hope to provide a decent living standard for all our people so that all can share in the benefits of our society, instead of one part contributing all the time and not receiving anything in return.


An hon. Member:: Don't give our gas away.


Eugene Whelan: An hon. member mentioned taxes. The interdepartmental committee is working on the subject of taxes. I just want to make one comment: I am not going to tell them what ought to be done but I do not think hon. members will be all that unhappy, either, with respect to what happens.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: We are still working on these questions. So long as you are persistent, you can be successful.


An hon. Member:: If you stick around here long enough.


Eugene Whelan: Hon. members across the aisle are trying to obtain power. They may obtain it if they keep on trying.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: But all this takes a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Speaking of world trade, Mr. Chairman, all one has to do is check our record in agriculture and in other fields of trade to see how much we have done to improve our trade position. One member pointed out that we ought to be doing more with Pacific rim countries. One of the first salesmen who went to that area-


Mr. Benjamin:: Was Alvin Hamilton.


Eugene Whelan: -and he was criticized by some of the very people who are saying that we should be there, was the Prime Minister himself. He went to those countries and
1248

Supply
called on their people, and we know that you can pay no higher compliment to these people than by calling on them and saying, "We want to do business with you."
We can sell products there that we have every right to be proud of. We need not worry about the quality of our products, they can stand close scrutiny, because whether we sell grain, meat or anything else, the quality is high. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the sale of our products and this is a great credit to our producers. Notwithstanding the costs that we are subjected to in Canada, we can compete on world markets with any country in the world. We have more and better salesmen on the road than ever before, and they are doing a better job than ever before in selling our products. I am optimistic about our trade in future. People know that when they buy Canadian, they buy well; they buy the best products in the world.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But Alvin was there first.


Eugene Whelan: May I mention something else, Mr. Chairman. Having done some research and made telephone calls, I wish to report-this may please members from Saskatchewan and Alberta-that the price of fertilizer will not increase. I received a call from one of the largest fertilizer companies-


Erik Nielsen: That explains the speech.


Eugene Whelan: Let us be careful. This is a large co-operative company, a large fertilizer company. I was told that there would be no increase in the price of fertilizer.


An hon. Member:: Not any more; it has already gone up.


Eugene Whelan: 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.


An hon. Member:: Are there ample supplies?


Eugene Whelan: They have ample supplies. They had problems bringing in phosphates from the coast, from B.C. We have already made representations to the railroads and asked them to help. The company says it has all the phosphates it needs. All the other ingredients are to be found on the prairies in western Canada. Therefore, there is to be no price increase, no matter what anyone else says. This company is to be a price-setter, or pace-setter in the price of this product. At least that is one good bit of news, Mr. Chairman.


William George Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would the minister entertain a question?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


William George Knight: In the Peace River country the price of fertilizer increased from $34 a ton in 1972 to $46 a ton in 1973. In view of this, can the minister say if the people he has spoken about indicated that they intend to roll-back the price to previous levels?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat what the honest gentleman told me, that his prices will not change from what they were last July and August. The prices are on the price-lists which are being prepared. The product

is being sold and delivered to our markets every day at that price.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will look into this matter carefully, because the price in January went up by at least $10 per ton.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot take advantage of a question for the purpose of making a statement or comment. It is very difficult for the Chair, especially in committee of the whole when hon. members converse across the floor, to tell whether an hon. member is rising on a point of order or for the purpose of asking a question, because sometimes hon. members seek the floor to make points and arguments rather than to receive replies to questions.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure listening to the Minister of Agriculture giving his dissertation tonight. In view of statements reported in the press and attributed to him, I had hoped that we might now be engaged in debate on a most serious topic, that of putting agriculture on the course which it has for so long deserved to follow. I was particularly interested in his remarks relating to hog production. In effect, he told the hog producers not to approach the government again, for "The machinery has been established to enable you to put your own house in order, and it is up to you now."
I think we ought to review the circumstances which resulted in the glut of hogs on the market in Canada. We should examine the situation as it was in years far back, because we will find that it was the incompetence of the government and its grain selling policies that allowed grain to build up inside the granaries and outside. Farmers could only find markets for beef, hogs or poultry. Farmers diversified in the only way they could and produced meat.
As a result of government policy, producers, in programs involving provincial and federal co-operation, encountered a situation which made it possible for them to produce hogs and, in particular, eggs at rates which had not been heard of before. The result was not only disaster for western hog producers but, equally, disaster for eastern hog producers. We have received no assurance today that the situation is to be put right. Actually, we have reason in the east to shudder with fear and trembling in case there will be a repetition of policies which will again permit or encourage the massive production of livestock on the prairies. Until such time as we can back up effectively, with legislation, programs involving selfcontrol or bureaucratic control for agricultural products, we need a total, over-all basic agricultural policy. This we have lacked and this we continue to lack, as was made evident by the minister's speech this evening.
For proof of my statement let me direct the attention of hon. members to catalogue No. 21-202 of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, to do with farm net income for 1970. It covers the period 1926-1970. It is significant to note that net farm income in 1970 was only slightly better than that for 1946-1950.


An hon. Member:: Shame!
February 13, 1973


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, is that a sign of progressive agricultural policies being followed by the government to your right? I submit that these figures condemn the government and its policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: On looking at cost figures to be found in the same document one will find the cost of agricultural production has virtually doubled in that same period. The investment the farmer needs to make, if he is to make a living, has doubled. At the same time, the return on investment has remained static. So you might say, Mr. Chairman, that the Department of Agriculture and its policies under Liberal management has been such that the farmer is investing twice as much to reap half as much, because certainly our dollars today are not worth half as much as those of 1946-1950.
It may be all right for the minister to say that the introduction of dairy quotas was one of the most admirable things to happen in Canada. But it will be difficult to convince all of Canada that this is the case. What has been happening in the last ten days with respect to butter? The present policy is that the government buys butter from the creamery producers at 68 cents a pound en bloc. This is a policy which permits the creamery packers, by some means which I cannot describe, to pack butter in prints, transport it to a wholesaler, return it to a store, a total trip of 1,100 miles, and put the printed butter in the store at 70 cents per pound. I have seen the invoices; this is not hearsay. It is a peculiar situation. The Minister of Agriculture may profess a serious interest in dairy quotas and dairy management, but this is certainly a phase in which management is totally lacking. It is allowed to run by itself.
One area of Canada is hurting the other, and hurting it badly, in this situation. It is time we had national poicies and national administration on a basis which would put the industry of dairy production on a footing of equal opportunity. This is not the way things are at the present time.
There is certainly some change apparent in the position the minister has taken today. For years, through the Horticultural Council, eastern agriculture and the fruit and vegetable industry in general have been asking for a "living allowance", so to speak, from their crop production. This has been ignored. We have been told by every individual we have dealt with that it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain duty concessions. It is difficult to impose duties on products coming in, because we are a partner in GATT. It is all right for the minister to say he will not allow certain food products to enter Canada. He is still restricted by law and I presume he must operate within the limits of that law. He will be obliged to prove to agriculture in Canada that he is sincere and that his attitude is not just one of bluff and bluster.
The hon. gentleman who preceded the minister in office told representatives of the fresh fruit and vegetable industry that Canada and Canadians were entitled to the cheapest food they could get, and that if agriculture in Canada could not compete with outside sources of food it
Supply
was the responsibility of agriculture to switch its crops and mend its ways because Canada could not protect it. This is a policy which never was acceptable to the agricultural world. It is not acceptable because not only does the farmer feel he is entitled to a fair living, but because he is absolutely convinced, as are most economists, that if Canada does not produce its own food it will in the long run pay through the nose for imported food.
I have heard nothing in this House tonight to lead me to believe it is the intention of the government to lay on a policy whereby Canada can produce the food which it can best produce and from which it should expect to make a decent living. I cannot believe that a government which is so concerned about the price of food to consumers can support the Minister of Agriculture as he tries to get an acceptable price for agriculture so that we can return to the earnings position which we experienced relative to the economy of 25 years ago. This must be the objective of the Minister of Agriculture, to bring farmers back to the point at which they will be at least as well off as they were 25 years ago. As of 1970 they were not.
My mind was boggled by the hundreds of millions of dollars which the hon. gentleman in charge of the Wheat Board was prepared to spend on agriculture. I want to make one thing very clear: if the expenditure of this money is necessary to a healthy agricultural industry and a healthy economy in western Canada, then by all means let it be spent. But I am reminded of an occasion on which I approached the Minister of Agriculture as part of a delegation on behalf of the potato industry. The sum required to more or less stabilize the whole national potato economy would probably have been substantially less than a million dollars. But we were told that the situation was impossible and that no such assistance could be provided, and it was not provided. In consequence the national potato industry, in respect of the 1971 crop, suffered a very severe setback.
The consequences of the inattention of the Department of Agriculture are not always felt immediately, however. Sometimes one has to take the long view. As has been pointed out already in this House, the dumping of wheat on the world market in a premature fashion during the past 2} years has reduced the potential profit for wheat farmers in the present crop season.
In a similar way, the refusal of the Minister of Agriculture to attend to the 1971 crop in proper time, so that there might have been some profit from it, has caused a reduction in the crop which has denied the potato industry an opportunity to take advantage of world markets and make the profit it might otherwise have made. I am not quarrelling about the price of potatoes in 1972. The price for that crop year is excellent. But as far as the Atlantic area is concerned-I am sure the Minister of Veterans Affairs will confirm my statement-this more acceptable price follows a period in which there was a capital decline for six consecutive years in the potato industry in the Atlantic area. It was in these circumstances we made the approach we did in 1971, asking for the assistance we were later denied. We were told that Canadians should have the cheapest food they could get; the government could not upset a situation in which consumers benefited.
1250

February 13, 1973
Supply
Mr. Chairman, there are certain questions I should like to ask and I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give attention to them. There is one arrangement in particular which I think needs adjustment. While it relates directly to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, I believe the Minister of Agriculture ought to be interested. The regulations pertaining to on-the-job training as they relate to agriculture are drawn up by the bureaucratic structure of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration so as to require specific dates for applications for help and the period of time in which workers are to be employed. In my view, this practice does not meet the needs of a seasonal operation such as agriculture. The farmer who applies for his manpower training candidate is the man who best knows for which season he needs that worker. He is the man who knows in what period he can best train the applicant for the position.
Several farmers have been denied the opportunity to train a candidate by virtue of the dates which were established and the period during which it was necessary to employ the individual concerned. This objection is particularly applicable in the case of the potato industry where workers are not needed until some time in April. But the date for applications has been fixed for December and employment begins as of March 1. This does not suit the industry. A later starting date should be set. The program should be open-ended as far as dates are concerned.
I asked a question in the committee which dealt with these estimates, and I put it again to the minister because I have received no answer so far. Is it the intention of the government that the grain cars now in service in the west are to constitute only lip service to the transportation program, or is transportation to be considered seriously as a national agricultural problem?
At the time Canada was forming we seemed to learn a few lessons. One of the lessons that the west learned before it came into confederation was that the Crowsnest pass rates for grain must be legislated, that there would be no argument about it. That was a smart move and I admire them for it. But it was also intended that equal protection would be given to eastern agriculture and to all the extremities of Canada that sent products to Canadian markets when confederation was first born.
This is a privilege that has been denied by virtue of the lack of a transportation policy in this country, and certainly agriculture in the east is suffering as a result and suffering severely. Indeed, agriculture in the west is also suffering. It makes no difference whether we are talking about apples from British Columbia or from Nova Scotia, potatoes from New Brunswick or Alberta, or peaches from Ontario: the transportation facilities that are available to transport these products to market are not up to those of 25 years ago. In other words, we have gone backwards. Such a policy must be made available to agriculture if this minister is to alleviate the situation.
Another problem agriculture is facing is that under the tax laws today it is virtually impossible for a father to pass on to his son, or for a son to inherit |rom his father, a farming enterprise. I have heard no sympathy expressed

anywhere in the House for this unfair situation. The cost involved in passing on a farm from father to son or to sons is beyond the capacity of the individual to bear. This is no wonder since our profit opportunities in 1970 were no better than they were in 1945. It is indeed a dire situation.
So far as a feed grains policy is concerned, we have been told some kind of council is going to advise the government and advise agriculture. Plans were placed before the Federation of Agriculture for consideration, but one province in its wisdom chose to back out of this conference and not participate in the proposed arrangement. This is a further symptom of the inadequate transportation policy in Canada today. We have a hodgepodge, step by step emergency-type program with no long-range opportunities given to agriculture and no long-range commitments made by the government.
Let me give the committee another example of the sort of thinking that went into this sugar beet deal. I am not sure whether any part of the Atlantic area is interested in it, but I asked the minister earlier in the House whether he would determine if the soil was fit for beet production in areas where an alternate crop was required and if a beet crop would be acceptable to the farmers concerned. If this sugar beet proposal is to be national policy, then the minister should never have stopped at the Quebec border in discussing sugar beets in his speech tonight.
Until such time as the research facilities of the Department of Agriculture are overhauled, our agricultural production will not be what it should. Some years ago the minister and those in charge of research decided there should be certain stations adopted across Canada which would be used for specialized purposes. Fredericton was chosen for one purpose, Charlottetown for another, Vineland for yet another, and so on. On the surface it looked to be a healthy and efficient sort of program, but what it failed to recognize was that in a country such as ours where there is demand for fodder feed and grains across the nation, research that might be effective for the west was totally ineffective for the east.
If we are to have diversification in agriculture we must have diversification in research in the various areas of Canada, whether it be in livestock, grain, fruit and vegetables or what have you. Wheat, barley and oats which may grow at their best in the west do not necessarily grow at their best in the east and produce an economic crop. Yet at this moment in time we have no effective cereal grains research program in the eastern areas of Canada to produce those varieties we are capable of producing, thus saving the federal government a lot of money by way of freight rate subsidies. Until such time as the cost of grain production reaches the point where we in the east can produce grains competitively with the west-which I think will come eventually with research-we must retain a feed grain transportation policy that puts products in the markets of Canada at an equal price at the point of delivery, regardless of their source.
The minister emphasized one other point tonight that I should like to take up. The charging of the provinces with responsibility for agricultural emergencies is basically a wrong policy. Agriculture should be a national concern. When the farmers of New Brunswick, Prince Edward

Island and Ontario are told that the frost will destroy their crops, it is wrong to expect the province to pick up the tab, or at least half of it. If the potato growers or wheat growers are told that they are worth only $400 to the government of Canada, then we are writing them off. Until such time as the Minister of Agriculture starts to face some of the realities involved in financing and marketing agricultural products, with the necessity for making a profit, he is not doing his job any better than his predecessor, and as far as the farmer is concerned will be replaced at the next election.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for his appointment. I am convinced that he is a sincere man because I have had the opportunity of sitting with him on the committee on agriculture for several years where he gave proof of his objectivity and sincerety. Now that he is a minister, he holds the reins of power and if he does not succeed in getting Parliament to pass the required measures in order to increase the stability and viability of agriculture, this will once more show that there is a secret power which is acting on our best ministers. Anyway, I hope that in the near future justice will be done in the area of agriculture, both in western and eastern Canada.
Mr. Chairman, with Bill C-141 the government is asking the House to vote supplementary estimates of approximately $16 million required by the Department of Agriculture to close this fiscal year.
As it has been often said, agriculture is the most important industry of our country. Because thousands of people depend on it as their main source of income, this industry, which is at the same time the most vulnerable one, must be able to rely on government support to reach a certain degree of stability. We are not begging for charity, we are asking for fairness considering that the government does interfere in many other areas of the economy with all kinds of grants to ensure the viability and the survival of some industries, which we agree about.
When farmers request assistance from the government, we should not be looked upon as never-satisfied beggars. Indeed, this industry provides thousands of jobs, not on farms only, but also in the areas of transportation, processing, wholesale and retail distribution. Thousands of people are dependent on it. This is the industry where production per worker is most effective.
I was pleased to hear the minister point out that our farmers during the last couple of years have increased individual productivity to a surprising level which exceeds that of any other industry.
However, there are various factors to be considered for the industry to be profitable and to provide for those involved in it incomes at least equal to those of workers in other industries.
Agriculture is a combination of several activities: grain production, dairy production, hog and poultry production. Farming is becoming an increasingly specialized industry and in each field the availability of labour is an important
Supply
factor. However, there is concern now, particularly in dairy production, about the shortage of labour.
I should like to quote at this stage part of a speech delivered by the second Vice-President of the Dairy Producers Association of the province of Quebec:
Therefore, working out a policy for farm labour is a matter of great concern for dairy producers. As they are practically up to their ears in work seven days a week, they are of course keenly aware of the problem.
They are more or less like politicians: we also are at it seven days a week-and still we cannot keep up with our work.
I continue to quote:
Also, programs concerning dairy quality and control are of particular concern to producers.
I stress this point because the bill now before us includes a special chapter on labour.
Not only does it require a considerable time investment, but dairy production also demands special attention and abilities.
Certainly, the first passer-by that comes around cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of looking after a dairy herd. It is becoming increasingly important for people who are involved in this activity to be qualified so that production costs are reduced as much as possible to allow for a wider profit margin for the producer without overburdening the consumer.
I quote further.
... This is essential for the proper management of a herd and the requirements in this connection are increasing.
Now, we can no longer rely on the zeal of the producer, of his sons or of his employees for the basic survival of the dairy industry. Today, the salaries must correspond to the qualifications required from the worker. The working hours should correspond reasonably to those prevailing in other sectors and, consequently, most urgent measures and special programs should be adopted to encourage the training of competent and adequate labour.
In the job training programs, the government should give more specific attention to the training of competent labour able to meet the producers' requirements in the field of the dairy industry.
Further on, the second vice-president added in his remarks:
... during the national convention of dairy producers spoke on this question to confirm the current uneasiness of labour ... the former UCC has already fought to have labour protected by unemployment insurance and there was no question of giving up what already exists. In reply to a spokesman for the Ontario producers who were wondering about the advisability of maintaining the current system, the vice-president ... stated that contributions were not paid for nothing and that we should instead try to improve the existing laws.
This is evidence from the manager of a fairly considerable dairy business, and who, at the same time, has become one of the major official of this association. This evidence may be considered as worthwhile and the required measures should be taken to prevent this problem from aggravating so that this industry may survive and continue to provide our Canadian consumers with a sufficient amount of dairy products.
Another important area also connected with agriculture is the operation of maple tree groves. This issue has often been raised in this House. My colleague, the hon. member

Supply
for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) mentioned it and as the maple season is coming closer the same problem will arise.
And I quote again:
A high percentage . . .
-Last year-
... of those who did not produce any maple sugar .. . explained the fact saying there was a shortage of labour. And of those who did tap their maple trees, many tapped only a few of them for the same reason ...
Strangely enough, that manpower is very often there, within reach, but paralyzed, frozen by the Unemployment Insurance Act or that on social assistance. What a paradox to speak of a shortage of labour when everyone speaks of a high rate of unemployment. It is also maddening for the serious producer who racks his brains trying to understand what is going on. The unemployed who still have some courage and some pride would be very willing to earn a few dollars but if, all things considered, working does not net them any more, can they be blamed for losing all ambition or interest in seasonal work?
Especially when one has to work waistdeep in snow! I know what I am talking about; for a long time I helped with the production in my own maple-tree groves; I know the work is rather exacting, demanding of your energy and that working conditions are hard. It happens many times that snowshoes are not adequate because snow is too soft to support your weight and you sink in it with snowshoes. Then we have to manage with snowshoes, carrying buckets full of maple sap taking care of not spilling them if you want to have it boiled to obtain maple sugar. If the sap is spilled on the ground, it a complete waste.
There is another field, Mr. Chairman, where much more consideration should be given so that a solution may be found for this problem. In fact, the maple syrup industry is also part of the farming industry and, as I said previously, it is divided into two areas. There is another aspect to be considered which is the weather. I will not discuss this aspect further as the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) who is now behind the curtains-I hope he will participate in the debate later and second me-says it is a matter that concerns the Almighty above and nobody can do anything about it. During the summer of 1972, the weather certainly did not favour the eastern Ontario producers and those of western Quebec in particular. On August 9, the Quebec government was asked-the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) indicates he asked also-to prevent a disaster and to stop the producers of this region from getting rid of their herds by assisting them to obtain the necessary fodder for the hibernation of their animals.
It so happened, Mr. Chairman, that favourable answers were given. I do not doubt of the sincerity of ministers, but I wonder how the creation of areas was made. I am at a loss to understand how two or three parishes are forgotten while another is getting assistance, because weather, generally, does not change because of geographical limits.
For instance, I note that in the riding of Lotbiniere which I know quite well, some parishes have been designated, including Parisville in the far west of the riding, Deschaillons, Villeroy, Val-Alain, Sainte-Frangoise and

Fortierville. Then they went as far as Sainte-Agathe in the eastern part, flying over the parishes of Joly, Sainte-Anas-tasie, Lyster et Dosquet which I know very well.
Mr. Chairman, I delved into the problem to find out the reasons behind those designations. I did not get any satisfactory answer and that is why I raise the issue. I see that the minister is listening with attention because a number of producers have yet to receive the $400 grant. I am making that point so that we will try with goodwill and sincerity not to show at least openly, preference for one region or parish over another.
A third factor, not the least, in agricultural profitability is the famous system of prices, the marketing. The instability of prices is an element that plays to the disadvantage of the producer. A House committee has now been established to find out if price increases would not be the result of people charging excessively for their production. I hope this committee will work seriously and that it will not take into account only the consumers' interests. I have much compassion for the consumers. I understand the workers, the welfare recipients, the elderly, the handicapped who because of their income cannot face the increase in food prices.
On the other hand, producers are also human beings with families and responsiblities and this also adds to their production costs.
For instance, in 1971, our potato producers were affected to a certain extent by extremely low prices and the government had established a program providing for the repurchasing of potatoes, in order to enable the producers to cover at least their expenses if not to make profits. I think that generally the program was carried out equitably but it so happened that some of the dealers did some fiddling about taking advantage of the program; and making profits while the producers were in worse conditions than before.
I would therefore ask the minister to direct his officials to investigate in this area, and make sure that the moneys voted by parliament for the Department of Agriculture will serve their purpose.
Another matter which is exceedingly difficult to discuss in this House, because it concerns all of Canada, is the cost of agricultural production. Our friends from the Prairies will certainly understand the point made by our Eastern producers, and I hope that some day this government will develop a national policy taking into account the needs of both Eastern and Western producers, and that they will find means to enable those in the East to produce at a cost just about equal to that of Western producers.
Meetings are being held. In fact, last week I attended a meeting held by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and I was very pleased to notice that all the Canadian regions seem to agree on a solution to this problem. But much to my deception I learned the next day that our Quebec delegates had left the meeting to protest against these participants who had gone back on their positions.
Evidence has shown that in 1971 hog producers in Eastern Canada have produced at a loss and that their production costs were $4.20 per hundred weight higher than Western costs. This is why the government, aware of the losses incurred by the producers and after repeated

representations finally adopted a policy to make up for the hog producers losses.
Still in the same area, there have been shady speculators. I call them so because it is really "shocking" to see that all possible efforts are made in this House in order to try to reconcile-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Whicher:: Mr. Chairman, most assuredly I will try not to speak too long because I hope these estimates will be passed as quickly as possible. I remind my hon. friends, particularly those in the opposition parties, that one of the votes before us tonight is 15a, in respect of production and marketing grants and contributions of up to $12,600,000. Some of that money will be paid to our friends in Peace River who, unfortunately, have faced a catastrophic situation certainly not of their own making. I would hope that these estimates might be passed quickly so that the Minister of Agriculture could pay this money to these unfortunate people who are victims of circumstances beyond their control.
Because I had an opportunity to visit western Canada in 1969 as a member of the committee on agriculture, I thought perhaps my friends, particularly those from western Canada, would excuse my making these comments because I obviously do not have their great knowledge about western grain farming. In 1969 the committee on agriculture visited the western provinces where hon. members saw the situation which existed. I can tell you it was a sad thing indeed to see what was happening in the west. In most instances the granaries and the drying sheds were full of grain. In many instances the grain was piled on the ground. Quite frankly, the farmers had so much grain that they did not know what to do with it.
I ask my friends from western Canada, most respectfully, to try to be fair for just a minute. I know that politics is politics and I know that you have to paint as bleak a picture as possible of members on the government side of the House. But I ask you to look at this question. What about the difference between now, February of 1973, and the spring or the fall of 1969?
I say to you most respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the Canadian Wheat Board, under the guidance of the government-because of course the government has something to do with the selling of grain-have accomplished a most remarkable job. It seems to me that the Minister of Justice should not be raked over the coals as he has been day after day in the past few days when he has been accused of not doing the job for western Canada. I say to you that he has done a most remarkable job. I say to you, further, that most certainly the province of Saskatchewan knows it because only last year they named him salesman of the year. Why? Because he sold more grain than any man has ever done in the history of Canada. Surely this is something that not only all Canadians should be proud of, but more particularly my friends
Supply
who represent farming constituencies in the three western provinces.
Many other things have been done apart from the selling of grain. I agree that there is some justification when some of my friends say that grain was sold at fire-sale prices. But let me point out that it was not sold at fire-sale prices; that grain was sold at world prices. I defy anybody, be he a Liberal or a Tory, to sell grain at a higher price than the price at which the rest of the world is selling it. It is an impossibility. On the other hand, it was sold and it is being sold today in huge amounts. Last year Canada achieved a world record and this year there will be another record, and from what we can see next year there will be another record.
The other night I listened to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who was very successful as the grain salesman of the Conservative party in the Die-fenbaker years. I was impressed by the hon. gentleman. It was the first time I had heard him speak. I know that he sold a great deal of grain with the co-operation of the government of that day, but the fact is that he was an amateur compared to our minister today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: However, he was not correct when he made the accusation the other day that the grain bins in western Canada are empty.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East wishes to rise on a point of order.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would entertain a question.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I would be glad to accept a question, but we want to get these estimates through as quickly as possible. I will listen to the hon. member after completing my remarks. The fact is that when the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, who was the head salesman for the Conservative party some years ago, says that the granaries in western Canada are empty and that people in southern Asia and in other parts of the world such as India and Pakistan are hungry while Canada has grain to sell to them, he does not know what he is talking about- and you do not have to be a western farmer to recognize that. Only three weeks ago the Minister of Justice said that according to his figures-and surely we have to accept them-there are 1,100,000,000 bushels of grain in western Canada yet to be sold and we are getting this grain to the ports as fast as we can.
However, that is not the only thing that has been done for the grain farmers of western Canada in the last two or three years. I ask my Conservative friends, most of whom are fair and reasonable, why they did not do something about a two-price system for wheat when they were on the government benches. Why did they not have the courage to give to the western farmers something that they deserved? I will tell you exactly how much was provided by the taxpayers of Canada in the past year: it amounted to $57 million which the farmers had never had before. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain had the chance to do the same in the 1960s, but he did not do it.

February 13, 1973
Supply
It was our Minister of Justice who sold this program to the government of Canada which provided the western farmers with this large sum of money.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a question of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, so that the record will be accurate, I would ask that justice should prevail in this committee of the whole and that the hon. member should name the member who was the first member of the House to advocate the sale of wheat from the area on which the hon. member seems to be concentrating tonight.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I did not catch exactly what the hon. member said; but if he said what I thought he did, I would imagine that his party would drop him like a bad habit.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, when the question I pose is called into question in the manner in which it was, I think I should have the right to correct the hon. member. This is within the rules as I understand them. The question I posed to the hon. member was to implore him to include in his remarks to the House the name of the hon. member who was the first person in the House of Commons to advocate the sale of Canadian wheat abroad.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he is raising a point of debate, not a point of order.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I really could not understand what the hon. member said. I tried to be fair about the hon. member. I think he did a wonderful job in selling wheat to Russia, but he sold only half as much as did our minister.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you mention Gordon
Churchill?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member did not do half the job in getting the two-price system for western farmers that the present minister did, and he did not do half the job in supplying the much needed railway cars to western Canada that were supplied in the last few months. My friends say that the railway tracks will not take the cars. Quite frankly, it does not matter how much we give, not to western Canada but to Members of Parliament from western Canada; they will ask for more. In any event, I do not want to say anything more on this subject. I heard my hon. friend, the agricultural expert from the New Democratic Party whom I respect greatly-


J. Michael Forrestall: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My hon. friend is a perfect example of why we should have birth control in this country.


An hon. Member:: The Tories are split on that issue.


J. Michael Forrestall: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Chairman, I am not giving up the floor. If my hon. friend says anything further, even members of his own party will admit that so far as birth control in his instance is concerned, we should make the legislation retroactive.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are the best example of it.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Bruce.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If you say any more, my friend, you had better call out the defence forces whom you try to represent for your party.
My hon. friend in the NDP who represents the farmers asked tonight, "What is your policy for the farmers of western Canada?" Just tonight the Minister of Agriculture spoke, and the Minister of Justice spoke earlier in this debate. Here I refer to our grains policy in western Canada. Our policy is simply this: we are going to sell all the grain we possibly can, for as much as we can, for the farmers of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Keith Taylor: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this vote dealing with the production and marketing of grains. I feel fortunate in being able to pass on to hon. members opposite some solutions to the grain marketing problems that they have been agonizing over for quite some time. I am particularly happy that some of the members on this side of the House have also suggested one solution to the marketing problem, namely, the utilization of the port of Churchill to its full capacity and potential.
Hon. members know that the port of Churchill has been in existence for a long time. It was one of the main entry routes through Hudson Bay for the early settlers in the Province of Manitoba. Unfortunately, the potential of the area has still not been realized, but it seems the only impediment to the development of the port has been of a political rather than an economic nature.
This evening I am pleased to pass on to hon. members opposite, particularly to the Minister of Agriculture and to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, some suggestions on how the port might be better utilized. I am not suggesting that the problem is a recent one; it has been in existence for a considerable time. Here I refer to a report made following an expedition in 1904, which says, "Ships will go wherever cargoes can be found. All that is needed to open Hudson Bay for ordinary commercial navigation is a line of rail to carry freight to the port. With the use of iron steamships, the shipping season can extend from July 20 to November 1, and this period might be increased without much risk by a week in the beginning of the season, and perhaps by two weeks at the close." That is another report that has been buried somewhere and no one has paid much attention to it.
The port of Churchill has a storage capacity of some 5 million bushels. That capacity is almost as great as the capacity of the western seaports. However, the capacity is not used adequately, and in order to realize the full poten-

February 13, 1973

tial of the port some improvements should be made to it. You may ask what is the reason for suggesting greater use of the port of Churchill. I suggest there is a very practical reason for its greater use. Here I quote from a report prepared by the office of the Minister of Agriculture for the crop year 1971-72. It is interesting to note the comparison of costs involved in shipping grains. I refer to page 23 of this report headed, "Estimated average cost of moving Canadian wheat from a mid-prairie point ... during the crop year 1971." The report indicates that in the crop year 1971-72 some 20 million bushels were shipped through the port of Churchill, and some 23 million bushels in the previous year. I believe the estimates show that the approximate amount of grain shipped through the port of Churchill this year was some 25 million bushels.
But, Mr. Chairman, the cost, on an estimated average forwarding cost basis, to ship by the port of Churchill was quoted as 36.652 cents per bushel. The cost of using maritime ports was 59.110 cents per bushel, and the cost of shipping by way of Thunder Bay overseas direct was 44.578 cents per bushel. I suggest that savings of that magnitude certainly justify taking a much closer look at the potential of the port of Churchill.
Briefly, I would like to suggest some of the things that must be done, at a very minimal cost, in order to utilize the port fully and perhaps effect much greater savings that should evolve to the benefit of the wheat growers, producers and shippers in the prairie provinces who have access to the Manitoba seaport of Churchill. First of all, the capital improvements that are required are in the neighbourhood of $15 million. But these improvements should not be undertaken as in the past, on a piecemeal basis or with a shotgun type of action: they should be undertaken as a total development concept.
The first thing that must be done is to deepen the harbour by dredging. I do not like to go back into history but I believe the last dredging of the port was carried out in 1962. Since that time there has been some minor maintenance dredging but nothing of the nature required. The port near the wharf itself must be deepened by another four feet as a minimum, in order to handle the larger ships that are becoming more common to the area. The present depth at the wharf is some 32 feet and, of course, relying on the tides, which can be up to 15 feet in height, it is now necessary that further deepening be done in order that the larger ships can come into the harbour, receive grain with a minimum of delay and return to Europe.
Coupled with this must be the deepening of the turn around basin. When the ships are loaded they must be turned around in the mouth of the Churchill River. In order to maintain the proper depth in the turn around basin it is necessary that constant dredging be done. This has not been the case for some years. The result is that the turn around basin is getting shallower and shallower and certainly is not adequate for the size of ships used in that area in this day and age.
Another item that must be attended to is the provision of grain galleries and wharf facilities which will handle the larger ships. There is not point in deepening the harbour unless the facilities are upgraded to handle the size of ships now in use. And coupled with this is grain storage and cleaning facilities. As I have mentioned, the storage
Supply
capacity now is some five million bushels but because of the distance and the fact that the port is at the end of the line it is necessary that these facilities be increased and that the service of cleaning grain be added. Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary that the service be added right at the port of Churchill. There is no reason why it could not be included at some point in the rail line leading to Churchill where it would facilitate the rapid movement of grain out of the port.
One reason given for the failure to use the port as much as possible is that the Churchill River runs into the bay and in the late fall slush-ice forms in the river, pushes against the wharf facilities and makes it difficult for the ships to manoeuvre. Various plans have been put forward to overcome this problem, one of which, the tidal barrier, is quite feasible and could be constructed at minimum cost. Another reason which is sometimes put forward is the short season. The grain marketing people have said that they need a longer season in order to justify any increased expenditure at the port. This is not necessarily a physical problem, however.
One of the reasons the season is so short is that the marine insurance companies arbitrarily set the dates for which insurance will be in effect for the ships using the Hudson Bay and the port of Churchill. The season commences July 23, usually, and extends almost to the end of October. The season could be extended to 107 days if the hulls of the ships were reinforced. With the use of icebreakers it is conceivable that the season could be extended to 214 days. Were this the case, the service time for the port could be extended considerably and the volume of grain handled could be increased substantially.
Coupled with improvements to the port, icebreakers must be provided to keep the bay clear and an adequate tug must be provided at the port to ensure that the ships are quickly taken to berth, loaded and returned to the bay. One of the bottlenecks has been caused by the fact that ships often have to wait a long time in the bay before they can get into the wharf to load. Another factor to be considered is that railway facilities should be upgraded to handle the new hopper cars purchased by the government. These cars cannot operate to their full capacity at the present time. The railway to Churchill should be upgraded so that it can support the port in the shipment of grain and other products.
Another difficulty is that the port does not receive the support it should from the government. The National Harbours Board is responsible for the maintenance and improvement of the port, but the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture are responsible for deciding what method is used to ship grain. It requires some extensive re-examination of the problem and the promotion of a number of things, and I sincerely hope that all these will be taken into account.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal with this matter very much longer. However, I would express the hope that hon. members opposite, particularly the minister, will take a good look at the port of Churchill and give serious consideration to providing the capital needed to make it
1256

February 13, 1973
Adjournment Debate
the port it should be which will enable grain to be moved cheaply and quickly from the prairie provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, in the dying moments of the evening I should just like to say that I represent a riding typical of Canada's relationship to agriculture, a riding where agriculture is declining. The hon. member for Bruce, who is always entertaining when he speaks, has long experience both with the government of Ontario and in this House. I remember one occasion when he said that one of his main aims was to help the farmers, but he admitted that the farmers were actually worse off than they had been when he was first elected 20 years ago. Nevertheless, tonight he proposed all sorts of things and asked, "Who sells the most wheat?"
Mr. Chairman, if there is a market for wheat, any government can sell it; it does not have to be the minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt who is the super salesman, or the member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. World demand sells wheat whether the minister represents one of the old-line parties or the other.
In response to the hon. member for Churchill who spoke on the need for increased use of that port and the need to keep it open for 107 days, I would suggest to him that the Minister of Transport is in enough hot water to keep the port of Churchill ice-free the year around.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of problems relating to my riding that would bear greater examination than is possible in the 30 or 40 seconds remaining, so with your permission I shall call it ten o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, on January 15, 1973, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) the following question:
As great concern has been expressed by a number of farm organizations in the past as well as at present over the increase in the price of fertilizer for the farming industry, and as fertilizer plants suggest that the increase results from a lack of potash and other
(Mr. Taylor.]
ingredients which are in over-supply in Saskatchewan, can the minister inform us whether there will be action on this matter?
In asking that question I was dealing with a subject that historically has long been of concern to the western producer and, as I am sure the Minister of Agriculture knows, to the eastern producer as well. For example, in the Peace River country the price of certain types of fertilizer-without going into details-was $34 per ton in 1972. By January, 1973, the price had risen to $46 per ton, an increase of $12 per ton. In the month of January alone there were two increases of $5 each in the price of fertilizer.
In addition to that rapid increase in price, the suppliers of fertilizer in the Peace River country claim that there is a shortage of fertilizer to meet the needs of the Canadian market. At the same time some suppliers have been exporting fertilizer. We have had experience with such exports before. The Minister of Agriculture may not be aware of these instances. For example, the Cominco Company of Trail, British Columbia, exported fertilizer to North Dakota, U.S.A. At the same time, Canadian farmers could cross the border and obtain fertilizer at prices lower than those obtaining on the Canadian market. After it was learned that the farmer, as usual, was smart enough to do this, the rules and regulations were changed and the price on the American side of the border went up as well.
What I am trying to get across to the minister is that we need a better answer than the one he gave when he said, as reported at page 277 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, this has been reported to me. What the hon. member says is true, according to the representations which have been made to me, namely, that because of so-called shortages of nitrogen and potash it is proposed to increase prices. We are investigating this. We are contacting the premier of Saskatchewan to find out if it is true that there is a shortage of potash in Saskatchewan and investigating the other chemical companies that are responsible for the manufacture of nitrogen.
May I point out that in Saskatchewan, as I am sure the minister in charge of the Wheat Board knows, we have more potash than we need or will need for a long, long time. This is something fertilizer suppliers can take into consideration. I appreciate the minister's answer. It is at least better than the sort of answer we used to obtain from the former minister, and I make no bones about it.
This evening perhaps he will take the opportunity to tell these producers in our country that they have no business increasing the price of fertilizer because at the same time the price of fuel oil for farms in Saskatchewan jumped by 2 cents a gallon, adding at least $400 or $500 to production costs for the next year. Tonight perhaps the minister will not only talk on this matter but will outline some proposals for action.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. parliamentary secretary.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I see the minister is chicken.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reply to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) who
February 13, 1973

expressed concerns which, I can assure him, are shared by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
In reply to the hon. member's question, the minister has advised that he was closely following the increase in the price of chemical fertilizers. In fact, he is now writing to manufacturers of chemical fertilizers, proposing a meeting in order to be able to examine the subject with them.
I am informed that a shortage of potassium is not the main reason for the increase in those prices. I know that the Supreme Court will soon be hearing a suit related to the quota system used by Saskatchewan for the regulation of the potassium supply, but I do not believe I can make any further remarks in this regard except to say that the officials of the Department of Agriculture are following the matter closely and consider it as an aspect of their inquiry.
Nitrogen and phosphates are the chemical fertilizers most often used by the Prairie farmers. Pre-season purchases of 11-48-0 fertilizer have increased by 25 per cent over last year and there is apparently no surplus of phosphates as was the case in previous years. The price of nitrogen, a by-product of natural gas, has increased for the same reason.
I would like to mention to the hon. member that in order to minimize price increases, farmers should bargain in many places in order to get the best price, buy in bulk where possible and place their order as soon as convenient so as to avoid the spring rush which will be particularly intense this year.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I think the matter is serious and we will make every possible effort to enlighten the situation.


AGRICULTURE-FEED GRAIN-SUGGESTED ASSISTANCE RESPECTING PROTEIN SUPPLEMENT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) a question in connection with the feed freight equalization program to provide feed grain to the Atlantic growers at a cost which is in a sensible relationship to the cost of the same feed grain to the western grower. The able Minister of Agriculture is not seated in his place tonight, from which I gather he does not intend to reply to this adjournment debate. But in answer to my question I received the usual answer, that protein additions or additives or concentrates would not necessarily be included in the feed grain assistance program for the ensuing year but that it would be considered.
Mr. Speaker, as I was thinking today of what I might say in this seven-minute debate, one hon. member said to me "Patrick, why do you even have to think about feed grain assistance to Atlantic Canada? Surely the facts are so graphic on your retina of memory that you don't have to worry about facts and figures to try to tell the House tonight how important this program is?" Mr. Speaker, you, who come from one of the greater feed grain areas in Canada, that is, an area which needs feed grain, know better than I how fundamental is the program of feed
Adjournment Debate
freight equalization grants, payments, call it what you will, to Atlantic Canada.
When I look at Atlantic Canada and/or the Annapolis Valley I try to picture what would happen if feed freight assistance went out of the window. Mr. Speaker, you might as well then put that part of Atlantic Canada out of the window: it is that fundamental. You can resurrect the old stories of those under steam and sail wondering why we did not coalesce more with the northeastern part of the United States in order to get a viable economy.
Atlantic feed freight assistance has had a better multiplier effect on the economy of Atlantic Canada than any program I can think of. This program has been in existence for 25 to 30 years. Surely the government could learn from this experience. The whole subject is of such importance that not only the Nova Scotia Board of Agriculture but the Maritime Farm Council have passed several resolutions connected with it.
We also wanted included in the feed freight assistance program the question of protein additives or concentrates; we wanted these incorporated into the feed grain assistance act. I do not want to bore the House by reading the resolutions passed by the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture or by federations of agriculture in Atlantic Canada in regard to suggested amounts of feed freight assistance, but as a member from Atlantic Canada I am beginning to wonder just where Atlantic Canada fits into the whole program.
The Minister of Agriculture is from Essex and he may be able to grow tomatoes without feed grain additives or protein additives. But if he came from Atlantic Canada he would be standing in my place tonight trying to get the House to take a definitive position on feed grain assistance not only to Atlantic Canada but to la belle provence and the beautiful province of British Columbia as well. The provinces of British Columbia, Quebec and the four Atlantic provinces, especially number one, Nova Scotia, depend on feed grain assistance. The Crownest pass rates have been inscribed into the statute of Canada, but so far we have not been told just where feed freight assistance, feed freight programs, feed freight policy or feed freight statutes fit into the priorities of this government.
As the House knows, I come from the Annapolis Valley. If the poultry producers and hog producers of the Annapolis Valley were deprived of feed grain assistance they would be in dire trouble. The Annapolis Valley is the king producer in Nova Scotia. I realize there are producers in New Brunswick and a more moderate amount in P.E.I., but Kings county, which is the base of the Annapolis Valley, is being castrated by the electoral commission in its attempt to divide the county. Divided or not, they can never deny the necessity for feed grain assistance and the equalization of feed grain rates in Atlantic Canada so that in truth there is a program that eliminates regional economic disparity, a program that would enable the various economic regions of Atlantic Canada to realize their full potential.
In closing, may I say I hope the Minister of Agriculture, who is presently sitting in the front row, will hobble back
25789-8J

Adjournment Debate
to his own seat and tell us definitively whether feed freight assistance in eastern Canada and in British Columbia is as inviolate as are the Crowsnest pass rates to western Canada, thus enabling us to stabilize our agricultural potential.


Léopold Corriveau: Mr. Speaker, the question being debated now is very much like that which was asked by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin); therefore my answer will be the same. The hon. member will find in the January 4, 1973 issue of Hansard, on page 6, the commitment made by the government in the Speech from the Throne:
The Government supports the principle of an equitable relationship of prices of feed grain to livestock feeders in various areas of Canada. It is the intention of the Government to implement before the next crop year, procedures that will ensure the optimum development of the feed grain and livestock industries within Canada.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that we shall fulfil this commitment. We are now having important discussions with various producer groups in order to ensure that they will be heard and that their views will be taken into consideration in seeking a solution. I am sure no hon. member would want decisions taken without consultation.
Mr. Speaker, the rise in production costs does worry me and the fact that this increase stems from a world shortage of feed grains and protein is of little consolation. However, I am happy that, at least this time, the price the consumer of feed grains receives for his products has also increased. Let us hope that the increase in the cost of production, in stock breeding, will be reflected in the profits of the grain and protein producer and help him stabilize his income and ensuring that he can produce even more feed grains next year.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that everyone is very much aware of the seriousness of the situation and I know that a practical solution will soon be found.


GRAIN-PROVISION OF RAILWAY CARS TO POINTS WITH LARGE SUPPLIES OF NON-BOARD GRAINS
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is here tonight. On February 7, 1973, I asked a question regarding the movement of grain in western Canada, particularly in Saskatchewan. The reason I asked the question was that reports from Saskatchewan indicate there are about 150 delivery points in that province plugged up with grain. I have received a number of letters from my own constituency; one from Whitkow, Saskatchewan, which indicated that it has had a full elevator since December 11 and the last train passed through the village on November 29. There was a quota for several more bushels of grain but they could not haul any more as the elevator space was filled.
Let me indicate that I do not bring this matter forward tonight for the purpose of publicity, but because farmers in Saskatchewan generally are facing a real problem. I made several phone calls today to spot-check the situa-

tion, and in all fairness to the minister I must say that there appears to be no problem in respect of grain movement at various points in my constituency.
They told me at Paradise Hill that grain is moving to about 90 per cent capacity with cars coming in. They are keeping up quite well. A similar statement was made in respect of some of the grain at Canwood, although they have missed the odd car occasionally. A similar statement was made in respect of Spiritwood, Shellbrook, Holbein and Bapaume. However, at about half the points I phoned there appeared to be problems with non-board grains or the oilseed crop which is rapeseed.
There also appears to be difficulty in respect of the movement of barley. I was told that at St. Walburg, for example, there was congestion in respect of barley to the extent of 49,000 bushels, and some 42,000 bushels of rape-seed. They only have 19,000 bushels of wheat on hand. It seems the wheat is moving well but rapeseed and barley are not being moved at all. The agent indicated to me, also, that trains are run whenever the railway feels like operating them. They say this is a real problem.
In respect of Turtleford, Saskatchewan, they say they have been filled up and congested every weekend since October 1972. They have space for only 4,000 bushels, with a capacity of 93,000 bushels. Barley is very congested, as also is rapeseed. They say they have only a four-car spot and they could use an eight-car spot. They tell me that this situation seems very difficult to change. At Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, it seems that the problem is about the worst in the constituency I represent. Barley is really congested, with one of the pool elevators having 54,000 bushels of grain on hand and the others ranging from 70,000 to 100,000 bushels. Yet I understand there is a crying need for feed grain in certain parts of Canada. They also indicate that there is a lot of rapeseed on hand which has not been moving well for the last couple of months.
Glaslyn, Saskatchewan, has been congested since the start of the 1972 crop year. They state that rapeseed is really congested and just is not moving. When I spoke to them today on the telephone they told me that the movement of barley is bad too. It was indicated that they could use an eight-car spot instead of a four-car spot. Leask is congested right up to the 140,000 bushel capacity. There is congestion in respect of all grains. They say they are located on the line between North Battleford and Prince Albert and never know when the trains are coming.
This would seem to be typical of the situation in other parts of the country. Elevator agents do not know when to expect the trains. I think we are getting into a de facto abandonment of railway lines, as I mentioned in the House previously. I am told that shipments sometimes are three weeks behind schedule. I could mention several other points at which there are problems.
As I have said, there has been some good movement of grain in certain parts of the constituency but it appears that rape and barley are causing problems in certain areas and I would appreciate a response from the minister responsible for the Wheat Board as to the reason the situation exists and what steps he is taking to remedy it.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member saying that grain is moving in great volume and also that the congestion does not exist at all delivery points but only at certain ones. Certainly it does exist sometimes at as many as 10 per cent of the delivery points in the prairie region at any particular point in time, although not at the same one for necessarily very long.
The fact is, of course, that the producers have delivered by now-or by the reports, before the first half of the crop year is complete over 500 million bushels of grain will be delivered into elevators and we have been exporting at the rate of 20 million bushels, which is higher than last year's level when we set an all-time record. The grain is moving very rapidly indeed.
The Wheat Board did open quotas fairly rapidly in the early part of the year, basically to assure itself that there would be supplies available to continue marketing and that farmers would not hold back on those supplies. There is an eight-bushel wheat quota. The barley quota is up to 20 bushels. This is in order to ensure that the supplies come in. I indicated in the House the other day that there was here a friendly bit of disagreement between myself and the Wheat Board about the speed with which they opened quotas. They were concerned to see the supplies. I was satisfied that those supplies would be forthcoming. I was more concerned to try to avoid congestion. However, congestion has resulted from that and from the fact that there is a tremendous demand for rapeseed and other products which has required those quotas to be opened fairly rapidly.
Adjournment Debate
Grain is not distributed evenly across the prairie region, so as quotas are opened more or less evenly there are particular points where there are difficulties. In addition, of course, there are logistics difficulties. The Wheat Board must call forward wheat from places where it is and see that cars are there to haul it out when that is needed. Sometimes points are neglected where other grains not immediately needed for some shipments are to be found.
The first priority is to get grain to the ports. Vancouver, for instance, has had a lot of grain on hand, rapeseed included. Rapeseed movement is going very well and there should be rapid alleviation of all these situations. At the moment grain is moving very well for this time of the year, but we will only hit the tremendous volume again after Thunder Bay opens and the eastern movement goes into full swing again.
In short, the Wheat Board, which has been facing many problems, has been trying to ensure that grain which is needed at markets gets there. It has been trying to ensure that grain comes in so that they can sell with confidence in the future. This has led to certain congestion. I hope this can be avoided in the future with a slightly more careful opening of quotas. There are individual lines where rail problems occur, where during the wintertime grain is not taken out because so little moves over the line that it is simply not economical to move grain during the heaviest snow months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday. February 14, 1973