1973-02-12

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT 22 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 12, 1973


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing public interest. I refer to a recent disclosure by a national magazine that the government's failure to act upon recommendations concerning the control and use of heroin constitutes a serious national situation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche):
That the annual report of the Department of National Health and Welfare be forthwith referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be moved.


Mr. Nielsen:: Sounds like a fix!


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I feel sure my friends in the Official Opposition will agree to the motion being put and I hope the government will give it at least a few seconds thought before saying no. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That immediately on the passing of this motion the Leader of the Opposition be given five minutes in which to state clearly the program of pension increases to which he referred last night on CBC television, and in particular to state the precise figure to which his party would raise the basic amount of the pension provided under the Old Age Security Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am doubtful as to the procedural acceptability of the suggestion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it was
agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: I will inquire from the House whether there is unanimous consent to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no apparent unanimity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said no?


Mr. Reid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should just like it to be known that it was not we on the government side who refused unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanfield:: So that hon. members will not be disappointed, may I say I shall be speaking, I hope, later this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FOOD PRICES
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Tomorrow, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be appearing before the Special Committee on Food Prices. Since the minister left some doubt, in reply to questions last week, whether or not he is prepared to make available to the committee all of the findings of the Prices and Incomes Commission, and in view of the importance of those findings to the committee which has to report to the House in less than two months, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That in the opinion of this House the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should make available to the Special Committee on Trends In Food Prices all background studies and recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. Is there unanimous consent?

February 12, 1973
Regional Economic Expansion


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity.


PROPOSED WEST COAST TANKER ROUTE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43 which I believe is urgent and can be passed without debate. The motion deals with the proposed tanker route down the west coast of British Columbia. In view of the recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals which has blocked temporarily the issuing of government permits for the building of a trans-Alaska pipeline, I feel it is essential that the Canadian position be made crystal clear. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That this House in this, the first session of this new parliament, express its unanimous opposition to the proposed tanker route from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point, State of Washington, and that this decision of the House of Commons be transmitted to the United States government through official channels.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. Does the hon. member for Calgary North rise on a point of order?


Mr. Woolliams:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I heard the motion, I think it ascribed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals. My information is that it was the court of appeal of one of the states, and whether that decision will be binding on the other states is a question of jurisdiction.

I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, on a point of order, I questioned whether a court to which the hon. member for Kootenay West had referred was, indeed, the United States Court of Appeals. It is, in fact, the United States Court of Appeals and the hon. member for Kootenay West was right. The information I had was incorrect.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of recent statements attribut-

ed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion that his department has prepared analyses on the economic structure and possible development of six regions of this country-the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario the prairie provinces, British Columbia and the Canadian northwest-and in view of an impending major policy announcement to the premiers of the Atlantic region that is undoubtedly connected with these economic development strategies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the annual report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development in order to allow the committee to study these analyses, and that the committee be reconvened forthwith for this purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In view of the fact that according to the required rules of the House this report is already nine days late, in view of the fact that this party has been accused of being obstructionist, and in view of the fact on at least one other occasion the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources report was referred without debate, I appeal to the government House leader and to the minister to reconsider and to have this matter referred to the committee as soon as possible.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions: February 8, 1973-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. Speaker:: The notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 21(2).
*


February 12, 1973


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government, to the supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the period April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972?
2.	What was the total amount paid out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the period April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972, in the form of pension supplements and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account as at March 31, 1972?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
(a) $14,534,684.44; (b) $14,544,326.77.
2.	$21,692,103.93 was paid out in pension supplements. As of March 31, 1972, there were 85,447 beneficiaries.
3.	$13,735,512.82.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to 89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to 99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to 149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired RCMP personnel and also the number of widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of RCMP personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) 9; (b)
57; (c) 9; (d) 73; (e) 10; (f) 37; (g) 15; (h) 32; (i) 23; (j) 187; (k) 339; (1) 367; (m) 354; (n) 1354.
2.	(a) 88; (b) 10; (c) 8; (d) 10; (e) 18; (f) 10; (g) 15: (h) 13; (i) 11; (j) 54; (k) 35; (1) 53; (m) 13; (n) 27;
Province	Retired Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	52	3Prince Edward Island	19	2Nova Scotia	232	13New Brunswick	98	8Quebec	213	10Ontario	613	68Manitoba	139	12Saskatchewan	159	13
Order Paper Questions
Province	Retired Personnel	WidowsAlberta	411	32British Columbia	843	116Northwest Territories	27	1Outside Canada	60	72,866	2854.	127, Average monthly payment is $56.22.


Mr. Coates: 1.	(a) On what date did the government establish regional pay rates for employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service (b) how many other members of the Public Service of Canada, associated with other departments, have also had their pay rates determined on a regional basis and (i) by what departments are they employed (ii) on what date were regional pay rates agreed to?
2.	What is the pay rate for correctional officers of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, of the same classification, at all penal institutions in Canada?
3.	What is the pay rate for a carpenter instructor of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, of the same classification, at all penal institutions in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1.
(a) Regional rates of pay were established by the government for approximately 1,400 employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service following the coming into force of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, 1966-67, c. 72, s. 1., on March 13, 1967; (b) There are approximately 49,300 other members of the Public Service of Canada associated with other departments in the operational, technical, scientific and professional categories who have their rates of pay determined on a regional basis; (i) The following departments or agencies employ members of the Public Service who have their pay rates determined on a regional basis: Agriculture, Public Works, Public Archives, Veterans Affairs, Office of the Auditor General, Energy, Mines and Resources, Customs and Excise, National Energy Board, Consumer & Corporate Affairs, External Affairs, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Finance, Office of the Governor General Secretary, Board of Grain Commissioners, Indian Affairs & Northern Development, Canadian International Development Agency, Information Canada, Industry, Trade and Commerce, Communications, Justice, National Defence, Manpower and Immigration, Environment, Labour, Science and Technology, Transport, National Health and Welfare, National Museums of Canada, Privy Council Office, Post Office, Public Service Commission, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Regional Economic Expansion, Supply and Services, Canadian Radio Television Commission, Statistics Canada, Tariff Board, Secretary of State, Taxation, Unemployment Insurance Commission, Treasury Board.
1.	(b) (ii) The following classification groups have regional rates of pay and these rates were agreed to and became effective on the dates shown:
Rates
Group	Agreed	EffectiveGeneral Labour & Trades	Sept. 27, 1968	Oct. 1,1966General Services	Nov. 29, 1968	Oct. 1,1966
Order Paper Questions
Group	Agreed	Rates EffectiveHospital Services	Aug.	30, 1968	Oct. 1,1966Printing Operations	June	28, 1968	Feb. 1,1967Ship Repair	July	22, 1968	Oct. 15,1967Ships' Crews	April 28, 1969	Oct. 1,1966Nursing	Aug.	29, 1968	July 1, 1967Education	May	29, 1968	Sept. 1,1967Education Support	July	20, 1971	Sept. 1,1969Engineering and Scientific Support	May	22, 1969	July 1, 1967Ships' Officers	May	28, 1969	July 1,19692.	The pay rates for Correctional Officers of the Canadian Penitentiary Service of the same classification at all penal institutions in Canada are as follows:$ 6,688.44	$ 7,385.51	$ 8,083.11	$ 8,780.18	$ 9,477.25CX-2 $ 6,870.01 CX-3	$ 7,597.87	$ 8,325.68	$ 9,052.54	$ 9,780.39$ 9,456.38 CX-4	$ 9,759.52	$10,062.66	$ 9,759.52 CX-5	$10,062.66	$10,365.81	$10,095.01 CX-6	$10,428.42	$10,762.34	$10,398.16 CX-7	$10,731.56	$11,064.96	$10,792.61 CX-8	$11,126.01	$11,459.41	$11,095.75 CX-9	$11,429.15	$11,762.56	$12,709.00 CX-10	$13,175.00	$13,642.00	$14,109.00	$13,234.00	$13,700.00	$14,167.00	$14,633.00	3. The basic rate of	pay for Carpenter Instructor of the	
Canadian Penitentiary Service of the same classification at all penal institutions in Canada varies depending upon the zone or region in which he works from $3.63 to $5.06 per hour in accordance with the rates negotiated and contained in the General Labour and Trades collective agreement signed on the October 31 1972.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the cost to the government of programs initiated since passage of the Official Languages Act?
2.	Of the total, how much has been provided to provincial governments for language instruction and what is the breakdown in assistance by province?
3.	Of the total amount spent by the government on federal program, what have been the programs and how much has each cost to date?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1. For
the period of January 1, 1970 to December 31, 1972, the cost of the various programs administered by the Depart-

ment of the Secretary of State under the Bilingualism Development Program has been $167,819,970.
2.	For the period of January 1, 1970 to March 31, 1972, amounts granted to provincial governments or provincial institutions may be broken down as follows: Newfoundland, $326,204; Prince Edward Island, $246,895; Nova Scotia, $1,679,530; New Brunswick, $10,540,116; Quebec, $73,293,456; Ontario, $34,133,769; Manitoba, $2,097,071; Saskatchewan, $1,099,627; Alberta, $2,062,234; British Columbia, $2,089,874; (a) Final figures for fiscal year 197273 are not yet available on a provincial basis, but payments of $39,449,760 have been made between April 1, 1972 and December 31, 1972 to provincial governments or provincial institutions; (b) For the period of January 1, 1970 to December 31, 1972, an amount of $801,075 has been spent in non-governmental sectors (national voluntary associations, linguistic research, etc.); this amount cannot be broken down on a provincial basis.
3.	The amounts spent by the government between January 1, 1970 and December 31, 1972, under the various programs administered by the Department of the Secretary of State are the following: (a) Assistance for education in the official minority language (English in Quebec and French elsewhere) and the teaching of the second official language (English in Quebec and French elsewhere) at the pre-university levels: $150,048,221; (b) Assistance for education in the official minority language and the teaching of the second official language at the university or teacher training levels: $12,692,169; (c) Technical and financial assistance in areas other than education (translation, language courses for provincial civil servants, etc): $551,154; (d) Summer language courses for students: $3,727,351; (e) Assistance in non-governmental sectors: $426,075; (f) Linguistic research: $375,000.


Mr. Gleave: 1.	Have any studies or research been undertaken by the Department of Transport into the feasibility of the construction of a rail line for the purpose of transporting oil and liquified gas from the production fields in the Arctic to points in southern Canada?
2.	Have any studies been made into construction and maintenance costs as between rail transport and pipeline transport of oil and gas?
3.	Have comparative studies been undertaken as to the effect on the ecology between these two alternate methods of transporting oil and gas?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
Ministry of Transport has contributed towards funding the study "Railway to the Arctic" carried out in 1972 by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport, Queen's University. This report examines in a preliminary way the technical feasibility and the cost of rail movement of oil in the permafrost region from Prudhoe Bay on the Alaskan north slope to North American markets.
2.	Some tentative comparison of the cost of moving oil between different transportation modes were made by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport in connection with the "Railway to the Arctic" study. It is likely that because of interest in both these modes further comparative work will be done.

3.	No. However, the extensive information being collected on the environmental impact of pipelines in the North is applicable to all modes of transportation in the Mackenzie corridor and is being used to assess the environmental impact of the Mackenzie highway. Further studies on the ecological effects of the Mackenzie highway are also being carried out currently. The information from both these sets of studies would be largely applicable to assessing the ecological effect of any possible railway to the Arctic.


Mr. Haliburton: 1.	In each of the past five years, within the Post Office Department (a) what was the number of full-time, part-time and casual employees (b) what was the total number of pieces of (i) first class mail processed (ii) second class mail processed (iii) third class mail processed (c) how many new post office buildings have been constructed and at what total cost (d) how many old post office buildings have been demolished and at what total cost?
2.	In Wolfville, Kings County, Nova Scotia (a) what was the total cost of (i) demolition of the old post office (ii) construction of the new post office (b) what was the reason for abandoning the old post office?


John Mercer Reid: I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. (a):
1. (a) Year	Full- time	Part- time	Casual man years*	1967-68...	
42,522	5,854	1,815 (approved man years)	1968-69...	
43,111	5,947	1,396 (approved man years)	1969-70...	
41,008	6,591	2,135 (actual usage)	1970-71...	
41,022	6,902	2,317 (actual usage)	1971-72...	
42,767	7,191	2,579 (actual usage)	Christmas Man Years not included in above figures for Casuals.	, (b)	Year	First Class	Second Class	Third Class1967-68...	2,586.4	694.3	1,331.41968-69...	2,532.4	673.1	1,375.11969-70...	2,708.2	518.6	1,206.21970-71...	2,723.0	504.7	940.61971-72...	2,699.0	448.1	1,146.9(c)	New Post Office buildings:	New post offices	New post offices	provided by	provided by	Crown construction	build-lease terms	Year	Number	Cost	Number	Annual Rental$	$1968	... 134	17,686,881.00	9	176,671.001969	... 91	4,715,690.00	31	355,515.001970	. .. 73	4,959,441.00	24	360,180.001971	... 56	4,032,284.00	15	203,243.001972	... 31	1,947,042.00	13	346,482.00Totals	... 385	33,341,338.00	92	1,442,091.00
Order Paper Questions (d) Old post office buildings demolished:
Year	Number	Cost
*
1968	
Nil	Nil1969	
2	2,000.001970	
1	3,250.001971	
4	13,021.001972	
3	15,850.00Totals	
10	34,121.00
Note: 1. The figures in (c) and (d) above do not include post office accommodation provided in multi-purpose buildings such as federal buildings housing two or more departments. 2. The figures in (d) above do not include possible demolition of buildings which have been turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. No information as to the ultimate disposal of such buildings is reported to D.P.W. by C.A.D.C.
2.	Wolfville, Kings County, Nova Scotia, (a) (i) $6,000, (ii) $154,000; (b) The old post office building was not structurally sound nor was it large enough to accommodate the increased requirements of the Post Office Department. The complete renovation of the existing building and the construction of an addition would have cost more than the new modern building and would have meant displacing the post office operation for approximately one year.


Mr. Wise: What was the total amount of government revenue received from the Canadian tobacco industry for the years 1970 and 1971?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister oi National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: Government revenues, in so far as income taxes are concerned, are not compiled by industry but the following information on income taxes payable is derived from annual reports published by Statistics Canada (Corporation Taxation Statistics, Catalogue 61-208 Annual).
Tobacco products manufacturing
Federal taxes (net)	18.2 million
Provincial taxes (including
Ontario and Quebec)	5.2 million
Total provincial and federal income taxes 23.4 million
The 1971 figures are not yet available. In so far as National Revenue, Customs and Excise, is concerned: The following figures reflect the total revenue by way of excise tax and excise duty from the Canadian tobacco industry for the fiscal years 1970-71 and 1971-72. The figures do not include sales tax revenue as such funds are recorded in one account with no distinction as to sources.
Fiscal
year Excise tax Excise duty	Total
1970-	71 $319,413,605.26 $212,173,674.18 $ 531,587,279.44
1971-	72	330,120,737.21	221,385,069.35	551,505,806.56
Total: $1,083,093,086.00
1160

Order Paper Questions SASKATOON AIRPORT


Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much money is allocated for improvement of the airport at Saskatoon (a) in the year 1973 (b) in the year 1974?
2.	What is the projected date for completion?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a) For
1973-74 fiscal year, $1,125,000; (b) For 1974-75 fiscal year, $1,300,000; (c) For 1975-76 fiscal year, $725,000.
2. Project is scheduled for completion in 1975-76, with minor cleanup work completed the following summer at a cost of $100,000.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the National Energy Board on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: ____________________________________
1.	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71310,709.45	$72,127.55	$180,127.11


[Stage Direction]
1972-73 to date $136,255.25
2. and 3. Names and Addresses
Amounts Paid
Thorne, Gunn, Helliwell & Christensen, 1112 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Thome, Gunn, Helliwell & Christensen, 1112 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.
[Stage Direction]
44,051.95
3,739.97
Thorne, Gunn, Helliwell & Christensen, 1112 West Pender 42,500.00 Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.	_
Professor S. J. May, 2046 Dorval Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario. 2,200.00 Dr. E. R. Petersen, 1779 Hillview Road, Kingston, Ontario. 7,858.00 Foster Economic Consultants, 600 Sixth Avenue S.W.,	9,000.00
Calgary 1, Alberta.
Foster Economic Consultants, 600 Sixth Avenue S.W., Calgary 1, Alberta.
Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, 55 Yonge Street,
Toronto 1, Ontario.
Dr. R. E. Boston, 10 Clairmont Avenue, Pointe Claire, P.Q. Soloway, Wright, Houston, McKimm, Killeen, Greenberg & Citran, 170 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario.
Vincent Moran, R.R. No. 3, Oil Springs, Ontario.
11,987.08
130,000.00
5,000.00
131,047.36
14,788.66
G.	R. Hugo, 1001 Elizabeth Road S.W., Calgary 6,
Alberta.
E. C. Sievwright Associates, 95 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto 7, Ontario.	.
Bureau of Management Consulting, Department of Supply & Services, Ottawa, Ontario.
2,666.90
8,987.65
2,340.00
Mrs. G. Adams, 185 Stanley Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario.	2,112.50
Purpose
Title
Undertake analysis of the rate base of a company to the Board's jurisdiction.
Assist in preparation of studies of Rate Base, Earned Return, etc. on Peace River Transmission Co. Ltd., Phase II.	.	,
Assist in preparation of studies of Rate Base, Earned Return, etc. on Westcoast Transmission Co. Ltd.
Planning a simulation model of the energy sector.
Complete various projects concerned with Energy Model.
Assist N.E.B. participation on the Prospective Demand for Canadian Crude Oil under alternative industry and Canadian/U.S. government policies.
Assist in preparation of N.E.B.'s "Long Term Energy Forecast".
Assist in studies in connection with a rate application.
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Organization Study.	.
Special counsel in connection with a rate hearing before the Board.
Advise and assist with regard to aspects of pipeline construction.
Study on petroleum costs.
None
None
None
None
Advice and assistance to the Board in areas of energy None policy study.	M
Position classification assistance.	None
Preparation of classification descriptions for Board None positions.
4.	Names and Addresses	Amounts Pai
~ $
Dr. E. Rabitsch, 300 East 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 2,930.86
Deloitte, Haskins & Sells, 55 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario. 68,227.57 Soloway, Wright, Houston, McKimm, Killeen, Greenberg &	65,996.82
Citran, 170 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. Nystrom: 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70,1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Veterans Affairs on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?

Purpose
To assist N.E.B. in assessing the economic impact of development of natural resources.	.
Assist in studies in connection with a rate application.
Special counsel in connection with a rate hearing before
the board.	_____________________________
2 What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?


4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?


Hon. Daniel MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 1968-69 Nil; 1969-70 Nil; 1970-71 Nil; 1971-72 $5,393.
2.	Management Concepts Ltd., Scarborough, Ont. $5,393.
3.	Professional consulting and training services in relation to the program of Management by Objectives.
4.	Management Concepts Ltd., Scarborough, Ontario. $6,811; estimated total expenditure 1972-73-$20,000. Professional consulting and training services in relation to the department's program of Management by Objectives.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the cost by variety of the potted plants provided in the Confederation Building adjacent to Parliament Hill?
2.	What was the total cost of these potted plants?
3.	What is the name and address of the firm that is contracted by the government to water these plants?
4.	What is the price of the contract awarded to that firm?
5.	How many men are employed by that firm to water those potted plants, as determined by the number of special passes issued to them for security purposes?
6.	Are these plants similar to those provided in other government buildings in the Capital area, in respect to variety or price?
Hon. ]ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): 1.
The cost, including fibreglass containers, is: 40 Draceana Reflexa $2,100. 50 Dracaena Warnecki $2,625. 60 Draceana Massangaena $3,150. 50 Ficus Decora $2,625. 100 Scheffl-era $5,250. 12 Philodendron Selloun $951.
2.	$16,701.
3.	Eric Jensen Greenhouses Ltd., 161 Nugget Avenue, Agincourt, Ont.
4.	$4,680 for 12 months full maintenance.
5.	Two. They do not have passes. Their operation is controlled by House of Commons protective staff.
6.	Yes.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	When was the Confederation building initially opened, and what was it's original total cost?
2.	When was the present heating system installed?
3.	When were the thermostats added to the radiators in the offices which have become those of Members of Parliament?
4.	Are there thermostats in the outer offices shared by secretaries to Members of Parliament and, if not, for what reason?
5.	What temperature is steam or water heated to for circulation in the radiators in the offices in the Confederation building?
6.	Is the government considering the installation of thermostats in the radiators of the offices shared by secretaries to Members of Parliament?
Order Paper Questions
7.	Does the government plan to install air conditioning in these offices, and if so, when, and of what type?


Hon. lean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: 
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many buildings housing offices of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had the signs outside those buildings changed or altered to read "Police" where they had formerly read "R.C.M.P."?
2.	When were such alterations discontinued?
3.	Have any such altered signs been restored to read "R.C.M.P." where they had been changed to read "Police" and, if so, how many were so altered?
4.	Is it the intention of the Solicitor General to order the sign in front of the Dartmouth detachment offices changed to "R.C.M.P." where it now reads "Police"?


William Warren Allmand: 1. While signs have not always been of a standard format, as far as is known, no buildings housing offices to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have had signs altered to read "Police" in those cases where the signs formerly read "R.C.M.P." However, twenty-six signs containing the crest of the R.C.M. Police and the word "Police" were installed on operational buildings replacing signs which contained the crest of the Force and the words Royal Canadian Mounted Police and/or Gendarmerie Royale du Canada.
2.	The alterations referred to in Part 1 were discontinued on April 28, 1972.
3.	No.
4.	A new sign for display on R.C.M. Police operational buildings is presently in the developmental stage and upon being approved will be installed on all such buildings.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the program to Enhance Productivity (PEP), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: 1. The amounts of money committed and paid to corporations under PEP during the fiscal years
1968-69 to date are as follows:
25789-2J

Order Paper Questions
Company Name
Canoe Cove Marina	
Canadian Bronze Co. Ltd	
I.E.C. Holden Ltd	
Kay Silver Inc.		
Progress Brand Clothes Inc	
S.	Stall & Sons Ltd	
Jacob Crowley Mfg. Ltd	
Lancer of Canada Ltd-	
Aird Industries Ltd	
Canadian Lady-Canadelle Inc....
Starr-Hollywood Ltd	
Gregory Sanders Inc	
St. George Shoe Co	
Twentieth Century Headwear	
Standard Knitting Co. Ltd	
Mid-West Garments Ltd	
Panther Pant	
Merit Clothing Co. Ltd	
Park Leather Ltd	
Don Ivan Associates Ltd	
Marbrooke Knitting Corp	
Coppley, Noyes & Randall Ltd-
Acme Garment Co. Ltd	
Earl Shibou Jeans Ltd	
Aljac Sportswear Ltd	
Kaplan's Mfg. Co. Ltd	
Bonwitt Mfg. Ltd	
Lucien Bougie Inc	
Grenico Inc	
Bay Mills Ltd	
Canadian Lady-Canadelle Inc....
The Miner Co. Ltd	
Great Things Mfg. Co. Ltd	
Knit-Rite Mills Ltd	
White Ram Knitting Co. Ltd	
Monarch Wear of Canada Ltd	
Linda Originals	
Dorothy Dean (Canada) Ltd	
Baby Bear Shoe	 * * -
Chaussures Girard Inc	
Collins & Aikman Ltd	
Outdoor Outfits Ltd	
Boutique Bagatelle Inc	
Grand-Mere Shoe Co. Ltd	
Milton Wallace Co. Ltd	
Northern Pigment (1970) Ltd....
Westport Chemicals	
Buttons & Ornaments Ltd	
G.S.W. Ltd.-Ltfe	
Electrical Mfg. Co. Ltd	
Entreprise Foundry Co. Ltd	
Western Research & Development
Phillips Cables Ltd	
QSP Ltd	
Welmet Industries Ltd	
Bibby Foundry Ltd	* [DOT] * [DOT]
Supreme Precision Castings Ltd...
Anthes Western Ltd	
Greening Donald Ltd	
Tree Island Steel Co. Ltd	
Robert Mitchell Co. Ltd	
Lake Ontario Cement Ltd	
Magog Foundry Ltd	
Delamere & Williams Co. Ltd....
Black & Decker Mfg. Co. Ltd....
C. E. MacPherson (1968) Ltd....
Ebco Industries Ltd	
Guelph Engineering Ltd	
Dominion Glass Co	
Dominion Forge Co. Ltd	
Dominion Auto Accessories Ltd...
Blue Giant Equip, of Canada....
B.C. Tree Fruits Ltd	
Bowes Co. Ltd	

Program to Enhance Productivity
Commitment ($)	Payment ($)
18,600.00	(71/72)	(71/72) 6,304.25	(72/73) 10,830.5012,265.00	(72/73)	9,427.107.530.00 5.100.00	(72/73) (71/72)	1,125.00	3,750.005,600.00	(71/72)	5,600.00	11,080.00	(71/72)	11,080.00	3,620.00	(71/72)	2,620.00	13,999.0414,020.00	(72/73)	19,773.93	22,800.00	(71/72)	14,452.1647,045.00	(71/72)	25,564.99	2,850.00	(71/72)	2,850.005,175.00	(72/73)	6,520.26	5,175.007,150.00	(71/72)	3,327.504,640.00	(71/72)	3,920.00	(71/72)	3,823.008,275.00	(71/72)	7,923.155,470.00	(71/72)	4,535.967,988.00	(71/72)	7,988.002,195.00	(71/72)	2,195.004,038.00	(71/72)	3,649.753,082.00	(71/72)	3,082.0017,683.00	(71/72)	13,181.653,495.00	(71/72)	3,495.005.300.00 6.930.00	(71/72) (71/72)	6,930.003,170.00	(71/72)	2,900.892,245.00	(72/73)	2,101.567.450.00 5.040.00	(71/72) (72/73)	5,040.003,126.00	(72/73)	3,057.5215,250.00 3.750.00 9.340.00	(72/73) (72/73) (72/73)	9,340.004.373.00 5.225.00	(72/73) (72/73)	5,225.008.445.00 2.267.00	(72/73) (72/73)	2,164.003.950.00 6.690.00 6.281.00 12.250.00 4.845.00 3.796.00 8.581.00 3.925.00 34.750.00	(72/73) (72/72) (72/73) (72/73) (72/73) (72/73) (72/73) (72/73) (71/72)	31,275.00	637.132,030.00	(72/73)	5,060.00	(72/73)	4,188.5050,000.00	(72/73)	40,794.0028,000.00	(72/73)	14,843.3812,950.00	(72/73)	10,469.4725,400.00	(72/73)	16,802.4950,000.00	(72/73)	19,456.28	11,458.0028,500.00	(71/73)	4,801.649,950.00	(71/72)	3,375.60	6,029.7021,560.00	(71/72)	7,887.88	4,342.2616,770.00	(71/72)	3,795.84	8,929.5050,000.00	(71/72)	30,066.9124,243.00	(72/73)	9,237.3527,500.00	(72/73)	7,117.3616,875.00	(72/73)	6,790.8850,000.00	(72/73)	6,326.809,980.00	(72/73)	11,450.00	1,340.0011,450.00	(71/72)	1,583.9720,500.00	(71/72)	18,527.53	5,574.00 20,302.50	(71/72) (71/72)	11,634.7924.750.00 50,000.00 22.290.00	(72/73) (72/73) (71/72)	564.00	1,433.1531,300.00	(72/73)	12,944.5213,325.00	(72/73)	12,600.00	2,325.7412,600.00	(71/72)	11,700.00	(71/72)	11,084.22	
February 12, 1973

Company Name
Program to Enhance Productivity
Commitment (t)
Order Paper Questions Payment ($)
Cape Bald Packers Ltd	
F. G. Bradley Co. Ltd	
Ganong Bros. Ltd	
Quebec North Shore Paper Co	
Wm Puddy Beef Ltd	
H.	B. Nickerson & Sons Ltd	
Dairy Producers Co-Operative	
Chun King Corp. of Canada Ltd	
Bonnex Inc	
Desmarais & Frere Ltd	
Victoriaville Furniture Ltd	
Baribeau Industries Inc	
Otis Pant Mfg. Ltd	
R. B. Hayhoe Foods Ltd	
2.	The objective of the Program to Enhance Productivity, known as PEP, is to induce improved productivity in manufacturing and processing industries in Canada by means of contributions to encourage companies to undertake intensive studies of significant and imaginative efficiency-improvement projects.
3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Building Equipment, Accessories and Material Program (BEAM), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Alastair William Gillespie: 1. No corporation has received a grant under the Building Equipment Accessories and Material Program (B.E.A.M.) in any of the fiscal years, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date.
2. The over-all objective of the BEAM program is to increase productivity and efficiency in the manufacture and use of building equipment, accessories and materials. Specific objectives: Establishment of a comprehensive National Construction Information System to provide the
		(71/72)	(72/73)
2,725.00	(71/72)	1,484.29	23,245.00	(71/72)	3,978.20	19,266.809,475.00	(71/72)	6,903.92	2,571.085,100.00	(72/73)	10,187.00	(72/73)	28,650.00	(72/73)	3,445.0026,775.00	(72/73)	10,751.2231,489.00	(72/73)	32,800.00	(71/72)	16,137.85	4,844.5521,010.00	(71/72)	16,382.30	4,627.7041,500.00	(72/73)	17,500.00	(72/73)	2,636.00	(72/73)	12,350.00	(72/73)	
industry with a means for storing, retrieving and disseminating information vital to the effective conduct of its business. Encouragement of modular dimensional standardization and co-ordination. Encouragement of accelerated industrialization of the building process through an understanding and application of the systems approach to building concept. Development and expansion of export markets for Canadian buildings, building components and expertise. Promotion of nationwide acceptance and use of the National Building Code, more adequate standards and improved means of assessing new products and systems. Encouragement of building design excellence through awards programs, research, development and innovation.
3. The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Industrial Design Assistance Program (IDAP), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Alastair William Gillespie: 1. The amounts of money committed and paid to corporations under IDAP during the fiscal years 1968-69 to date are as follows:
Industrial Design Assistance Program
Company Name	Commitment ($)	Payment ($)(70/71)	(71/72)	(72/73)Performance Sailcraft Inc	
20,430.00International Hydrodynamics Co. Ltd... .	6,000.00Sunspot Plastics Inc	
8,100.00Atlantic Bridge Co. Ltd	
48,160.00Samson Marine Design Ltd	
14,510.00Wesgar Industries Ltd	
22,780.00Crystaplex Plastics Ltd	
4,149.00Cooper Canada Ltd	
23,343.50Canadian Coleman Co. Ltd	
14,240.00Electrohome Ltd	
33,500.00Venus Electric Ltd	
4,931.00Wilson Lighting Ltd	
21,000.00(71/72)	10,033.00	7,815.00(71/72)	4,539.22	1,392.12(71/72)	6,531.75	1,563.25(71/72)	7,883.24	24,386.48(71/72)	5,124.73	1,043.17(71/72)	6,743.01	13,758.99(71/72)	1,864.00	(72/73)	17,343.89(72/73)	(70/71)	6,951.59	20,523.39	(71/72)	3,820.18	408.14(71/72)	8,606.29	4,407.66
Order Paper Questions
Industrial Design Assistance Program
Company Name	Commitment ($)	Payment ($)	(70/71)	(71/72)	(72/73)Picker X-Ray Mfg. Ltd	52,700.00	(71/72)	47,430.00	5,270.00Canadian Chromalox Co	5,000.00	(71/72)	2,601.54	1,581.34Westinghouse Canada Ltd	11,677.00	(71/72)	2,673.00	7,596.35GSW Ltd	48,475.00	(72/73)	6,261.47Superior Electric Ltd	15,000.00	(72/73)	465.50Ferranti Packard Ltd	55,300.00	(72/73)	5,827.73Stuc-Art Inc	22,025.00	(70/71)	2,800.00	16,900.00	Westeel-Rosco Ltd	45,000.00	(71/72)	15,715.47	8,115.51Tweed Steel Works Eastern Ltd	8,790.00	(71/72)	1,498.16	4,497.70Webster Mfg. (London) Ltd	12,500.00	(70/71)	6,884.58	Air Guard Control of Canada Ltd	9,453.00	(70/71)	4,332.50	4,159.00	943.50Sanitation Equipment Ltd	15,200.00	(71/72)	13,652.53	[DOT]1,547.47Merco International Ltd	10,980.00	(71/72)	7,109.32	Crane Canada Ltd	34,300.00	(71/72)	13,131.29	13,187.46Emco Ltd	26,858.00	(71/72)	20,671.96	6,186.04Guy Chart Tools Ltd	22,500.00	(71/72)	11,321.91	3,884.55Egress Ltd	8,295.00	(71/72)	6,794.00	1,501.00Arlyn Industries	10,750.00	(72/73)	8,187.56Wico Canada Ltd	16,800.00	(72/73)	10,050.00Blythe T. Rogers & Ass. Ltd	17,110.00	(72/73)	7,817.47Neeco Industries Ltd	17,888.00	(72/73)	9,298.27Parkland Plastics Ltd	5,075.00	(70/71)	4,567.50	Triple E Motor Homes Ltd	18,000.00	(71/72)	3,834.63	4,669.42Wear Check International Ltd	14,250.00	(71/72)	12,300.00	Multiscreen Corp. Ltd	37,650.00	(72/73)	Safetour Inc	24,200.00	(71/72)	7,475.00	9,900.00North way Snowmobiles Ltd	49,878.00	(71/72)	17,610.94	18,956.74Hayes Dana Ltd	25,775.00	(72/73)	A.T.M. Industries Ltd	21,532.00	(72/73)	9,089.85Biltrite Furniture Mfg. Ltd	38,390.00	(70/71)	1,060.00	Canadian Seating Co. Ltd	4,000.00	(70/71)	4,000.00	Kermil Co. Ltd	8,975.00	(70/71)	1,700.00	1,797.50	Electrohome Ltd	36,331.00	(70/71)	21,171.93	Steel Equipment-Div. of Eddy Match. . .	26,885.00	(70/71)	19,715.81	1,292.80W. R. Breen Ltd	15,968.00	(72/73)	Elite Interiors Ltd	11,210.00	(71/72)	11,210.00	Dominion Metalware Industries Ltd	50,000.00	(71/72)	13,609.66	1,537.51Precision Wood Mfg. Ltd	25,000.00	(72/73)	13,315.00Art Laboratory Furniture Ltd	50,000.00	(71/72)	22,615.50	11,700.50Cdn. Office & School Furniture Ltd	17,850.00	(71/72)	11,625.67	4,176.39Metal Craft (1970) Ltd	11,472.00	(72/73)	Index Card Co. Ltd	12,000.00	(71/72)	Plydesigns Ltd	20,700.00	(71/72)	6,505.00	5,057.50Innovative Metal Inc	9,750.00	(72/73)	2,125.00Les Meubles Carriers	9,500.00	(72/73)	Decor Wood Specialties Ltd	10,550.00	(72/73)	8,955.70Pierre Legault Inc	41,000.00	(72/73)	2.	The IDAP objectives are: improve the quality of Canadian product design, thereby advancing Canadian industry and expanding its sales; create an environment in Canada which will attract and retain industrial design talent.3.	The program is under continuous evaluation and review.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Emergency Gold-Mining Assistance Act (EGMA), in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the amounts of money committed and paid?
2.	What are the objectives of the program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. In accordance with the act, gold mining companies receive assistance on a designated, i.e. calendar year, basis. The amounts paid in the years 1968
to 1971 inclusive are shown in the report on the administration of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972, which was tabled on January 4, 1973. The Canadian gold mines did not sell any of their 1972 gold production to the Royal Canadian Mint and thus no assistance was payable for the calendar year 1972.
2.	The objective of the program is to provide financial assistance to long-established marginal gold mines. By enabling gold mines to extend their productive life, the assistance helps communities dependent on gold mining to adjust gradually to diminishing economic support.
3.	A comprehensive evaluative study was completed in 1970 prior to the renewal of the act at that time. This study was extended in 1972 for purposes of renewal of the act and is referred to in the annual report just tabled. The internal studies are confidential.


Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received grants under the Employment Support Program (ESP) in each of


the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 to date, and what were the amounts in each case?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?


Alastair William Gillespie: 1. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, this information is not available.
2.	To support employment in Canada by mitigating the disruptive effect on Canadian industry of the imposition of foreign import surtaxes or other actions of like effect.
3.	No.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	How many thefts of postal bags have been reported in 1970-71 and since the beginning of 1972 (a) in the Province of Quebec (b) in Canada?
2.	How many refunds have been made and what was the average amount refunded?
3.	How long did the inquiries on these thefts average?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. (a) Quebec, (b) Canada.
Quebec	Ontario	Western	Atlantic1970	498	122	0	11971	357	175	1	11972	270	239	13	1
Order Paper Questions
4.	How much is the average cost of training one air traffic controller?


Jean Marchand: 1. 1970, ten; 1971, six; 1972, three.
2.	1970, six; 1971, three; 1972, nil.
3.	Nine.
4.	$11,400-to train to Level 1, licensed Air Traffic Controller.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	What was the annual total of tax on tobacco, cigars and cigarettes obtained by the government each year 1962 to 1972 inclusive?
2.	What amount was allocated annually toward the problems of the harmful effects of usage of tobacco in all forms from 1962 to 1972?
Mr. ]ohn M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council): I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and National Health and Welfare as follows. 1. The following figures reflect the total revenue collected by way of Excise Tax and Excise Duty on tobacco, cigars and cigarettes for the fiscal years 196162 through to 1971-72. However, the figures do not include sales tax revenue imposed by the Excise Tax Act, such revenue being recorded in one account with no distinction as to sources.
2. For the most part post office records of indemnities paid do not differentiate between loss or damage in the mails and loss by theft. Statements submitted by postal districts on a monthly basis reveal the following expenditures. Of the figures shown, 4.46 per cent represent international claims and 1.05 per cent of money paid international claims.
Total
Indemnities Paid
1970	720,262.65
1971	932,522.36
1972	738,111.74
No.	Average
of Claims	Amount
22,919	31.42
26,033	35.82
24,080	30.65
Fiscal year	Excise tax	Excise duty	Total$	$	t1961-	62	207,550,499.001962-	63	217,807,695.001963-	64	226,938,710.001964-	65	218,343,945.001965-	66	238,080,357.001966-	67	251,434,853.001967-	68	266,686,510.001968-	69	304,176,479.001969-	70	295,845,229.001970-	71	319,413,605.001971-	72	330,120,737.00
160,582,654.64
166,607,152.56
165,640,936.05
177,167,726.19
187.066.748.55
196.432.489.55 194,580,906.93 196,646,181.92 193,840,437.23 212,173,674.18 221,385,069.35
368,133,153.64
384,414,847.56
392,579,646.05
395,511,671.19
425.147.105.55
447.867.342.55 461,267,416.93 500,822,660.92 489,685,666.23 531,587,279.18 551,505,806.35
Total
4,948,522,596.15
3. The length of time spent on enquiries raised in this part of the inquiry varies from hours to weeks to months and this type of statistics would be meaningless.
2. The amounts expended annually on the problems arising from the usage of tobacco are as follows:


Mr. Gleave: 1.	How many applicants were accepted for training as air traffic controllers by the Department of Transport in the Saskatoon district during the calendar years 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many completed the course of training and received certificates or diplomas?
3.	How many of those who completed the course and received diplomas are now employed by the Department of Transport as air traffic controllers?
Fiscal year
Expenditure
July 1963-1964.
1964-	1965.
1965-	1966.
1966-	1967
1967-	1968
1968-	1969
1969-	1970
1970-	1971
1971-	1972.
*
37,281.50
126,542.59
129,770.71
161,843.46
200,281.07
239.649.00
260.436.00
163.619.00
381.271.00

February 12, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Holmes: What action, if any, has the government taken to protect the farmland and property from the high water levels and impending flood conditions in (a) Dover township (b) Chatham township (c) Wallaceburg, Ontario?
Hon. )ean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works): None. The policy of the Department of Public Works concerning shoreline erosion is that the government will contribute to the cost of shoreline protection in cases where erosion is directly attributable to commercial navigation or the presence of a federally owned structure. The department has in the past advised property owners of the types of engineering structures which could be used to advantage in their particular case but each case must be considered separately and on its own merit. Although some regulation of levels and flows is carried out on Lake Superior and Lake Ontario under joint action by the International Joint Commission, the general water level condition of the Great Lakes and in particular lakes Huron, St. Clair and Erie, are considered to be natural. Remedial measures for flood situations are a provincial responsibility and the federal government would only become involved in cooperation with the province in the event of emergency or disaster situations.


Mr. Holmes: What action, if any, has the government taken to protect the farmland and property from the high water levels and impending flood conditions at Erieau and Erie Beach, Ontario?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: None. The policy of the Department of Public Works concerning shoreline erosion is that the government will contribute to the cost of shoieline protection in cases where erosion is directly attributable to commercial navigation or the presence of a federally owned structure. The department has in the past advised property owners of the types of engineering structures which could be used to advantage in their particular case but each case must be considered separately and on its own merit. Although some regulation of levels and flows is carried out on Lake Superior and Lake Ontario under joint action by the International Joint Commission, the general water level condition of the Great Lakes and in particular lakes Huron, St. Clair and Erie, are considered to be natural. Remedial measures tor flood situations are a provincial responsibility and the federal government would only become involved in cooperation with the province in the event of emergency or disaster situations.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada import any snowmobiles in 1971 and 1972 and, if so, from what countries and what quantity was imported from each country?
IMr. Reid.]


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics on imports of snowmobiles and snowmobile parts are provided in the attached table. Figures are not compiled separately on the import of snowmobiles only. For this reason, and also due to lack of complete documentation at the time of import it is not always possible to identify the number of complete units imported. Figures are not yet available for November and December of 1972.
Imports of Snowmobiles & Parts1 1971
Country	Quantity	Value ($)
United Kingdom		183,000
Austria		1,901,000
Belgium-Luxemb.		21,000
France		5,000
Germany West		356,000
Italy		81,000
Switzerland		3,000
Japan	6,969	5,523,000United States	36,542	34,945,000TOTAL	43,511	43,018,0001972 (January to October)	Country	Quantity	Value ($)United Kingdom	75,000Austria	1,574,000Belgium-Luxemb.	3,000Finland	111	90,000Germany West	142,000Italy	1	17,000Sweden	8,000Switzerland	136,000Japan	9,125	7,126,000Mexico	2,000United States	34,401	38,019,000TOTAL	43,638	Quantity not always	available.	Value includes
units and parts.


Mr. Allard: Have the funds earmarked for the works carried out to the dock at Point au Pere Harbour in the constituency of Rimouski, Quebec, been exhausted and, if not, what is the remaining amount and what does the government intend to do with it?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: the funds allocated for the dock at Point au Pere, $10,000 has already been disbursed for repairs. During the present winter it is planned to disburse the remainder to repair the lighting system on the wharf.
February 12, 1973


Mr. Allard: What was the estimated cost of the contract awarded for the construction of the air terminal at Mont-Joli, Quebec, and what was the final cost of construction?


Jean Marchand: The
estimated cost of the contract awarded to Pisapia Construction Inc. of Montreal, P.Q., for the construction of an air terminal and operations building at Mont-Joli Airport, Quebec, was $650,000; the contract was awarded in the amount of $575,290.75; and the final cost of the work was $620,00.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): Is the study of the wharf problem relative to the ferry at l'lle-aux-Coudres complete and, if so, on what date have the repairs or reconstruction works been initiated to allow boats to anchor overnight on the island's shore to ensure emergency service?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Studies are being carried out jointly with the province of Quebec to reach an equitable solution. Until the studies are complete and a decision taken, it is not planned to carry out any major construction work.


Mr. Caouette (Charlevoix): Is the study on land erosion at Ste. Anne de Portneuf completed and, if so, on what date was the construction of a retaining wall initiated?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The
study has been completed. It shows that erosion is due to natural causes and therefore not a federal responsibility.


Mr. Andre: Did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, during 1972, hire the firm of Arthur D. Little to do a study connected with frontier petroleum resources and, if so (a) what was the amount of the contract (b) what other firms were considered (c) what was the basis upon which Arthur D. Little was accepted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes. (a) $9,000 maximum plus $3,000 expenses maximum; (b) Consideration was given to several other firms but Arthur D. Little of Canada Limited only was selected to make a proposal; (c) The contract was given to Arthur D. Little of Canada Limited because the firm's international experience provided the necessary background for the economic concepts needed in the early stages of the oil and gas resource appraisal program. This program is now being conducted by the federal government on a continuing basis.
Order Paper Questions CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What buildings have been (a) erected (b) dismantled at the Charlottetown Airport since January 1, 1970?
2.	In each case, what tenders were submitted and what was the dollar figure?
3.	In each case, who was the successful tenderer?
4.	What is intended for the currently existing hangar on this Airport?
5.	Since June 1970, has any property been acquired for expansion of the Charlottetown Airport and, if so, how much?
6.	When is it intended to provide a new or enlarged terminal building at this Airport?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
Buildings erected, none. However, an extension to the present air terminal building was completed in 1971. (b) Buildings dismantled: (1) Old maintenance garage (2) Hangar No. 1 (3) Two storage buildings designated as buildings T4 and T7.
2 and 3. (a) Extension to terminal building Three tenders received as follows: (1) Williams, Murphy and MacLeod Ltd. $46,187 Successful tenderer; (2) Bagnalls Mills, $46,900; (3) Square-K Construction Co. Ltd., $52,414; (b) Dismantling: (1) Old maintenance garage-Three tenders received as follows: Lloyd Cudmore, $3,000 Successful tenderer; Albert Thomas, $5,000; Tom Claybourne, $5,100; (2) Hangar No. 1. Crown Assets Disposal Corporation sold this hangar to the City of Charlottetown on October 26, 1970 for the sum of $5,000; (3) Two Storage Buildings-T4 and T7; Sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation; Two tenders received as follows: Island Auto Supplies T4; $801, Successful tenderer; T7, $201, Successful tenderer; Borden Ford, T4, $210; T7, $25.
4.	Part of the existing hangar is presently used as the airfield maintenance garage and fire hall by the Ministry of Transport Airports Branch. Remainder of hangar is rented to Roberts Flying Club for aviation purposes.
5.	The McRae property has been acquired. Approximately forty acres.
6.	A new Air Terminal Building and related works is programmed for start of construction in the fiscal year 1978-79.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ever been asked by any employee of the government or by any member of the government for information about any individuals serving as Members of Parliament since April 20, 1968 and, if so (a) who made such requests (b) who were the individuals on whom the information was requested?


William Warren Allmand: The R.C.M. Police is not asked by any employee or member of the government for information about individuals serving as Members of Parliament for any reason that would not apply, in similar circumstances, to any Canadian citizen. To reveal the details of any request that might have been made would be contrary to the public interest and a violation of the individual's right to privacy.

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Atkey: Has the government exercised its option to purchase for $9.7 million the 14 acres of land from a New York company for the proposed park on the Toronto waterfront and, if so, under which departmental estimates were such funds committed?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, funds were committed from Department of Public Works estimates.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What islands or parts of islands are owned by the government in that area of the St. Lawrence River between Brockville, Ontario and Kingston, Ontario?
2.	Will the government be enlarging, improving or repairing any of the dock facilities during 1973 in that area and, if so, in what places?


Mr.   John. M. Reid@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I am informed by the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Public Works as follows: 1. St. Lawrence Islands National Park consists of a small mainland headquarters property at Mallorytown Landing, part of Grenadier Island, 16 islands, and about 80 rocky islets. The names of the 16 islands are: Cedar, Thwartway, Pitcairn, Gordon, Aubrey, Mulcaster, Mermaid, Georgina, Beau Rivage, Constance, McDonald, Squaw, Camelot, Adelaide, Endymion, Stovin.
2. During the 1973 season, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development plans to construct a wharf at Thwartway Island and 20 floating docks at various islands. Additional wharves will be replaced at several locations where needed. At present there are no plans for enlarging, improving or repairing any of the public dock facilities which come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works during 1973 in this area.


Mr. Woolliams: How many agreements are in effect between the necessary parties (the municipalities, the provinces, and the federal government) according to our constitution and by agreements that will result in the moving or relocation of railway tracks in any city in Canada in the year 1973?


Jean Marchand: None.


Mr. Woolliams: 1.	How many of the 233,000 housing units, that were started in 1972, were single dwelling units and how many were units in an apartment block?
2.	What was the cheapest, in dollars, single housing unit (three bedroom) that was financed by CMHC in the following cities of Canada (a) Vancouver (b) Calgary (c) Edmonton (d) Winnipeg (e) Toronto (f) Montreal?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1.
The distribution of housing starts in 1972, by type, was as follows:
House Type	Dwelling Units
Single-Detached	115,570
Semi-Detached and	Duplex	13,649
Row	16,980
Apartment and other	103,715
Total starts	249,914
2. The lowest cost, three-bedroom, single housing unit financed by CMHC in 1972 was: (a) $13,000 in Vancouver; (c) $17,470 in Edmonton; (d) $19,600 in Winnipeg; (f) $12,000 in Montreal; CMHC did not finance three-bedroom single housing units in (b) Calgary; (e) Toronto.


Mr. Hueglin: 1.	How many instances have there been where conditional or absolute discharges have been granted since this became law?
2.	What are the different offences for which they have been granted?
3.	How many instances have been granted for each of the offences listed in Part 2?


Alastair William Gillespie: Statistics Canada reports that the information requested is not yet available.


Mr. Beaudoin: What was the National Debt on April 30,1970?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Since the Public Accounts of Canada are based on a fiscal year ending on March 31 of each year, it is not possible to derive the National Debt at points in time other than March 31 of each year. When the National Debt is defined as the total of liabilities as recorded on the statement of assets and liabilities, the level at March 31, 1970, was $38,150 million. On the other hand, when the National Debt is defined as the excess of gross liabilities over net recorded assets (i.e., when it is defined to represent the cumulative budgetary deficit since Confederation), the level at March 31, 1970, was $16,943 million.


Mr. Gillies: 1.	What was the cost of the 50 kilowatt AM transmitters purchased by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from Continental Electronics, Dallas, Texas, in 1972?
2.	Was this contract tendered for and, if so, what were the names and bids of the other firms concerned?
3.	What is the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation towards Canadian content in the purchasing of wireless electrical equipment?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Including duty and federal sales tax, the bid received from Continental Electronics, Dallas, Texas, in

February 12, 1973

1972 for eight 50 kilowatt AM transmitters was considerably lower than that of the two other bidders. Because of its competitive nature, it has not been customary to request the CBC to reveal the purchase price of this type of equipment.
2.	The other bids were received from Gates Radio Co. (Canada), Pointe-Claire, P.Q., and R.C.A. Limited, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, P.Q.
3.	(a) All CBC specifications contain a paragraph encouraging the supplier to use as high a Canadian content as possible; (b) All quotations must specify the percentage of Canadian content in labour and materials; (c) All other things being equal, the policy of the CBC is to give preference to the equipment with the highest Canadian content.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	As of August 31, 1972, how many persons were on the staff of the Prime Minister's office?
2.	What was the total cost of the staff of the Prime Minister's office for the year 1972?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. 90 (on
staff); 2 (by contract).
2. $972,925.73 (for staff), $57,783.82 (for contracts).


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	What was the grant per student paid in 1972 by the government for distribution by provinces to universities and colleges?
2.	What was the grant per student actually received in 1972 by church related universities and colleges in Ontario?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. The
amounts transferred to the provinces under Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972 are not calculated on the basis of grants per student, but on the basis of operating expenditures for post-secondary education. It is estimated that in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 the amounts transferred to the provinces will total approximately $972 million. This total includes the value of the federal revenue relating to post-secondary education, related equalization and guarantee payments, and post-secondary education adjustment payments.
2. The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1972 does not require provincial governments to report to the federal government the distribution within the province of the transfers received under the act.


Mr. Orlikow: 1. Has the government established, then codified and distributed, any conflict-of-interest rules for Deputy Ministers and members of their families regarding (a) stock and bond holdings (b) real estate property (c) purchases of major items of a personal or domestic nature such as automobiles or services such as travel-/holiday accommodation and, if so (i) what has been the form of distribution of such promulgation (ii) has the government given any consideration to their publications?
Orders for Returns
2.	Is there any notable difference in the provisions of such rules from those who apply to Ministers of the Crown?
3.	If no such rules have been established for Deputy Ministers, has there been, is there, or is there likely to be, any consideration of such by the government?


John Mercer Reid: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Yes. As the Prime Minister stated during the oral question period on February 1, 1973, the ministers of each department have conveyed to their deputy ministers general directives regarding the question of conflict of interest but these directives have not been formalized or codified. It is the government's intention to formalize these general directives when the proposals relating to the conflict of interest question, referred to in the Speech from the Throne, are brought before parliament.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


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



DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT-PUBLIC RELATIONS EXPENDITURES

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



EXPENDITURES BY NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH

Mr. Nystrom: 1. What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the National Research Council on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?

Oral Questions
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, and what are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



ACCELERATED CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What were the names of corporations benefitting from the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance Program (ACCH) for pollution-control structures and equipment, in each of the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 to date and, in each case, what were the costs allowed under the program for rapid write-off?
2.	What are the objectives of the above program?
3.	Has the department conducted any evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the latest report?
Return tabled.



REQUEST FOR RCMP CENTENNIAL LICENCES

Mr. Forrest all: 1.	How many requests have been received, and from whom, for RCMP Centennial licences?
2.	How many have been approved and to whom were they issued?
3.	In each approved case, what are the royalty scales?
4.	Did the Royal Canadian Mint seek a licence and, if not, for what reason?
5.	For what reason were licences not issued in the same manner as they were for our National Centennial year?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce a question arising from a statement attributed to the chairman of President Nixon's council of economic advisers that the United States government is seriously considering the imposition of a surcharge to urge or at least have the effect of compelling or bringing its trading partners to the point of adjusting their monetary and trading policies to relieve the United States deficit. I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of this statement attributed to the chairman of the President's economic advisory council, he has had any contact with the United States government in this regard?
[Mr. Nystrom.J


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the newspaper reports quoting the chairman. Our officials have, of course, been in contact with United States officials over a period of time and certainly very recently as well.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I assume what the minister is saying is that he has not been in contact with the United States government as a result of this statement of the chairman of the President's council of economic advisers. What is the position of the government in respect of the difficulties relating to the United States dollar and the possibility of surcharges being imposed in light of the statement to which I referred? Is it the position of the government of Canada that Canada will.make a special approach to the United States with regard to this potential difficulty for Canada, or does Canada intend to rely upon a multilateral approach in association with the countries of western Europe, Japan and other countries that will be concerned?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that Canada's position will be placed strongly and clearly to the United States authorities. It has been made strongly and clearly over the months and, indeed, recently, and I am sure it will continue to be so. As far as the solution of the difficulties the United States faces at the present time is concerned, I very much hope it will be a multilateral solution rather than a series of bilaterals.


An hon. Member:: Don't be so formal.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. I am sure the minister will agree that the recent difficulties are what the chairman of the President's economic council referred to. Does the minister propose to act on behalf of the government of Canada in putting forward and claiming a special position for Canada in relation to United States trade in light of consideration by the United States of the imposition of surcharges, or does the government of Canada propose to let nature take its course in the United States and then formulate domestic policies designed to relieve Canadian industries that might be affected, as the policy followed apparently was in the imposition of a surcharge in August, 1971?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have made clear to the United States authorities that Canada is not contributing to the deficit on current account that the United States is experiencing. In fact, we assist in respect of that deficit in that we as a nation have helped to reduce the U.S. deficit position on current account. Indeed, like the United States, we are in a deficit position on current account with the rest of the trading world.


BANK PROFITS FROM INTERNATIONAL MONETARY DEALINGS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. David Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask one or two questions in the same area. May I first address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of reports by the chartered banks of Canada showing that they have made considerable profits from international monetary dealings, may I ask whether the minister has discussed
February 12, 1973

this situation with the chartered banks, or intends to do so, in order to make sure that they do not add to the international monetary crisis by profiteering from international monetary transactions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement agreed to by the banks last June in Winnipeg to limit the amount that they were willing to pay on certificates of deposit for short-term deposits up to 100 days and up to a year has had a beneficial effect so far on the Canadian dollar in the sense that it has discouraged the influx of short-term money in which the banks were participating prior to that time. Insofar as the Canadian chartered banks are concerned, I am satisfied that since that date they have not been contributing to an adverse position in the Canadian dollar scene.


CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN DISCUSSIONS ON REFORM OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEM
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a further question. Are Canadian authorities now participating in the further discussions for the reform of the international monetary system and to expedite that reform to produce more liquidity in the international monetary system so as to make it more difficult for vested and speculative interests to create an international monetary crisis every few months?


John Napier Turner: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. As the House knows, Canada is part of the group of 20 constituted last September in Washington, which includes developing and developed countries, seeking to achieve a new international monetary situation having as one of its prime features a new reserve currency. Whether it should be special drawing rights or an other is not yet determined. One of the items on the agenda which is now being considered by the deputies and which will be considered by the ministers, including myself, in March will be the question of not necessarily capital controls but the control of short-term money.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-POSITION OF NEGOTIATIONS ON SO-CALLED IRRITANTS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the developing difficulties and the threat of possible further protectionism by the United States administration, may I ask the minister whether negotiations are now continuing in respect of what his predecessor called trade irritants between Canada and the United States and at what stage those negotiations are now?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions by Canadian officials prior to the vote of confidence. I would expect that there will be further discussions between offi-
Oral Questions
cials of a similar exploratory and general review nature in the very near future.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise whether he has had any negotiations or communications with his opposite numbers in the Group of 20 or perhaps even the smaller group of ministers that is rumoured to be meeting this week in order to deal on a much more pragmatic and urgent basis than the longterm basis of next March with the present situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has been following very closely the situation in international monetary terms last week, over the weekend and again this morning. Although we have not been a party directly to the discussions in Bonn or Paris, we have through our representatives in Bonn, Paris, London, Basel and Washington kept abreast of the situation, and this morning I talked on the telephone with the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, George Shultz, who is keeping me informed of the current situation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House whether the Bank of Canada late last week participated or whether it is contemplated that the Bank of Canada will participate in the mopping up of excess United States dollars in order to maintain Canada's own position in the exchange market? What is contemplated precisely so far as Canada is concerned?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman, I and the Leader of the Opposition talked about reserves before. The position of Canada at the moment in the current situation is to maintain the floating of the Canadian dollar. The exchange fund will continue to intervene in order to preserve an orderly market.


CANADIAN DOLLAR EXCHANGE LEVEL-GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING UNITED STATES POLICY
Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Compton rising on a supplementary?


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I shall allow the hon. member to put his questions, after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby for a supplementary, and then we shall return to this subject later on.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Could he tell us whether Canada will be in a position to float its dollar or whether the decision in this respect will

Oral Questions
depend on the policy of the United States or of the international organization?


John Napier Turner: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite get the hon. member's question.


Henry P. Latulippe: I shall put my question once more, Mr. Speaker.
I am asking the minister whether Canada will be in a position to float its dollar or whether the decision will be left to United States or world organization policy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have our own economic policy and at present, as I told the hon. member for Edmonton West, we are continuing to float the Canadian dollar.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-POSITION OF DISCUSSIONS-INVESTMENT BY INDUSTRY IN CANADA
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the specific item of trade that has been of most concern to the United States in recent months has been the Canada-United States automotive agreement, is the minister in a position to tell us what has happened in terms of discussion of that agreement up to this point?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that particular so-called irritant was one of several that were discussed on an earlier occasion. There have not been any discussions with respect to that particular item in recent months.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the concern being expressed at present in Canada by both the parts sector of the industry and the assembly plant sector concerning investment decisions that are now being made in that industry, the concern being that all the investment now will take place on the American side of the border for future production, would the minister assure the House that he will obtain assurances from the Canadian side of that industry that we will get our fair share of future investment in the automotive industry during the next 12 months?


Alastair William Gillespie: Any discussion with respect to the benefits of the automotive pact or its reconsideration or revision must, in our view, provide significant benefits for Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a last supplementary question on this subject

and then I shall recognize the hon. member for Bellechasse.
[Mr. Latulippe.J


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Because it has been widely rumoured during the weekend that the United States dollar will be devalued because of that country's trading difficulties with West Germany and Japan in particular, does the government of Canada feel that this will affect adversely the Canadian dollar as opposed to the U.S. dollar?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman himself admits that it is still a rumour and therefore the question is hypothetical.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act.
In view of the importance of the second annual report of the official languages commissioner, does the minister intend to refer it to a house committee or will he take steps to implement the recommendations of the commissioner?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, it is on my prescribed reading list. It is being studied by the department, and I would suggest that all Members of Parliament would be interested in reading that document.


PROVISION BY RAILWAYS OF SUFFICIENT CARS FOR MOVEMENT-SYSTEM OF ALLOCATION
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Would the minister explain, or at least investigate, the problem in Saskatchewan where many producers have been unable to deliver quotas for months because many points are plugged while other points are less than half filled and there is still lots of room? Many of these quotas are election quotas that were imposed last September.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, individual situations will be looked into, including some brought to my attention by a telegram this morning. The Canadian Wheat Board is making every effort to assign

February 12, 1973

cars to the blocks where the congestion is most serious. Of course, a good deal of the allocation of cars within blocks is in the hands of the elevator companies rather than the Wheat Board under the rules of the block shipment system. Movement of grain is going along rapidly, but in certain places there will be some congestion until the fullest movement begins with the opening of navigation to the east.


Norval Alic Horner: Would the minister not agree that the problem seems to lie in the way boxcars are allocated to the blocks? For part of the year the allocation is based on space available in the elevators. If this allocation is fair for part of the year, why is it not fair for the whole year? Should boxcars not be allocated all year according to space available?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary is perhaps couched in argumentative language, but possibly the minister might be allowed to reply.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, certain producers certainly were concerned about the question of whether or not the Bracken formula was creating some of the congestion problems. We conducted a thorough investigation of the situation only to find that the amount of space available was fairly equal among the various elevator companies with the Bracken formula operating. Further, we asked the Canadian Wheat Board to try to ensure that some shifting of cars from non-congested blocks to congested blocks could occur at the request of the elevator companies. In other words, in assessing the situation we found that since congestion was evenly spread among the elevator companies it was not a matter of the sharing of the business which was creating the problem at individual points.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Since this is a chronic condition that has existed for some time, will he meet with the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board to get down to cases, find out what the problem is and arrive at a solution?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that I had just that kind of meeting with the Canadian Wheat Board, not just days ago but weeks ago, and got their agreement to attempt to move allocations of shipping orders to those areas where congestion was most serious. I should emphasize, as I have said before in the House, that it was the Wheat Board's decision to raise quotas rather more rapidly than I would have liked in the fall and early winter that gave rise to the possibility of congestion which will not be relieved until the very rapid movement that occurs in the spring period begins. I should point out that the movement at the present time is in fact more rapid than in any other year for the winter months, but obviously not as much grain moves while Thunder Bay is frozen so it will be April before we see very rapid movement again.
Oral Questions FINANCE


CONTINGENCY PLANS TO CONTROL INCREASE IN SHELTER COSTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that shelter prices rose .7 per cent last month and increased over the last 12 months by 6.4 per cent, would the minister advise the House whether the government has designed any contingency plans to abate shelter price increases?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the plans which the Prime Minister has been revealing to the House about the subject of price and wage controls are in general terms.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: In light of the fact that over-all fiscal and monetary policy has an immense effect on shelter costs, has the government any target for 1973 with respect to the limits to which shelter costs will be allowed to rise?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, already answered that last week so far as CMHC is concerned. If shelter were to be dealt with specifically, it might well fall under provincial jurisdiction.


CHARGES AGAINST ALBERTA FARMERS RESPECTING WHEAT AND RAPESEED QUOTAS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. He may answer it either as Minister of Justice or as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is he aware that in one community alone in the province of Alberta 40 farmers have been charged with violations of the Wheat Board regulations in connection with wheat quotas, and a number have been charged with violations of the rape-seed quotas? Further, is he prepared to hold the charges in reference to rapeseed in abeyance until the Supreme Court has ruled in that regard? Also, will he advise the House whether any of the farmers received notice prior to being charged under these regulations, which I may say are numerous?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that question was extremely broad in its scope, and I would have to ask the hon. member to give me an indication of the specific charges to which he is referring. Obviously such charges are laid from time to time by the Wheat Board in an attempt to enforce its act and regulations in order to ensure orderly marketing and fair delivery opportunities for farmers across the prairie region. I would want to look into the specific second part of the hon. member's question. I assume counsel for the defence and counsel for the Wheat Board have that well in mind.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The charges were laid in the Bentley-Red Deer district and I am advised by the farmers, although I have not had a chance to check this, that there

Oral Questions
may be 100 or more charges pending in Alberta. I would ask the minister to look into this in light of the fact that the regulations are numerous and the farmers have been experiencing marketing difficulties. Will he ascertain whether the charges have arisen because of marketing difficulties, and will he report to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: I will certainly look into it. I appreciate the specific information given by the hon. member. There certainly have been more infractions in the province of Alberta this year than in any other province, particularly in relation to rapeseed. I was not specifically aware of the situation in the Red Deer area and the charges there to which the hon. member refers, but I will be glad to look into the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the fact the minister says there have been more violations in Alberta than in any other province, would he or his department exercise the same kind of scrutiny and diligence with respect to breaches of the regulations in other provinces, particularly around Humboldt and Saskatoon? Further, does he find any conflict between being the Minister of Justice and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


USE OF HEROIN-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF MEMORANDUM AND DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO CABINET-ACTION TO MEET PROBLEM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the shocking revelation over the weekend that a memorandum and documents were presented to the cabinet last April warning that the use of heroin was increasing at a terrifying rate of perhaps 2,000 per cent over the past five years and that the cabinet should take immediate action, would the minister undertake to table those documents and memorandum in the House?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is very familiar with the rules in this regard and I do not foresee that those documents if they exist, will be tabled.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the revelation that the number of heroin addicts increased from about 500 to 10,000, can the minister say what action was taken, and can he also say what action the department is planning now to meet this grave social problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that at least the first part of his supplementary is not in order.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question deals with an opinion expressed in a newspaper: I have no comments to make. In answer to the second part, I shall

be pleased to explain in detail what the department has done in this field as soon as the occasion arises, either in the House or before the appropriate committee of the House.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since most disabled persons from Quebec are now receiving a reduced pension, could the minister tell us whether his advice has been sought by his Quebec counterpart in this connection and if he has given his agreement?


Marc Lalonde: I have not been consulted, Mr. Speaker.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Since during the last election campaign the provincial minister promised a pension raise, was the federal minister then consulted?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the fact the government acknowledged some time ago that Canadian military personnel in Viet Nam would be facing a dangerous situation, can he tell the House whether or not it is true that a married man, with children, who belongs to the Canadian Armed Forces, receives between $300 and $400 a month less than his counterpart in External Affairs, and can he justify this, if true?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question cannot be asked in those terms. A minister cannot be asked to confirm or deny a statement made outside the House or made in the press. The hon. member should ask the question directly.


Peter Reilly: I will ask the minister then whether it is true that a member of the armed forces who is married, with children, receives $300 to $400 less than his counterpart from the Department of External Affairs and how the minister can justify this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt that the hon. member has succeeded in getting around the procedural
February 12, 1973

difficulties of the first question. Perhaps he might have a chance later to try a second time to rephrase the question. I have the impression it would be somewhat difficult to make that question acceptable within the rules of the House. The hon. member might like to rephrase the question. I want to be fair to him.


Peter Reilly: Does the minister intend to bring into line the extra pay accorded to members of the armed forces serving in Viet Nam with the salary scale now paid to men in equivalent circumstances working for the Department of External Affairs?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have stated in the House that members of the armed forces in Viet Nam receive foreign service pay of $150 a month for single men and up to $180 a month for married men in addition to regular pay and allowances. There are some differences in the payments made to personnel of the Department of External Affairs but we are still on the 60-day basis and these arrangements have not yet been finalized.


Peter Reilly: Is any change in view in the circumstances of these military personnel which would bring their additional foreign service pay into line with that paid to External Affairs officials in the same circumstances?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be discussing this with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and with the government.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of his statement that he had a telephone conversation with the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States this morning. Is view of the fact it is obvious that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has not taken any special action with regard to this difficulty, may I ask whether the Minister of Finance discussed with the Secretary of the Treasury the question of any surtax that the United States might impose upon its trading partners and did the minister make any representations to him on this subject?
Hon. }ohn N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Treasury and I agreed that the purpose of the conversation was to keep Canada informed on American intentions and that for the moment the substance of the conversation should remain confidential.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


KINGSTON-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON DISTURBANCE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. As his department has had five months to study the report on the disturbance at Kingston penitentiary which occurred about two years ago, has the minister decided whether the report can now or will be made public? If so, when may we expect it? If not, will he inform us why?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we hope to make an announcement on that report soon. I might add that I have only been looking at it for about two months.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Can the minister advise the House whether the report has been referred to penitentiary officials at Kingston with recommendations for action on the commission's findings?


William Warren Allmand: Not explicitly, Mr. Speaker, although on some points the penitentiary officials have already taken action, but not as a result of the report.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the information placed on today's Hansard in response to my question No. 10 on the order paper that the credit balance in the supplementary retirement benefits account is growing by leaps and bounds, will the minister now reactivate consideration and discussion with respect to raising or removing the ceiling on the annual escalation of pensions of retired public servants and others who are in related categories?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the answer to which the hon. gentleman refers, but I have an idea that at the bottom of that answer is a note to the effect that the amounts in the account are those computed by the actuaries as being required to meet but no more, current and future obligations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister must be referring to some other document because there is no such footnote on this one. Perhaps he will look at the matter and consider my question.

Oral Questions


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs whether the government has made any decision with respect to the investigation of the role and powers of the National Capital Commission which was referred to and agreed to be necessary by the chairman of that commission and its general manager late last week?


Hon. Ron  Bastard@Minister of State for Urban Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the role of the National Capital Commission is determined by the National Capital Commission Act. Since I became minister a year ago I have said that it seemed to me it would be desirable, following the recommendations of the constitutional committee, to have a parliamentary committee examine the role and operations of the National Capital Commission. That was not possible in the last session of parliament and, although I would welcome discussion amongst the House leaders, I suspect it would not be possible this spring.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the minister's announcement of the Pickering airport decision almost two weeks ago, when he undertook to meet immediately with leaders of the various levels of government to set up an independent study, has he met with the Premier of Ontario and municipal government leaders to get the study under way and, if not, when does he intend to do so?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have not met the Premier of Ontario. I think that I will meet the Ontario minister responsible for transport and airports. We are now consulting at the senior official level in order to agree as to those who will be called to sit on the board that has been referred to.


Ronald George Atkey: If the study to which the minister has referred indicates massive public opposition to the airport and it is cancelled, as the minister apparently suggests is possible, what does the government intend to do with the 18,000 acres of land already expropriated?


Jean Marchand: I think I shall wait, Mr. Speaker, until we have the results of the board examination.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I join with him in appreciation of the fact that the exchange of prisoners of war with North Viet Nam is taking place. However, nothing has been said yet concerning the two Canadians. I would ask the minister whether he has any information with respect to their possible evacuation from North Viet Nam and return to Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the right hon. gentleman in welcoming the beginning of the movement of prisoners of war to their homelands. We have not yet been able to get definite information about the time of the release of Mr. Cayer and Mr. Oppel. We know they are safe and we know they are about to be released but we have not been able to get information as to the exact time of their release. We have made arrangements to transport them home, which I am sure would be the wish of all members of the House, and we have been in touch with their families on a daily basis.


John George Diefenbaker: With particular reference to the release of Mr. Oppel, I am informed that his family was told they would have to pay the cost of transportation. That is the instruction they got within the last couple of days. I suggest that such a niggardly policy would not be approved by the minister as Mr. Oppel was actually a prisoner of war as was the other man, and they should receive the same treatment as the prisoners of war.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reassure the right hon. gentleman that my instructions are that the public should pay the expense of the return of these two Canadians.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A moment ago I asked a question. I do not ask questions without foundation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The indication of the answer given by the minister was that I was mistaken. I have the letter here from the father of Mr. Oppel. It is dated the seventh of this month. I quote from the letter:
My son is alive and I hope will soon be home. Our External Department told us that the Americans may bring him as far as their base in the Philippines and then that the Canadians would take over but my son would have to pay his way.
He goes on to make some further observations which I would not want to read.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to reiterate what I said, that I gave instructions that the expenses were to be paid. Perhaps by the time he had this information, my instructions had not been conveyed.
February 12, 1973

I was not questioning the word of the right hon. gentleman.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and relates to a question I asked him on Friday, February 9, with regard to the advance booking charter rates. His answer then was to the effect that these rates had been published by the Canadian Transport Commission on February 1. In view of the fact there have been subsequent reports to the effect that Air Canada offices are informing travellers that these rates have not been set and that Canadian Pacific as well as Air Canada officials have stated that these rates have not been set, will the minister make a statement to this House to the effect that the rates have indeed been set and also cite these rates to avoid and obviate the very great confusion that now exists in the minds of the air travelling public?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian carriers filed applications with the board. If my memory is right, that was on January 16, and the commission gave its approval on February 1. They now have to enter into a contract with the charterer and come back before the commission before everything is settled. Since then, about 11 foreign carriers have made applications to the board and the board will probably make a decision very soon. Therefore you have the Canadian carriers for which the rates have been established and approved, and the foreign carriers for which the rates have not yet been approved.


John Paul Harney: Could the Minister of Transport clarify the situation further for the House in view of the fact that according to the regulations published earlier this year controlling advance booking charters there is a floor below which foreign carriers may not charge and that floor is clearly related to the prices or tariffs filed on behalf of Canadian carriers with the Canadian Transport Commission which, as far as I can understand, does not approve but simply receives applications for tariffs?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the commission has approved the contract. As far as the prices are concerned, I think they will be about the same as those in force last year. If the hon. member wants an example, Toronto to London last year was $235. Now it will be $240 or something like that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for one last supplementary, but before we reach the end of the question period the Chair is anxious to recognize some members in the back row who have been waiting for a chance to ask questions.
Oral Questions


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, considering that there is some "Marchandage" with relation to the prices charged by carriers, will the minister inform the House whether he has received a communication from the Consumers Association of Canada urging a thorough investigation of the costs involved in charter services offered by Canadian carriers to ensure that prices charged reflect those costs and do not allow excessive profits to carriers at the expense of the Canadian public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I said last week that, as minister, I had not received any representations, but I know that the Canadian Transport Commission did receive some representations.


ROYAL VISIT
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On January 19 I asked my first question in the House, at which time the Prime Minister answered by saying that a communique would be sent to Her Majesty the Queen requesting her to place Fort MacLeod on her itinerary. Has this been done and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the requests of Fort MacLeod and, indeed, Edmonton have been discussed by Premier Lougheed and myself. The hon. member's representations have been taken into account. The upshot is that the Palace feels it really would be impossible in the one short day that will be spent in Alberta in order to celebrate the centennial of the RCMP to meet every request for her presence in every part of that province. In discussion with the premier's office, the conclusion was reached that Calgary would be the best place for the Queen to assist in the celebration of the RCMP centennial. I am sure the Palace regrets that Her Majesty cannot spend more time out west, but the House will recall that the first decision was to celebrate the centennial in Ottawa. It was after my talks with Her Majesty in December that she agreed to spend one day in Saskatchewan and one in Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether a communique to Her Majesty did leave his office on January 19 or on any date until now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the exact dates of correspondence between my office and Buckingham Palace. If the hon. member is wondering whether his own request to me was communicated to Her Majesty, the answer is no, because the question of Fort MacLeod had already been discussed and a solution had been arrived at to the effect that it would not be possible or desirable to have the whole day which is allocated to Alberta spent in Fort MacLeod, and a choice had to be made.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


FAILURE OF JOHN CHARRON TO RETURN TO COLLINS BAY FOLLOWING RELEASE ON ONE-DAY PASS-RECONSIDERATION OF PAROLE POLICY
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General with reference to John Charron, a prisoner at the Collins Bay farm annex who, while serving six years for parole violation, armed robbery, attempted robbery and possession of a sawed-off shotgun, did not return Sunday night from a day long pass. What are the minister's department or other authorities doing to apprehend this prisoner?


Walter David Baker: Probably nothing.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, February 4, Mr. John Charron was granted a one-day pass to visit a couple. He was to leave at nine o'clock in the morning and return at eleven o'clock in the evening. The hon. member is correct; he did not return. Since that time the police have been informed and an information has been laid, but we have not been able to find him yet.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In light of this conduct by a person who already had a record of parole violation, is the minister willing to reconsider the policy of his department with regard to giving passes to this kind of person?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it was announced in the Speech from the Throne and I also answered questions in the House that we are reconsidering the entire question of parole and temporary absence.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. In view of the minister's repeated public statements outside and inside the House concerning the intention of his departmental officials and himself to bring about reform in the bail measures now available to prisoners, when is it his intention to make a clearcut definitive statement to the House with respect to the tightening up of these very loose measures now in effect?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I never made any mention about bail. However, with regard to parole and temporary absence I explained to the House that I received the task force report just before Christmas. It is a rather lengthy report. We are analysing the report now and I hope to have some information for the House in the near future.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister in his best "Whelanese" tell the House why he has never mentioned fruit or vegetables in all his speeches sent to my office or in the speech he made in the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts as to the acceptability of the hon. member's question. I think this would be an appropriate moment, on this happy note, to call orders of the day.
Is the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands rising on a point of order?


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would have done this during the question period had I been able to catch your eye. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome back to the House the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1972-73-MOTIONS FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTES 35a, 40a, 45a-DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
The House resumed, from Friday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury:
That vote 35a, in the amount of $850,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for income security and social assistance-Operating expenditures in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
That vote 40a, in the amount of $2,685,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for income security and social assistance-Contributions in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31,1973, be concurred in.
That vote 45a, in the amount of $1,000,000 of the Department of National Health and Welfare for fitness and amateur sport-Operating expenditures in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I was saying last Friday that we were experiencing a national economic lack of balance, that we were living gloomy days and had few solutions to offer. I was commenting on vote 45a in the amount of $1,000,000 for fitness and amateur sport.
Mr. Speaker, I am not against amateur sport but we must live before having a good time.
Many families in Canada are at grips with financial problems and yet they are also entitled to live. One practices sports when one can afford it and has time for it, but we can no longer afford to spend so much money to develop amateur sports and thus deprive families of what they need.
All hon. members should try to answer the following question: Why are so many older persons so deprived, why have 65 years of their working life of sacrifices and
February 12, 1973

devotion not enabled them to save enough money to enjoy a decent life and why are most of them compelled to depend only on public charity?
Is it not enough to convince us that we must condemn the present system which has kept for itself their property. Surely their dependents did not inherit these assets for all they have inherited is a lot of debts and mortgages.
Mr. Speaker, government debts now exceed our citizens' ability to pay. How logical it is that so many members of Parliament pretend to be experts! Do they not care to know why there is so much poverty, unemployment, so many debts and bankruptcies? Once more, I suggest that when we are at grips with such economic unbalance, amateur sports should be let aside.
Last Friday, when the House adjourned, I was saying that we should identify the most urgent needs, those which can give to the Canadian economy the appropriate boost to meet essential needs. I suggest that our efforts in the economic and social areas should be primarily based on family, for this is where basic needs are to be found. The family needs clothes, housing, furniture, schools, hospitals, drugstores, teachers, doctors, fuel, policemen, city councils, restaurants, cars, hotels and household help. Finally, one can say beyond a doubt that it is the greatest consumer, that it contributes most to the general trend of the economy. It is also the most forgotten in the minds of our leaders, the most heavily taxed. Generally, it has only one salary, that of the father, to provide food, clothing and shelter to one or several persons despite the fact that its salary is being eaten away by taxes of all sorts.
Families are without the necessary purchasing power and they are the ones which suffer most from the increase in the cost of living; they are the ones which are the hardest hit by economic imbalance and the nonsense in the present diabolical system.
Yet it is the family which is the foundation of society, which builds and maintains it. It has to carry the major part of the social and economic responsibilities, and we also rely on it to upgrade and continue the species.
Mr. Speaker, the prerogatives and rights of the family are being denied consideration; its existence is nearly being denied. You have to be young before you get old. Family allowances were set up in 1944-45. Their rate has remained the same while all other sectors of society have kept pace with the increase in the cost of living. Old age pensions followed an upward pattern but family allowances which stood at $6 to $8 in 1944-45 remain at the same level today while the cost of living increased by over 100 per cent.
I am not against increasing old age security pensions, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I support all increases. However, I am opposed to increases which are without positive effects, which lead to nothing, which only serve to increase the cost of living which is going up continuously.
Mr. Speaker, the question is whether it is worthwhile to increase family allowances and old age security pensions before other ways are explored for giving the economy the upsurge it needs.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, national production approximated to $12 billion in 1944. In 1973, it will amount to $114 billion of which $8 billion will be derived from personal income tax and $40 billion from corporate taxation.
On the other hand, family allowances still being down at only $6.00 and $8.00 in 1973, no wonder that we are witnessing an unprecedented decrease in own birth rate while w e should be having a greater family expansion. Coupled with this economic expansion, there is a decrease in the number of children. We are closing our eyes on these tragic events and we are looking for consumers abroad. This is the worst administrative mistake ever made by our governing bodies.
With such a national production, Canadians should enjoy renewed prosperity. And yet, all we have is unemployment, poverty and inflation which indicate that our off-centred national economy is still affecting the whole population.
Mr. Speaker, it is only by restoring an economic equilibrium between people, families and companies that poverty, unemployment and inflation will be eliminated.
Only the government is capable of quickly restoring and maintaining the economic stability which would rub out poverty, unemployment and inflation for the benefit of all Canadians provided that specific and efficient decisions are taken.
However qualified they may be, no civil servants, no university professors, no professional bodies, no trade unions, no federal or provincial economic councils, no religious groups, be they Roman Catholic or Protestant, no ethnic groups, whether English, French or whatever you like, no political parties, no party bagmen, no bank or company presidents or directors, are empowered to pass legislation for the Canadian Parliament. The power to vote is the exclusive privilege of the 264 members of Parliament, a privilege which they must exercise on behalf of 22 million Canadians.
It is therefore in 1973 that this problem should be solved by the government. If the constitution, monetary, economic and political systems enable the people of Canada to achieve a national production of $114 billion i.e. $5,000 per inhabitant or an average of $25,000 per family of five, these same institutions should also enable us to accomplish an equitable sharing among the 22 million citizens living in 6 million homes, residences or slums, throughout our country.
All hon. members, the 30 ministers, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and primarily the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), together with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) and the leaders of the three opposition parties are the only Canadians responsible for restoring national balance. But how should the government go about this? That is the great question.
I have before me, Mr. Speaker, the findings of the four major commissions of inquiry created over the past decade on banks, taxation, poverty and the status of women in Canada. There is no need for further study. Everything has all been said and studied; every recommendation has beem made. There is nothing left but legislating. We know exactly what the present situation is, we know the logical evolution of technology and we have an

February 12, 1973
Supply
inspiring outlook on immediate possibilities. In short, we have all the required powers to act in a positive way.
First of all let us think of children and teenagers. Let us at least grant $1 a day for children and $2 a day for teenagers. Let us enable this class of citizens to enjoy an annual guaranteed income so that they may contribute to an adequate purchasing power. This will maintain the economic equilibrium. In fact, this category of citizens should have priority over all others.
The hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) said in his speech that efforts should be made to establish income security programs which would attain objectives within the related interdependence of the tax system itself.
He also said that it is important to recognize that there are several aspects to the redistribution of income in Canada and that social security legislation must be envisaged in the overall system of tax legislation. He said at the same time that if Canada wants to attain its objectives in social security better ways to set up components must be found. Finally he said we must take into account the virtuality of a conflict between, on the one hand, the natural reluctance of Canadians in the face of the rising level of taxation and, on the other, the concern the governments should feel in the name of all Canadians to increase assistance to the underprivileged.
Nothing can be done without the necessary resources and we have not yet discovered a magic wand or an alchemy formula. So many complicated words to say that much is wanted but that the means are lacking. Still more time is required to explain that the Canadian taxes will have to be increased.
A substantial rise in old age security pensions has been promised, not only a symbolic increase. But there is never any mention of family allowances which are still at the 1944-45 level when that plan became effective.
The minister and the political parties have completely ignored family allowances in the list of the various appropriate programs worked out by the Canadians aware of their responsibility toward their fellow-citizens unable to work.
Mr. Speaker, why should we have one law for the elderly and another for the young? In the course of his life, each individual experiences a basic need for breathing, eating, sleeping and clothing. Therefore, why do the same hon. members vote pensions for the aged with an escalation clause related to the cost of living, and do they fail to follow the same course as concerns family allowances?
Why do the same hon. members vote themselves higher salaries up to $26,000 per annum, to take into account the cost of living, while, at the same time, refusing to do the same with respect to family allowances, to young people quite unable to earn a living?
The minister himself stated that wages generally do not take into account family responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I would therefore suggest that family allowances, under the legislation now in force, be increased for all children up to the age of 18 under the guaranteed income program.

Since 1944 Canadian production has increased by $102 billion, and none the less there is not enough money for Canadian children. There is money for everyone. Children suffer from hunger and cold and their parents are ashamed of such a situation.
If we find means to increase the cost of living, we must also find means to provide a decent living for Canadian families. Family allowance should have increased at the same pace as old age security benefits, as salaries of members of Parliament and senators, as should have kept pace with increases in all sectors of the economy. Family allowances alone have not gone up.
I am not against the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he strongly advocates that old age pensions be increased. However, I would ask him to be kind enough to support us, to remember the Canadian families because, at the present time, their needs are greater than those of the aged. The children ask the people of Canada to treat them at least as well as all the other institutions or sectors of our economy.
Mr. Speaker, we owe a lot to families. We owe them justice and some security. It is good to give the old some security but if we do not allow Canadians to renew our society through births, if we commit all possible errors and work against the family, the time will soon come when there will be neither young nor old people. There will be no need for old age pensions or family allowances because society will have disappeared.
Mr. Speaker, we must face up to our responsibilities and open our eyes and all together we should recognize the injustice that we have done to the family in opposition to the normal development of the Canadian people. At present, our legislation, all the restrictions and the economic worries are prompting parents not to have any more children.
This, Mr. Speaker, is where we stand; we are witnessing the near-complete disappearance of the Canadian or Christian civilization.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on the motion by Mr. Drury for concurrence in respect of Votes 35a, 40a and 45a of the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE 10a-DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury) moved:: That Vote 10a, in the amount of $292,263,037 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for development and utilization of manpower in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
February 12, 1973


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that if we put the remainder of the motions in respect of which there is notice of opposition all at once, and carry them all together, and then put the remainder of the unopposed items as a block, and carry those, this might hasten the procedure somewhat.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the fact we have this one before the House I might ask whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the understanding of the Chair that Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 9 be put to the House at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN VOTE la, DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE; VOTE 15a, L30d, DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION; VOTE 5a, TREASURY BOARD


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That Vote la, in the amount of $200,000 of the Department of Finance for Financial and Economic Policies-Program Expenditures in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
That Vote 15a, in the amount of $5,475,000 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for Immigration-Program Expenditures in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
That Vote L30a, in the amount of $454,000,000 of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for Unemployment Insurance Commission-Administration Program in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.
That Vote 5a, in the amount of $60,000,000 of the Treasury Board for Government Contingencies in supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury) moves:
That supplementary estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973, laid before the House January 8, 1973, except those Votes previously concurred in, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Supply
Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1973.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is agreement that the bill be read a second time now. May I ask if it has been printed, and can it be distributed?


Mr. Speaker:: My advice is that copies are available at this time, or will be available shortly. However, inquiries are being made to confirm this.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of the financial year ending 31st March, 1973, be read a second time and referred to the Committee of Supply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to oppose the motion but in order to make a few comments of a very non-partisan and noncontroversial nature in respect of the bill, particularly with regard to two aspects relating to unemployment, the winter works and LIP programs which were designed to reduce unemployment. Certainly, as I say, I do not propose to oppose the measures that are put forward so far as the winter works program is concerned. I have consistently maintained that in a country such as Canada there is a need for special programs relating to employment in winter in an effort to mitigate to some extent the amount of unemployment that ordinarily develops within Canada as a result of winter. Of course, the winter works program was originally inaugurated under the government of my friend, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I must say, in connection with the supplementary estimates on this item that the announcement of December, I believe it was or late in November, by the government that it would embark on a program of winter works did surprise me somewhat in view of the very harsh condemnation of a winter works program for Canada by this government over a period of at least some two or three years.
Second, I must comment that this announcement came extraordinarily late in order to be as effective as it might have been for this winter following a rather constant position taken by the government that it would not involve itself in any program this winter. So I can only conclude that the announcement of the program was the result of some kind of conversion and was really not induced by conviction. Third, in passing I must comment that, since it covers some three years, the method of introducing this program through the supplementary estimates seems to be a rather strange proceeding. Above all, however, I wish to emphasize as firmly as I can in this Chamber that the winter works program and the supplementary funds voted for the LIP programs are, of course, no substitute for an adequate level of employment in

Supply
Canada based on an annual rate and annual considerations. These programs are only supplementary to offset seasonal effects and seasonal unemployment, but in no way constitute a substitute for an adequate program for the development of employment opportunities in this country.
These items relating to the winter works program and supplementary amounts for LIP are here before us now because of the inadequacy of the budget of last May. They are here before us at this time because the budget of last May failed to generate enough growth in our economy and failed to encourage enough development of employment. I think most of us agree that in Canada most jobs are created in the private sector. Indeed, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) during his budget comments of last May emphasized this and emphasized that his efforts were directed toward increasing employment in the private sector through direct encouragement to certain types of industrial investment in Canada. Hence we had the proposed reductions in corporate taxation for manufacturing and processing operations as well as fast write-offs in respect of new equipment purchased. But we emphasized at that time that this was not an adequate stimulation of the economy and that these measures would not have the effect of generating the rate of growth the minister was talking about, even the 6 per cent or 61 per cent which in the circumstances would not have had any marked effect on the rate of employment or unemployment in this country.
We emphasized that this was a very inadequate proposal to place before this House of Commons at that time, if it was really designed or intended to generate the rate of growth required in order to cut down the terrible rate of unemployment that existed. There was some suggestion that the personal income tax cuts we were demanding prior to that time, at budget time and ever since, were inflationary. I do not think too many people would now argue that such is the case in the existing context of inflation. Indeed, the Economic Council of Canada in its recent report indicates that if personal income tax cuts are not introduced, in certain circumstances this might very well have an inflationary effect. This has been our argument. I do not wish to spend too much time on this aspect this afternoon, because in about a week's time we will have an opportunity for a general debate. I simply wish to make the point that these estimates are before us today. One may call them a band-aid or whatever may seem appropriate, but they are here because of the inadequacy of the budget which the Minister of Finance presented to this House last May.
It must be said that the budget that was adopted, despite our objection and despite the fact that we on this side of the House voted against it, constituted a drag on the economy through the summer, the fall and so far through the winter because it has generated a much higher degree of revenue for the government as a result of the tax schedules in the so-called tax reform bill passed in late 1971, which of course has a schedule of tax brackets much more productive in terms of revenue for the government as people move up the income scale than the old brackets. So, partly as a result of the new tax schedules adopted, and particularly because of the high rate of 
inflation we have had through 1972 since the budget, this government has been taking in money hand over fist.
There has been some suggestion by the Minister of Finance that these increased revenues are due to the rate of growth of the economy, but I point out that the economy has grown at a substantially slower rate than the Minister of Finance projected in his budget when he gave his projection of estimated revenue. The minister projected a growth of 6} per cent whereas it looks now like something in the order of 5 per cent or 5J per cent. The President of the Treasury Board suggests that that is not the case. However, it will be nearer 5 i per cent than 6i per cent. The Minister of Finance will fall one per cent beneath his forecast in respect of the growth in the gross national product.
So my point is, that the extra money that the government is taking in is not because the growth rates are exceeding the target of the government. In fact, the growth rates are well below the prediction of the government, well below the figure upon which it based its estimates of revenue at the time of the budget. I would point out also that the rate of growth in capital investment has been a disappointment. The budget measures presented last May have not generated a rapid growth in industrial investment. This reminds us again that we were, of course, right in emphasizing that people will not build bigger factories or more factories unless there is a demand for the products requiring enlarged factories, more machinery and more equipment. This is why we were pressing for measures to stimulate the economy and stimulate the demands for investment. So, we called for personal tax cuts.
I say that instead of this sort of behind-the-door operation that the government performed in December of last year by increasing grants for LIP and establishing a winter works program, we should really have had a minibudget late in November or early in December because if there was ever a time when the estimates and the planning of the budget for the year were completely out of whack it has been this year. We should have had a minibudget so that, among other things, the drag on the economy that the budget of May had created and was continuing to create could be dispelled immediately rather than having to wait for a measure in March to do this. No one has been able to find out for sure whether income taxes are to go up 3 per cent as of January 1. Despite the fact that the calculations of the Minister of Finance were completely wrong in May, despite the fact that it has been demonstrated for months that his budget was inappropriate, this government would not even say in November, December or January that the 3 per cent increase in personal income tax rates was not going to go into effect as of January 1 of this year.
We called for tax cuts on the basis of conditions as they existed in the fall of 1972 and relating to the current fiscal year. We said that a 3 per cent increase in personal income taxes should not come into effect on January 1, and we said that we required a 4 per cent cut in personal income taxes to offset the increase in the real rate of taxation which has come about as a result of inflation taking place.
I am addressing myself to the current fiscal year. I am

quite content to wait for a week or so before addressing myself to the next fiscal year and what tax cuts are appropriate with regard to that year. But we emphasized the importance of a 7 per cent cut for the latter half of 1972-73 to stimulate the economy and to do something about this terrible unemployment which, seasonally adjusted, stands at exactly the same rate in January of 1973 as it did in January of 1972, and is actually higher in February.
We also say that these measures which are before us do nothing to reform in any way our tax structure. When the budget was being considered, I urged the adoption of a reform measure to get the government out of the business of profiting from inflation. I put forward a very simple device which would, in effect, adjust the statutory exemptions, the statutory deductions and the tax brackets to correspond to the change in the purchasing power of the dollar each year. It is a very simple device, and I put forward the simplest mechanism that I thought I could devise. Somebody may be able to devise a simpler method, but it was clear at the time, and increasingly clear since, that my proposal would have preserved whatever equity there was in the tax structure for personal income taxation adopted in 1971. This simple measure would have prevented a drag on the economy from developing, one that has been so pronounced this year as a result of inflation moving people up into higher tax brackets and increasing everybody's rate of taxation, by leaving nominal rates of taxation alone. Of course, this would force any government to come to parliament for increases in taxation rather than allowing them to secure increased revenues in a sneaky way as a result of inflation working on the progressive tax structure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If this course had been adopted, we would not have this problem today of the budgetary measures being a drag on the economy and maintaining unemployment at high levels, problems which we are now considering in a piecemeal way as this bill goes through the House. I do not think the Minister of Finance understood what I was proposing to him at all. He poured scorn on it. I do not think he misrepresented my position deliberately; I just think he did not understand it. It has been very apparent in the course of the months that have passed since May that the proposal I made, or some variation of it, is receiving increasing acceptance. A similar proposal was put before the Tax Foundation a few months ago and met with no objection at all. It is theoretically sound and very simple to administer. It would prevent a fiscal drag from developing in the course of the year as the result of the present tax system we have, and would compel the government to deal honestly with parliament. I cannot repeat too often that while the government can bring forth winter works programs and put more money into LIP projects, we need a big personal tax cut. We needed it in 1972 just to offset the real increase in tax rates that have come about through inflation. I cannot repeat that too often.


An hon. Member:: How big is "big"?
Supply	j


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friend just needs to be patient for a week or so to see how big the government thinks is big. We will have no hesitation, as we had no hesitation during the election campaign, to put a very precise figure on it.
I think it is obvious that the measures we are now considering do not do anything to stimulate or encourage small business in the country which is the greatest source of employment in Canada. We put forward a proposal to encourage the individual and to stimulate business to expand and develop, a proposal designed to help people get started in small business. We c^ll it the Canadian investment credit incentive, and it would be available if we were in government and had the opportunity to bring it into operation to benefit any Canadian citizen who invests directly in the equity of Canadian owned small business. The credit, which would be 50 per cent of qualified investments up to a maximum of $5,000 a year, would either be offset against the individual's income tax for the year or repaid in whole or in part directly to him. Qualifying investments would include any equity share of corporations provided they qualify or direct participation in proprietorships or partnerships. In order for this credit to be available and granted, the businesses would be required to register with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since only investment in Canadian owned small businesses would qualify, small business would include corporations with a net worth up to $1 million and with annual revenues up to $10 million, and no corporation would be able to qualify as a small business if its shares were listed on the stock exchange.
I say again, as I said when I made this proposal, that I believe this incentive to small business will do more in a single year to stimulate private initiative, to provide more new opportunities for jobs, and to stimulate demand for goods and services than any combination of direct government loans, concessions and subsidies presently in effect. They, of course, include the measures we are now considering. I repeat that we are not opposing the measures we are considering, but they do not really represent an attack on the main problem confronting the Canadian people, and on the main problem confronting the unemployed. I have emphasized the need for tax cuts. I have emphasized the need for reform in our personal income tax system. I have emphasized the need for this kind of encouragement and stimulus to small business as the greatest employer in the country.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, how we are going to convince the government that it needs an independent forecasting unit is something I do not know. The Economic Council recommended this for years. We have been after the government for years on this. One would think that after its terrible record of forecasting, particularly this year, the government would be ready to help establish an independent forecasting unit. I have to say, and I say it without any unkindness in my heart, that in view of the record of the first year in office of the Minister of Finance, he is beginning to make the last year of his predecessor look good by comparison.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 12, 1973
Supply


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not going to take up the time of the House this afternoon, Sir, to get into areas like regional economic disparity. Obviously, these measures do very little in connection with that. I will not take the time to emphasize the extent of the failure of the government's program in the area of diminishing regional economic disparity. For example, we have all seen the unemployment figures published for the month of January, and we can see a great disparity between unemployment rates in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec as opposed to Ontario.
A subject which is a little off my theme, but which I am glad to take up for a minute, arises from the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He is inquiring about what position I have taken in relation to old age pensions. Of course, when I consider old age pensions, like the hon. gentleman who put the question, I am thinking primarily of the old age pensioner rather than of the economic consequences of increasing old age pensions, although those also are significant. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) earlier in the session, during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, delivered quite a sweeping generalization on the same topic. He indicated that he could not find anything specific in the record that I had said about old age pensions beyond maintaining the present plan and removing the 2 per cent ceiling on the cost of living adjustment.
I appreciate that the hon. member for York South was not in the House last May 15 when I spoke on this matter in the budget debate, as you will find reported at page 2264 of Hansard for that date. I appreciate that he was not in the House when I spoke, although he was here later on in the afternoon to take part in the debate himself. But I must say I find it a little difficult to understand how the hon. member did not take the trouble to read what I did say. I want to remind him, and also the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that detailed proposals and costing summaries relating to our policies on pensions were distributed in a mass way, including distribution to the media, and they were reported. This was done in May. We carried on with this position on pensions during the election campaign. That was the reference I made last night, when I said in fact that we had presented proposals regarding pensions.
In addition to those, and I emphasize that in putting these positions forward, and in still putting them forward, I do so as the minimum positions, as the very least that we should have done, since last August I have called for specific emergency provisions, aside from the standard pension provisions, to assist our old people who were bearing the brunt of the drastic increases in food prices. While hon. gentlemen to my left were promoting a committee to study food prices, I think also in association with a review board of some sort, this is what I was doing, Mr. Speaker. I was advocating some direct and immediate help to the people living on fixed incomes, to the people living on old age pensions, who were facing the increase in the cost of living and, in particular, the increase in the cost of food. This is our minimum position. We are reviewing this position with the budget coming up, and I will have more to say about old age pensions, as well as about other matters, in the forthcoming budget debate.

I trust that the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if they are unable to be in the House and do not have the privilege of hearing me in person when I speak during the budget debate, this time will be able to read afterwards what I had to say. I do not question their sincerity with regard to assistance to the older people, and I trust they are not going to question my sincerity, or the sincerity of my party in that regard.
The country is paying a very heavy price for the budget adopted last May, the first budget presented by the Minister of Finance. We are paying a very heavy price in terms of a disappointing rate of growth, a rate falling well short of the target set by the minister. We are paying a very heavy price in terms of unemployment which, seasonally adjusted, is as high as it was in January, 1972. And, of course, we are paying a very heavy price in terms of inflation which is running on a year to year basis at something in excess of 5 per cent.
There is nothing at all in these measures contained in the supplementary estimates, nothing at all more than some belated assistance to those caught by winter unemployment, and only to a small percentage of the large number of unemployed in Canada. There is nothing in these supplementary estimates to get the country on the right track. I hope I will not be accused of immodesty if I say we, speaking for this party, during the past couple of years and in particular during the last year, have been on the right track in terms of diagnosing the economic problems of the country and in terms of recommending very precise and appropriate methods to deal with them.
I expect there is a very good reason why the Minister of Finance cannot be in the chamber at the present time to hear my speech, but I can send him a copy of it later to read, and I hope he will adopt the suggestions that we have been making. I hope he will bring in some of the reforms in the tax system that we have been suggesting, some of which I have touched upon today, so that while the government remains in office, whether it is for a few days, a few weeks, or for as long as it may last, will begin to get the country moving in the right direction. I hope the government will begin to adopt a few of the measures that are appropriate to get the economy zinging along, get employment growing at an adequate rate, get unemployment down, and do something effective to deal with the problems associated with inflation.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I stayed to listen to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) because of the promise I understood him to make earlier this afternoon that he would, when he spoke on this bill this afternoon, answer what was in the motion moved, not with tongue in cheek but very seriously, by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The motion that could have been passed if hon. members of the Conservative party had had the courage to let it pass-


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: That is not so, at all.
February 12, 1973


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that was the way I noticed it.


Mr.   Homer@Crowfoot: That is not the way it was said.


Mr. Alexander:: You noticed in error.


David Lewis: The hon. member may speak for his-


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. What is the question of privilege?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I was in the House this afternoon and the House did not give consent to the motion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but certainly no members were named as having refused consent. I challenge the hon. member to state categorically who refused consent or get on with the problem.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, let not the hon. member try to be so smart. There was not anyone from the other side of the House who cried "No" and there was not anyone from my party who cried "no". The Speaker heard the "no" so I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to decide exactly where that "no" came from.
I stayed, Mr. Speaker, to listen-


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has the floor. I do not believe a question of privilege is involved in what I have heard so far. The hon. member for York South.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for York South is recognized by the Chair.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Lewis: I waited, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)-


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, surely a question of privilege, when raised, must be heard immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member rose on a question of privilege. It was heard and disposed of, and then he mentioned a further question of privilege. I am not sure how one could arise but I will be patient and hear the hon. member on a further question of privilege.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for you, Sir, but I will say that if I want to raise 50 questions of privilege you are called to judge those-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has made an accusation which is incorrect. As a matter of fact, the hon. Leader of the Opposition accepted the challenge and, consequently, there was no reluctance
Supply
on his part to express in detail the opposition of this party on old age pensions or he would not have taken the opportunity to do it this afternoon. Consequently, when the charge is made the hon. member must withdraw his remarks. I am not going to sit here as a member of this party and allow smear tactics by the hon. member for York South which have no basis in fact and can only downgrade his party. I should like to see him start to act like an hon. member instead of a dishonourable member, as is the case at the moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps this sustains the Chair's suspicion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -that we are really dealing with a question of debate rather than a question of privilege. The Chair would remind the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan) that he has an opportunity to take part in the debate. If somebody has said something with which he finds fault or if there is a disagreement on fact, rather than interrupting another hon. member's speech he should make his own contribution with his own statement of the facts as they appear to him. I am sorry to have been somewhat impetuous earlier in trying not to see the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate a second time, but I think it does become an abuse of our procedures if every time an hon. member says something with which some other hon. member disagrees, violently or otherwise, an attempt is made to settle the difference then and there by means of a question of privilege. I really believe this is a bad debating practice, and I have to appeal to all hon. members to assist the Chair in seeing that the debate proceeds in a more orderly fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) rises on a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the allegation the hon. member for York South made was 100 per cent untrue. Mr. Speaker, he has said, sitting at the far end of the chamber, that he could ascertain exactly whether every member on the far side, a long, long distance from him, said yes or no.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


George Harris Hees: He is saying no one said no. I say to him he is stating a straight untruth and he knows it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was not here when I made my point a few minutes ago-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -on questions of privilege which are really matters of debate, and trying to set forth one's own opinion of what transpired. I appeal to hon. members not to raise bogus points of order or questions of privilege

February 12, 1973
Supply
to try to quarrel with statements of other hon. members. I will certainly see that the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate or the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings or any other member is recognized to make their contribution on this particular point if they feel that point should be dealt with. I now call on the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I should like to say is that it is obvious that members of this House were exceedingly wise in asking you to be deputy speaker of this House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -in view of your evident wisdom and impartiality. The second point I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not withdraw the statement that I made,-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Shame!


David Lewis: -nor do I withdraw one word of that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: I was coming, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that as I listened to the hon. Leader of the Opposition he gave me the impression that, speaking later in the debate, which meant the speech he has just finished, he would tell this House in the language of the motion-that was the impression I got-at precisely what figure he wants to see old age pensions established. He then referred, and I hope I have the correct page number, to Hansard of May 15, 1972, page 2264, where he is reported to have said:
These pensioners, who have been bearing the brunt of inflation ever since January 1, 1967, should have been awarded an increase in their basic pension sufficient to compensate them adequately for the deterioration in purchasing power which has taken place since the last major change late in 1966. This would involve an adjustment, not of $2.88 but of nearly $15 a month in the basic pension. I have no hesitation in saying that the government I expect to lead shortly will do just that.
I remind hon. members that the figure was $15, on top of $80, which would have given a pension of $95. If this is still the policy of the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his party, I hope he will state that policy when the pension bill comes before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members of this House that such level of basic old age pension would not satisfy my colleagues and myself.
I rise to speak also because we have been through some steps in this parliament that have been very disturbing to anybody who watches it with an objective eye. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that he was rising not to oppose this bill and later on in his speech he said "I repeat that I have not risen to oppose this bill". He should have informed some of the members in his party that was his intention, that he was not opposing any of the supplementary estimates, because members of his party had nine motions of opposition to the supplementary estimates. He

says that he is not opposing the proposed winter works program. He says it is not enough. Of course, it isn't. I will have a word to say about that in a moment. Although he was not opposing it, there was a motion to oppose by one of the Conservative members. It was the request of the provinces and municipalities of this country that the winter works programs be arranged for a period of years so that they could plan and prepare for them. However, the Conservative party said "No. We want to limit it only to this year; $75 million and no more."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That was the motion on the order paper.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I cannot allow such a canard to go unanswered, particularly when it is being done deliberately and for his own political advantage by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: It was made clear throughout the debates in committee and here that the reason for the notices of opposition was to enable debates and for no other purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: He knows that.


Erik Nielsen: It was further made clear that we intended to permit those items to pass without recorded division. The point of order I raise has to do with-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: If Your Honour will prevent the howling from hon. members to my left and opposite, I will quote Standing Order 35 which prevents the hon. member for York South from reflecting upon any vote of the House. I quote:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
In his remarks, the hon. member for York South is attempting to reflect upon a vote that was taken this morning and yesterday. I submit that he cannot do this. I further submit that the hon. member for York South should be the gentleman that he is supposed to be in this House and stop playing politics with these issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I could amplify the remarks I made earlier about points being points of debate rather than points of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I refer hon. members to citation 113 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary
February 12, 1973

Rules and Forms. I think the first sentence is helpful. I quote:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House.
I suggest that the remarks of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) with regard to what previously transpired in this particular debate is not a reflection on any member that is incapable of at least being answered in debate. I heard the point being raised over and over again as to whether the notices of opposition with regard to certain portions of money or the full sum of moneys set forth in these estimates constitutes attempts to defeat a particular estimate, or to be unkind to old people, or to have some such motive ascribed.
I heard all of that last week, as did other occupants of the Chair. These points were answered at the time. I think they can be answered again. I do not find that is a reflection on previous proceedings. I again ask hon. members to consider that they have a right to participate in the debate and to make their points known, at least to give the reasons they proceed in certain ways. At the moment the hon. member for York South has the floor.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Yukon rising on a further point of order?


Erik Nielsen: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, it does not appear that the Chair has dealt with Standing Order 35, which was the point of order raised, because the items which the hon. member for York South referred to were votes that were taken this morning and last Friday afternoon. They were, in effect, votes. The hon. member for York South is attempting to deal with the position of this party on those votes. I suggest to the Chair that that is flying directly in the face of Standing Order 35 and should not be permitted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In the remarks I made a moment ago, I thought I dealt with the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon. He read part of Standing Order 35, and I quote:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving such vote be rescinded.
I do not think that the way in which the hon. member for York South was proceeding was a reflection upon the vote and I so rule. I ask that he be permitted to make his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I assure the pure, nonpolitical member for Yukon that I intend to remain a gentleman, if I can, and that I suspect my gentlemanliness will not be at a disadvantage compared with that of others. I did not speak about the vote at all. I am talking about notices of opposition on which votes were not taken.


Erik Nielsen: They were.


David Lewis: They were not. What was voted on was the vote in the estimate. The notices of opposition were not
Supply
voted on. I remind Your Honour that not only was there a notice of opposition, but for almost two days members of the Conservative party beat the air against the idea that this three year arrangement was in a supplementary estimate. Indeed, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) referred to it in the mild way in which this kind, honest guy always refers to things. He also suggested that it was an improper procedure to have the three year arrangement in the supplementary estimates.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Peculiar.


David Lewis: He says peculiar. He does not deny that is what he said. The Conservative party cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. Either they are for the winter works program on a three year planning basis or they are not. I am sick and tired of their phony superiority throughout this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We have been treated to a parade of phoniness that I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, this parliament has not seen for a long time. Despite all their notices of opposition to various items in the supplementary estimates, the hon. gentlemen, including the member for Yukon, did not even have the courage to say "on division" when those motions were called.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Before the bill was introduced, the supplementary estimates were passed without objection from any corner of this House, despite three days of time wasted arguing against them.
I have received one or two letters, not too many, from pensioners who wrote me they had received letters from members of the Conservative party saying that our party had opposed bringing forth pensions earlier. They did not know quite what it was about, but they wondered what it was. One was a letter from Cape Breton Island where one of the Conservative members had written to say that the New Democratic Party had opposed bringing old age pension legislation forward earlier. I suppose the reference was to the phony motion in January which would have had the effect of adjourning the debate. The word goes all over the country that members of the Conservative party are concerned about the old age pensioners- they wanted a debate on their problems to come on early. Mr. Speaker, they knew it was phony; they knew it was dishonest. They were not satisfied with putting that dishonesty before the House; they are now spreading it across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Lewis: And these are the people who my colleagues and I are supposed, tomorrow, to permit to take over the government of this country because they are honest and because they know what should be done. Mr. Speaker, I don't like the Liberals. But I don't like the Tories any more!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

Supply


David Lewis: There have been times in my political history when I felt that at least in the case of the Tories I knew where they stood. When the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) led the Conservative party, I knew where they stood. I'm darned if I know where the Conservative party stands now on any issue which faces this country, whether it is capital punishment or taxes or pensions or national unity or any other question-even bilingualism. One member speaks one way; another member speaks another way. And I, as leader of the New Democratic Party, am supposed to say to the Leader of the Opposition: "Bob, you are the guy to lead this country to Heaven." I am supposed to say: "Go on, Bob; take over and lead us into the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The Leader of the Opposition talks about the awful situation with respect to unemployment. Let me just remind him of this: if you look for a year in which the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment was higher than it is even now, that year was in 1961 when the Conservatives were in power.
The Leader of the Opposition rises when there is an international monetary crisis to ask with fervour that the government do something about it. He forgets that it was during the last Conservative administration that the whole relationship between the government and the Bank of Canada went down the drain.
The Leader of the Opposition made a remark about organ grinders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That got to you.


David Lewis: If hon. members would be quiet, I want to tell them two things about that. First, I want to thank him for the compliment. At least, someone else was the monkey. The second thing I want to say, after listening to his speech, is that he could do with an organ grinder a lot more than with a speech writer. I did my best to phrase that delicately so that I would not have to suggest that anyone was a monkey. But I would suggest that an organ grinder might be in place. Because I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have been listening to in this House, during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, during the debate on supplementary estimates and during the debate today is a call for office as hungry, as clear, as unprincipled and as devoid of objectivity as anyone in this chamber has ever heard. I want the people of Canada to know this. If the time comes, and this government falls- and it may do so a week from now, or two weeks from now-


An hon. Member:: Tell us when!


David Lewis: -or three weeks, or three months, because we have made clear what kind of legislation we shall support-and if it should come about that the Leader of the Opposition does take over as head of the government, he will do so not because of his insatiable hunger for office, he will do so because of the failure of the Liberal
government to produce legislation which in our view the people of Canada require for their welfare.
The Leader of the Opposition says he does not intend to oppose this bill. And then he makes a budget speech, or a mini-budget speech. Forgive me, there was no mini-budget. However, he made a budget mini-speech this afternoon dealing with taxes and unemployment. Of course, the government is responsible for the level of unemployment, not only since last May but since its disastrous decision back in 1969 to set off employment against the rising cost of living. That was a stupid course to take and not only the Leader of the Opposition but every spokesman for my party, myself included, and every knowledgeable economist in the country warned the government that it was being misled by its advisers in the Department of Finance and in the Bank of Canada. But the government had an overwhelming majority, smaller, it is true than that of the Conservative party led by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, but just as effective, and it chose to ignore everything which was said on this side of the House.
I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that October 30, producing, as it did, a minority government, led to a situation in which the Liberal administration opposite acts entirely differently from the way it acted when it could call upon its arrogant majority. It is now bound to take into account the wishes of the opposition and the advice of knowledgeable people who disagree with its policies. The Leader of the Opposition, in the next election campaign, will no doubt travel across the country yelling for a stable majority government under his gentle wing. Well, the people of Canada have learned that an arrogant majority government is to their detriment, and he will not be able to persuade the Canadian people of anything else, despite his hunger for office.
We are, of course, paying a heavy price in unemployment. What are the suggestions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition? One of them-and I agree with it-was that there should be a sizeable income tax cut. I had my ears open to hear exactly what figure he had in mind. If I am wrong, the Leader of the Opposition, for whom, personally, if I may interject this, I have the greatest possible warmth and respect-


An hon. Member:: Too late.


David Lewis: -will correct me. This will not prevent me in the future, any more than it has prevented me in the past, from telling him what I think of his policies and attitudes. But I do have a deep respect for him. I am waiting to hear what he has to say. How big shall the income tax cut be? My recollection is that during the election campaign he proposed, in addition to the continuation of the 3 per cent reduction, a further 4 per cent decrease for 1972 beginning on July 1 of that year. All I have ever heard him say, or, I state more accurately, all I have ever read him as saying about the size of the personal income tax cut was that it should be 4 per cent for the second half year of 1972. That is all I remember him saying. If I am wrong he will correct me, but he is not correcting me. That meant an average cut of 2 per cent. If the Minister of Finance is stupid and crazy enough to present that kind of personal income tax reduction, then he will not be Minister of Finance for very long, I promise him that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, who has been given extra time for the interventions earlier in his contribution, but the time allotted to him has expired. It may, however, be extended with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I thank Your Honour and hon. members for their courtesy, which in this case may be a little more deserved than in other cases where I have had extended time. As I was saying, I wanted to hear what it should be, but I knew that I would not. I am certain that what has been decided to the right of me by the members of the Conservative party is this, that whatever level of income tax reduction is proposed they will say they want more. That is the only decision that they have made.


Norval Alic Horner: You have never done that.


David Lewis: They have not decided what level of personal income tax is good for the country; the only decision they have made is that whatever is proposed by somebody else, they will say it is not enough. I did not really expect the Leader of the Opposition to tell me what the level would be. I am deliberately not making a budget speech, not even a mini one, because that will come in time. I rose to make it clear that we supported the government in the miscellaneous estimates committee and during the discu-sions here on the supplementary estimates before the bill was introduced and that we are going to be consistent throughout and support the bill now.
We are doing this because-and this also applies to the unemployment insurance amendments bill number one- we are determined that the unemployed should receive their benefits; that programs like LIP will have enough money to carry on; that the physical fitness program, which the members of the Conservative party also wanted to reduce in amount, will be able to carry on; and that the on-going work of the government and the salaries of civil servants should not be stymied and frustrated purely by political hunger for office. This is why we have consistently supported the supplementary estimates and it is why we support this bill.
May I say to this House what I have said outside it on one or two occasions. If I may speak personally for a moment, I fell in love in my early teens and the girl I fell in love with was silly enough to marry me. We have been married for 37 years now. Therefore, I have not personally experienced the delights and the discomforts of being wooed by more than one suitor at the same time. I am having that experience now. I get a wink from the Prime Minister and a nod from the Leader of the Opposition-if I may add, Mr. Speaker, in both official languages.
Let me repeat what I said during the throne speech debate. As far as we are concerned, we have noted the fact that over the past 15 years since 1957 this country has had five minority governments and only two majority governments. We have noted the fact that there are in Canada now four established political parties. We have
Supply
also noted the fact that the relative percentage of the vote obtained by these parties at election time has been more or less the same. We, therefore, recognize that the likelihood of minority government after an election in this country is greater than the likelihood of majority government.
Under these circumstances, it is our duty-and if Conservatives members of this parliament had any principle other than yearning for office, it would be their duty too- to make this parliament work. This minority government is now chastened and humbled. One almost does not recognize the Prime Minister nowadays when he appears on television. I watched him on television last night and I must say that, although I do not agree with everything that he said, boy, oh boy, did October 30 change that man, at least superficially! I do not know what goes on inside. I am not a psychologist or God and I cannot climb into his mind, but superficially he is certainly a changed man.
My colleagues and I believe that it is possible, if Members of Parliament have regard for Canada and Canadians, instead of playing the political game of office-seeking with tongues hanging out for office, for this parliament to do more for the people of Canada than it has done in the past four and a half years. That is our objective and we intend to stick to that objective despite the hunger that overwhelms me sometimes from members immediately to my right.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for York South permit a question?


David Lewis: Certainly.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Would the hon. member inform the House what he would regard as the minimum figure that his party would settle for as the old age pension of the future?


David Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to inform the hon. member of that. I have not said on television or anywhere else the words that the Leader of the Opposition used last night to the effect that I had made precise numbers known. I did not do that. We have made known to the country and to the old age pensioners of Canada that, in our view, the basic old age pension ought to be at the level of $150 a month, and we mean it. Now, whether or not that amount of old age pension will be accepted by this parliament is something that we will decide when we see the old age pension bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is agreement in the House that once we go into committee of the whole we stay there during the period normally allotted to private members. If there is such agreement of the House perhaps an order can be made to that effect.


Erik Nielsen: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. Perhaps before I leave the chair I might announce the business for ten o'clock. Perhaps it would be agreeable that this announce-

Supply
ment be given from the Committee of the Whole House on this occasion since we do not have the list of the three members at this particular time.
Pursuant to Standing Order 54, I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole on the said bill.
House in committee on Bill C-141, to grant to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1973-Mr. Drury-Mr. McCleave in the chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on a point of order for the purpose of getting clarification as to our procedure? I believe it is generally understood that there is a desire on the part of hon. members to discuss the different items set out in the schedule. My experience tells me there are two ways to do this: One would be either on Clause 2 or Clause 3, one of which mentions the estimates and the other mentions the schedule, to call the schedule and start with agriculture and go on through it. The other procedure would be for us to go through all the clauses, there being five of them, then call the schedule, taking department by department in an alphabetical order.
It seems to me that nothing turns on which way we do it, but I think we should have a clear understanding. I think there is a general desire to get into a discussion of the estimates of the different departments. If that is the case, perhaps when Clause 2 is called and before it is carried the chairman might call the schedule referred to therein and then take it department by department.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Chair would appreciate the views of the hon. members on this important point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It has been at least 10 years since we have gone into Committee of the Whole to deal with the estimates, so it is perhaps worthy of a moment of reflection.
If it meets the wishes of the committee, my own inclination would be to start with the schedule and begin with the items under agriculture, and then when that is exhausted proceed to the next topic and so work our way through the schedule. We would then come back to the clauses. I am quite prepared to hear submissions as to how we should proceed in a manner that is most agreeable to hon. members.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, on this particular point of order I think it might be more convenient if we were to deal with the clauses and then with the schedule, thus enabling us to summons the necessary ministers who are not, as you see, available in the House at the moment. If the first minister required is the Minister of Agriculture it might take us some time to get him here. I suggest we might deal with the clauses, and go on with the schedule on the understanding that each of the scheduled items will call for the presence, if needed, of the minister.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, we on this side would much prefer the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. While the Minister of Agriculture and his

officials are on the way here, I am sure there are members on this side who will be participating in the debate in a general way and will not require the presence of the officials or the minister during their remarks. For the sake of order, I think it would be much more preferable to proceed in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, in looking at Clause 2 and Schedule A, I find myself at a loss in determining how one could debate Clause 2 without dealing with some of the matters dealt with in Schedule A. In actual practice, I feel that the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the only one that can be followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point made by the President of the Treasury Board that the Minister of Agriculture is not here at the moment. I am sure it will not take him very long to come here unless his office is a lot further away than it ought to be. I point out, however, that we have one or two members waiting to speak on matters relating to agriculture. I suspect there might be a Conservative member who wants to talk about this as well, so the Minister of Agriculture will be here before the item is carried.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I think we would agree to proceed in the way the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has indicated. That would be acceptable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one further question? Do you intend to proceed simply by calling agriculture and letting the debate range over both the items therein, and then going on department by department, or do you prefer to call each item? Again, my only interest is in knowing how we are going to proceed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the Chair would go along with the mood of the House to consider matters at an early stage by dealing with them by department rather than on a breakdown within departments. I propose to do that, so we will be calling Clause 2, Schedule A, dealing with agriculture Votes 15a and 40a under agriculture as the first part of the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are a wise Chairman.


Erik Nielsen: For the purposes of further clarification, I take it that the calling of the items under the various departments in this fashion will not preclude the general rule of practice in this House, that is that on Clause 1 there will be the fullest possible range of discussion?


Robert Jardine McCleave: What I propose to do is reach a conclusion of discussions under each item within a department without calling the vote until the discussion is completed on the schedule, and then deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon, if it should arise, after the schedule has been carried.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it will not arise at all if we call Clause 1 of the bill, because this permits that kind of
February 12, 1973

full discussion on the subject. As long as there is the understanding that by proceeding in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe he is of the same view as I on this matter, the fullest possible discussion will be permitted, then we have no problem. Otherwise, we will have to call Clause 1 so we can have that kind of full discussion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think I should refer the hon. member to Standing Order 75 which probably deals with the question he has raised, and the reason Clause 1 is usually stood during consideration in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I am not sure the hon. member for Yukon has as yet made clear the point he has raised, but I think I understand it. What he wants to be sure of is that in discussing the items under agriculture members will be free to discuss agriculture generally. I submit, Sir, that is what has been happening in the debates we have had thus far. I also submit that the wording of these various items is such that it is pretty hard to restrict discussion. After all, under agriculture, we will be discussing production and marketing. What is there in agriculture that cannot be considered under one of those headings? Then, when we come to national health and welfare we will be discussing income security and social assistance. What is there which cannot be brought up under those headings? I submit there is really no issue here. These items are broad enough that discussion will take care of itself.
On Clause 2-Schedule.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, it seems clear in the minds of members of this House why this latitude should be allowed in respect of Clause 2 and Schedule A. The first item deals particularly with production and marketing. A situation occurred in eastern Canada, as a result of which there were huge crop losses and farmers were in dire need of assistance. The government, therefore, has proposed a program which suggests a payment of $400 per farm to approximately 26,000 farms. The whole question of production and marketing involves other problems in Canada. We have the concern of the consumers in respect of the high cost of food. Now, when we have a situation in which $400 is to be granted per farm this will not be of major help to farmers who have suffered particular crop damage. If a farmer is in need of help, I do not believe that an amount of $400 will be of very much assistance.
In looking at the whole field of agriculture, and in comparing our productive capacity with that of other countries, one must look a little further afield than this expenditure. I should like to read about some of the problems Canada faces in relation to our major agricultural neighbour to the south, the United States. I shall read from the annual review, 1968 of the Economic Council of Canada in which mention is made of the challenge in respect of agriculture and productivity in Canada. A comparison is made between Canadian agriculture and that of the United States. I am reading from page 86:
While growth rates in agricultural labour productivity have been similar in Canada and the United States, levels of labour produc-
Supply
tivity differ significantly. Over the past two decades, output per farm worker has been consistently lower in Canada than in the United States. In percentage terms, this relationship has changed little over the years. In terms of net value of production per worker, Canadian farmers produce on the average 25 per cent less than U.S. farmers. In terms of gross value of production, the disparity is about 35 per cent.
It goes on to suggest the following:
Thus, any significant narrowing in this gap would require a sharp acceleration in productivity growth in agriculture in Canada relative to the United States. For example, assuming that U.S. agricultural productivity growth over the next two decades were to approximate that achieved over the past two decades, Canadian farmers would need to step up their productivity growth by more than half-from 5! per cent to over 8 per cent per year- to catch up to U.S. productivity levels by 1990.
This article further suggests that part of the problem in Canada is that we have not put enough money into machinery and into the additional capitalization needed in the agricultural field. It reads:
In the United States machinery input per form worker has been about 30 per cent higher than in Canada.
This gives us a glimpse of some of the problems involved in agriculture today. One might recall that the former minister of agriculture-I am not sure whether it was in this House or when addressing the farmers-suggested that the farmers bought too much machinery and that was part of their problems. Actually, they have not purchased sufficient machinery. We have the land, but we have not done enough with it.
We might look at the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation for 1971-72. I shall refer to the amounts in round figures. It is shown that in 1967-68, the corporation lent to farmers an amount of $263 million. In 1968-69, the amount was $208 million and, in 1969-70, it was $160 million, while in 1970-71 the figure was $114 million. I am running through the figures shown in this report. The figure for 1971-72 was $114 million. This shows a decrease in the amount of money used for the purchase of farm machinery and capitalization of agriculture. The thorough study by the Economic Council of Canada in 1968 indicates that the Canadian agricultural industry should be upgraded and that its input per farm worker is 30 per cent less than that of our United States counterpart, our competition one might say.
One might look at the amount of money invested in the prairie provinces, the three major agricultural provinces. In the province of Saskatchewan, an amount of $80 million was lent five years ago as against an amount of $30 million last year. In the province of Alberta, an amount of $65 million was lent five years ago against an amount of $19 million last year. This indicates a decrease in capitalization. No wonder we see the agriculture industry severely handicapped today. No wonder we see, on the next page of the same annual report, that an amount of $8 million in arrears is shown against the three prairie provinces. This indicates a direct curtailment of capital. A number of farmers go broke. One cannot go broke until one runs out of money. If the government curtails the money supply, this has an effect on the interest rate. Statistics can be found in the same book, the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation, indicating that something like 60 per cent of the money lent was for the purchase of land, for the change of ownership or for the
1192

Supply
encouragement of land investment. The land has been acquired and has been farmed extensively in the prairie provinces for the past 50 years or so. What we need is more mechanization and more processing of agricultural products.
The Farm Credit Corporation indicates that 1.2 per cent of the money lent was for equipment and that 1.8 per cent was for livestock. We are not trying to catch up to our United States competition. We are keeping our loans low in respect of mechanization which is so badly needed. The agricultural program which is now being carried on in the province of Saskatchewan is wrong. The government of that province is spending $14 million to purchase land. The land is there. What we want is more production which might have the effect of lowering food costs.
In looking at the 1972 report of the Industrial Development Bank, we see the same thing. Approximately 60 per cent of the money lent is for the purchase of land. As I have said, we have the land and must have more money for the mechanization of the agriculture industry in order to have a greater productive capacity per man so that we can catch up to our competitors to the south. If our present practice continues, we will see an increase in the amount of agricultural goods imported into this country. I believe this is wrong. I should like the new Minister of Agriculture to take note of the change which should be taking place in the Canadian agriculture industry.
I was disappointed that the question of Farm Credit Corporation loans was not contained in the supplementary estimates. The former minister of agriculture allowed the interest rate on Farm Credit Corporation loans to increase to 8.75 per cent. I am disappointed that the farmers of Canada were not given an opportunity to refinance their loans because now the interest rate is down to 7 per cent. The feed and the mortgage companies have played a great part in the intensification of agricultural production, but they have done it at high interest rates. This has made it far more difficult for the farmers to catch up to their American counterparts. To me this is disappointing, and I would like to see somewhere along the line, a review of the whole concept underlying the Farm Credit Corporation. We have land. We do not have to push back oceans as they do in Holland. We should not spend so much time on changing ownership but we should put money into the capitalization of our industry to allow our workers to catch up with our major competitor.
There has been a suggestion regarding the payment of $12 million mainly in eastern Canada, a payment of $400 per farmer. An additional $4 million for feed freight assistance is merely patchwork assistance, something to sustain the farmers through the present winter. This is certainly no long term solution of the problem. When one considers the anxiety in the minds of the consumers regarding food prices, one has to discover where our agriculture industry went wrong. The former minister was concerned about farmers buying too much machinery, but basically they never bought enough. We had the situation in the Prairies where instead of providing more money for the agriculture industry, the government withdraw and tightened up. No wonder the arrears in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta total well over 20 per

cent of the loans. These arrears arise when the banker cuts off the money supply. The Farm Credit Corporation has not been extending the same loans to the industry. In my opinion this is wrong.
We have to be readjust the program because this particular item under Schedule A deals with saving 26,000 farmers through the payment of $400 an acre. I wonder how many farmers are suffering in other parts of the country, because the amounts due, as contained in the annual report of the Farm Credit Corporation, total $8,616,000 over $7 million of that being in the three prairie provinces. If the $400 a year were paid to every farmer, it would not even amount to the $7 million. Certainly, farmers in that area are suffering when their crop is hailed out or watered out, as has happened in eastern Canada. Certainly, farmers in the Peace River area are not receiving the same consideration, since they have had four bad years and they need assistance and understanding. The Farm Credit Corporation has had to foreclose on the loans of many of these farmers, and to me this is a sad situation.
It is my belief that we have not put enough money into the agriculture industry and that is why farmers are going broke. How can we develop the agriculture industry? I wonder whether the new Minister of Agriculture has travelled through parts of the United States and has seen what they are doing there to develop their agriculture industry. I wonder whether he has seen the irrigation projects in the Moses Lake area, perhaps with the use of Canadian water from the Columbia River. We should do more of that type of thing. We should increase our agricultural production and encourage that industry so that we can meet the opportunities that will unfold internationally through the creation of greater demand for our agricultural produce. If we do not, food prices will increase substantially in Canada in the next year, and very little can be done about that unless we increase our production to meet both Canadian and world demand.
While approving Schedule A, I wish that the government had approached the matter with greater depth and scope. Even in the supplementary estimates, they could have brought in changes to alleviate the problems of the agriculture industry to a greater extent. I look with great hope to the present Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps he will bring a breath of fresh air, new ideas and new thought to the industry. I hope he does not encounter the same problems which faced the previous minister by accepting what the department officials tell him to do and not going any further than that. A completely new look must be given to the agriculture industry to increase production and to create greater stability. We must ensure that if one farmer suffers damage to his crops this will not mean that he is left without anything to sustain his family and himself throughout the winter months until the next crop is ready.


Robert Jardine McCleave: 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- Social Security-Old Age Pensions-Introduction of legislation to provide increase-Consultation with provinces; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-Man-

power-Local Initiatives Program-Measures to accelerate approval of projects; the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath>-Search and Rescue-Steps to ensure adequate number of planes and vessels for accidents off east coast.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, it has taken us some time to reach this very important item under which assistance will be given to the farmers in the Peace River area. It is the first item in these estimates. In speaking this afternoon in committee, I want to say that following correspondence and telephone calls which I have received, I am very concerned about the amount of assistance that has been offered to farmers in the Peace River country, both in Alberta and in British Columbia. This Committee should be made aware of the fact that their need is very great and that it has not been met by the amounts of money that have been provided for the relief of these farmers. Possibly the first move has properly been made in providing a blanket solution. However, on examining the situation closely I find that the farmers in various parts of the Peace River region have not suffered these hardships equally. There are areas which have suffered a total loss, while in others significant amounts of the crop have been recovered.
In addition to what has been done, I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) himself make a detailed on-the-spot survey of the conditions that exist in that part of the prairie region. My understanding is that he has been in Edmonton, met with ministers of the Alberta and British Columbia governments, and received reports from them. I say he should go personally to that area, talk to the farm families, and find out how those people are making out. I hope he will do this.
I hold in my hand an article from the Globe and Mail, a Toronto paper. It is headed, "A White Disaster for Peace River." It describes the real hardships that exist in certain parts of the Peace River country. I say that the minister should see to it that the people there receive all necessary assistance from other Canadians. This article in the Globe and Mail reports that farm families in the area say that what has been done to date is not adequate.
I also have a letter here from one of the Farm Union representatives in the Peace River area. He writes that there will be real hardship unless a more adequate and comprehensive job is done. I quote from his letter as follows:
In short, the farm economy here requires a substantial injection of capital if it is to remain viable. Nothing less will guarantee its continuation as a contributor to the welfare of the country. I would suggest that the government has already set this sort of precedent. It has found it advisable, or expedient, to inject great amounts of cash into any number of projects of no more importance than this-OFY programs, manpower training programs, DREE incentive grants, and not the least, great tax concessions to any number and variety of corporations, many of them foreign owned.
We have provided assistance for corporations already. When the United States proposed, and indeed imposed, restrictions against the export of certain Canadian manufactured goods to the United States, we took action not more than a year ago to provide assistance. And we did
Supply
not make it a limited program. We made it an open-ended program so that if companies could prove the damage done to them and the amount they needed, that amount of money would be paid under the formula in the act that we passed. I, as a farmer, as a Prairie representative, voted for that legislation. I, and others on this side of the House, thought it was necessary to keep Canadians in business. We did not think that Canadian businesses should be destroyed. All I am pleading this afternoon is that we do as much for the people who suffered disaster in western Canada as we were prepared to do for corporations in eastern Canada. I do not know if the Minister of Agriculture will pay any attention to my plea. I had hoped he would be in the House this afternoon when we were discussing estimates which affect his department. Perhaps he did not receive enough notice; I do not know, but I hope he will read the reports of the speeches made by those who are talking on behalf of these farmers.
These particular farmers suffered difficulties in previous years. That is why they are in straightened circumstances. Their reserves of credit and cash were already badly depleted. I understand that in that area the Farm Credit Corporation is not pressing collections on money owed to it. I say that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board should make representations to that board not to press collections under its cash advances program, in instances where farmers, because of weather conditions, have been unable to deliver grain and will not be able to deliver grain. There is no point in harassing those people at this time because they have neither grain nor money. The old saying that you cannot get blood out of a turnip is still true. I urge that minister to consult with officials of the Wheat Board to see if some assistance can be given in that area. Of course, interest rates have been a factor in the whole equation, but not the only one.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture did give some undertaking at a meeting of the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, when I asked him if the government would give consideration to providing supplies of seed grain so that farmers could put in another crop in this area. He replied:
We will be watching it very closely. If our investigations show that there may be a need to move jointly in seeds, etc., for them, we will do it. We already know the plans that we made on shipping feed in for the livestock and again there is not going to be the need that we thought there was for this unless it speeds up tremendously.
I call the attention of the House to that commitment, and hope adequate funds will be provided so that farmers can put in another crop and take it off properly.
Now, I wish to speak briefly about the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Additional money is provided in these supplementary estimates for the transportation of feed grains. Again, I understand that this need arises in part because of bad weather conditions in eastern Canada, which resulted in less production of grain and corn than had been expected. As a result, we find it necessary to move larger amounts of feed grain into eastern regions to meet the needs of farmers there. I want to say that as far as we are concerned, we are prepared to see these amounts come before this committee, and we are prepared to support them so that farmers will be assured of the amounts of grain that they need. We are always pre-
25789-4)

Supply
pared to see a fair and workable agricultural arrangement between the various regions of Canada.
I want to say, too, Mr. Chairman, that we are concerned about the Wheat Board's handling of grain, particularly about the present situation that exists in western Canada and most particularly in the province of Saskatchewan and in my constituency, in regard to the marketing of rapeseed. I am informed that some farmers are delivering rapeseed under contract for less than the current market price. At some points in my constituency grain companies are paying 30 cents to 35 cents a bushel more than at other points in the same constituency. Places like Kinley, where the higher prices are paid, are plugged and farmers at that point are not able to deliver the quantities of wheat that they should under their quota because other farmers 50 or 60 miles east are delivering grain so that they can get the Vancouver price.
Two or three years ago I said to the then minister in charge of the Wheat Board that two future markets operating in western Canada could only work to the disadvantage of the western farmer, and this is what has happened. The only reasonable solution to the problem is to bring these other non-board grains under the Canadian Wheat Board and have an efficient method of marketing and pricing. The quota regulations are working to the disadvantage of the ordinary producers of rapeseed because of the present price situation and an explanation is owed to them. They should not have to spend their time in a truck taking their grain to another area in order to get the higher price; it should be available to them at their own elevator door. Perhaps the minister can clear up this problem when he speaks about the production and marketing of feed grains.
The price of rapeseed and the method of marketing will have a very important effect on planting programs in the coming year. The method of pricing barley will also have a profound effect on the plans of farmers in the coming year. There is nothing in the actions of the government to suggest that they have given any serious consideration to these factors. The minister makes vague noises now and then about bringing other grains under the Wheat Board, but in the last parliament when he and his party had a chance to do this they voted against it. When the Conservatives had a chance to do it, they also voted against it.
It would be interesting, Mr. Chairman, if the Conservatives would state their policy in regard to marketing. Do they want a free-wheeling, open market for feed grains and rapeseed across Canada or do they want them marketed through the Wheat Board, giving a fair deal to those who buy and those who sell? I am offering the Conservatives the same challenge on grain marketing that my leader offered them on the pension program half an hour ago. When are they going to stand up and be counted? I will put the policy of our party on the line. We will not continue to put up with the present policies in regard to rapeseed which set producer against producer and farmer against farmer to the advantage of that group who handles it and skims off the profit as the farmer moves it from the field to the marketplace.

We will have a chance to talk on the method of movement of grain later as these estimates move through the Committee, but at this point I should like to deal again with the needs of the men and women and their families in the Peace River country. We need to do more for them because we should not see hardship visited on farm families in Canada without protest. As a final word, Mr. Chairman, I say again to the Minister of Agriculture that he should review his position. He should personally walk with those farmers in their fields and talk to them. After he has done that, he is entitled to make his decision and bring it before the House. He should come here and tell the House what he has seen, then make recommendations on what should be done to meet the situation.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say a few words on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
I attentively listened a while ago to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) who spoke about agriculture. That member is surely well versed in agriculture, but as many others he does not know all solutions to farming problems.
The hon. member stated that we should find means to stimulate production in Canada, but I wonder whether it would now be advisable to stimulate farming production. Not so long ago, various ways were found to prevent farmers from producing apparently because there were surpluses. Eastern farmers were penalized because they were producing too much while western farmers were paid to prevent them from sowing.
Now, we are told that agriculture has to be invigorated and this, after it has been restricted and mismanaged to a point that about 50 per cent of our farmers are giving it up. A new policy of incentives for agriculture is now being advocated. But I do not think that agriculture can be stimulated with the means we have now. In fact, when a farmer needs machinery, he pays a lot for it, what with taxes and transportation. He also has to pay a very high rate of interest to finance companies when purchasing his implements.
But farmers do need other things besides machinery, like materials, buildings and decent homes. And when purchasing building materials, they must pay an 11 per cent tax just like any other citizen.
And yet we want the price of farm products to go down because the cost of living is too high, and we are seeking ways of bringing it down. Well, bringing the cost of living down for the farmers is a simple matter of removing taxes, bringing down interest rates and granting compensated discounts on products. In fact, the primary incitement for farmers is to enable them to sell their products, which is only possible if citizens have adequate purchasing power.
Now the cost of food is so high that many families are denying themselves necessary food products. I shall give milk as an example: some families could use four or five quarts a day but use only one because they cannot afford to buy more. The government should therefore find a

system for granting compensated discounts in order to bring prices down. By so doing, and through other means, such as reducing interest rates and eliminating taxes on building materials for farmers, we could contribute to bringing down the price of food.
If we brought those prices down, the farmer could sell more products and be less dependent on foreign markets, as other producers in our economy would be. We are seeking all kinds of ways of exporting our products while doing everything to prevent Canadians from purchasing more by burdening them with taxes and excessive interest rates.
Mr. Chairman, how can we find real solutions to this problem when we act in an unthinkable way, against all sense? Common sense requires to reduce interest rates and enable our citizens to buy more by pushing prices down. Yet prices are going up in every field, including that of grain movement; this is the reason why farmers have become unable to make both ends meet and they have gone deeply into debt.
This is why they borrow money. Interest rates, one could argue, are reasonable, but a rate of 8 or 9 per cent is too high for a farmer. It should not exceed 3 per cent.
We shall never settle problems related to agriculture by taking all kinds of measures designed to increase the prices of products; we should rather find other means in order to reduce them.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Crowfoot said that Canadian farm production is not balanced with the U.S. production. He stated that we are unable to produce as cheaply as the Americans do, that there is a difference between prices of American and Canadian products. The American legislation is a little more helpful, a little more human than the Canadian legislation in the area of agriculture. I met some U.S. farmers who borrow all the capital they need at an interest rate of 5 per cent; those American farmers do not pay any tax as long as they work on their farm. This is a system which does not exist in Canada, where farmers must pay taxes just as other citizens and they cannot make ends meet.
This is why there are so many problems in agriculture as in other areas of the economy. People cannot operate their farm on a profitable basis any more, excepted larger organizations. Those can finally survive but the ordinary owner of a family operation cannot make ends meet.
So, if we want agriculture to be more prosperous, we will have to find mechanisms other than the traditional ones. We cannot seem to find any logical formula to really stimulate agriculture. Yet the incentive formula is always the same: we have to try to find ways to lower prices through the granting of compensated discounts, the lowering of interest rates, through allowing the purchase of cheap machinery and eliminating taxes on building materials and on all kinds of goods.
That is a way, Mr. Chairman, to stimulate agriculture for the greater prosperity of Canadians.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a short intervention on this item. When the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar was speaking, he said he was dealing
Supply
specifically with two areas. I also wish to touch on those two areas. I regret that the hon. member is not here at the moment. In the latter stages of his remarks the hon. member said that he wondered what our position was with regard to the marketing of rapeseed and whether rapeseed should be handled by the Canadian Wheat Board. He said something about my having made some vague utterance on this question.
We have been anything but vague. We have taken the position that it is up to the producers to decide this issue. In our discussions with producers we have followed their advice that a significant amount of information is needed about the marketing system, the open market, a pooled market, Wheat Board marketing, and that this must be in the producers' hands before they can make a sensible decision about which kind of marketing they want. It is our position that it is up to the producers to decide.
I know that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar comes from a party which on the provincial side in Saskatchewan seems to take the view that it ought to decide when producers should have a marketing board, whether the producers want one or not, and goes ahead with marketing boards without consulting producers and imposes upon them a particular solution. That is in keeping with the basic NDP philosophy that the experts, that is to say themselves, ought to tell producers and everyone else what to do, and they will be better off for having been told.
I think that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is quite right in wondering about the Conservative position on this issue. He stated he would like to give them five minutes in which to present their views. I think it would be more workable if he were to invite five or six of them to state their five or six views on this issue, since usually their position on agricultural questions varies from one part of the country to another; they have no consensus. Luckily, they have not so far needed to reach a consensus on any of these issues.
If the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has missed our position, or found it vague, let me state it for him once again very clearly. We will not impose producer marketing boards upon the producers of rapeseed, but we are prepared to offer them this type of marketing should they choose it. We have waited until they themselves are able to say that the information has been in their hands long enough to enable appropriate consultations to be held. I should like to repeat what I have said to some producer organizations and their representatives in the last few weeks: I believe the time is now ripe for us to take that next step and consult producers about the kind of marketing they want.
The member for Saskatoon-Biggar referred to price differentials which can exist under the present system. He referred to farmers who sell at a lower price at one period of the year and who then find that their neighbours are selling at a different price in another period of the year. This, of course, is one of the annoyances which will lead some producers to opt for board marketing, which will lead some producers to choose to get out of the business of speculating directly on the rapeseed market; they wish

Supply
to farm to raise the grain, not to speculate in its sale. This leads them to prefer the board marketing system.
Other producers, of course, have taken the view that the rapeseed market has been doing very well, that the price has been high and that the product has been moving. This is the aspect they are apt to stress in their arguments with other producers on this question. Let hon. members have no doubt about this, however: we propose to proceed by holding consultations on this question with producers in the very near future as to the kind of marketing system they prefer and then to move in accordance with their wishes, given the support of the House of Commons for the principle-a sensible one in my view-that machinery should be available to enable producers to handle their products in the way that producers desire.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar-I am glad to see him back in his place-also dealt with the need to provide relief for farmers whose crops suffer from particularly adverse weather conditions. He said there was a need for the Minister of Agriculture to view the scene in person. The Minister of Agriculture is an extremely energetic and sympathetic man who is going about his duties with tremendous enthusiasm and with the interest of the farmers very much at heart. He is away, necessarily, for several hours this afternoon on official business. On his behalf as well as on my own I should like to say a few words on this subject.
Hon. members are apt to ignore the fact that the provinces have some very important responsibilities in the field of agriculture. The hon. member says the Minister of Agriculture should personally visit the scene of these crop failures. Mr. Speaker, when localized problems occur it is particular fitting that provincial ministers of agriculture should take a lead and deal with them. This has been the position of the federal government for some time with respect to problems which can arise in localized areas, whether they involve fire or flood or unusual weather conditions.
Essentially, responsibility lies within the area in which the setback occurs. The federal government is ready to assist when the magnitude of the problem is so great that the burden would be too much for the provincial government concerned to bear. Notwithstanding this general rule, we have involved ourselves to the extent of strengthening the hand of the provincial ministers of agriculture both in eastern and in western Canada by offering certain forms of assistance in situations of this kind.
There are certain difficulties attached to rushing in with assistance when particular problems involving crop damage occur. Crop insurance programs across this country have been developed as a result of initiatives taken by this government and its predecessor. The usefulness of the program is gradually improving, and consequent upon the step now proposed, in accordance with which the federal government would bear an even greater share of the cost of the premiums across the country, it may improve even further. It is, of course, important that the crop insurance plans should be good plans and that farmers take advantage of what is, after all, the main measure of insurance against the occasional disaster which might occur. To some extent the provision of special assistance

militates against the development of good crop insurance plans.
I should also like to draw attention two ways in which other governments have acted to assist areas in which weather conditions, particularly in early winter, give rise to chronic problems. There is the forage incentive program, now going into its third year of operation, under which some 3.7 million acres have already been taken from grain production and put to grass and forage as a base for livestock industries and to enable farmers to raise produce which is free from certain hazards such as early snow which can afflict wheat, barley and other grain crops.
I am happy to note that applications for payment under the forage incentive program came largely from areas in which the cattle industry should develop, areas in which grain production may be hazardous because of the recurrence of unfavourable weather conditions year after year. It is also the case that over the past three years we have offset some of the problems which arose in connection with the production of barley in those areas, thus making it easier for farmers to switch some of the risk away from themselves by planting barley instead of wheat. We achieved this result by revising the quota system in a way which brought about equality of treatment for barley growers as compared with wheat growers. We did it by carefully watching the initial prices for barley to ensure that they were attractive. In doing this we benefited the whole country by assuring new feed grain markets, markets which had for so long been neglected in this country. We have now gone into them in a big way. Barley is being grown in those areas where the climate is conducive to the shorter maturing period required by that crop, to the benefit of the farmers directly concerned and also to the national good.
This year we have also taken advantage of legislation passed by parliament at the initiative of the Liberal government two and a half years ago. I refer to the ability to extend by order in council cash advances in relation to grain which is still unharvested. This is a modest form of assistance but a useful one, so useful that in two previous periods it received special attention in the House in the form of legislation to enable the government to extend those provisions to the farmers affected. We have been able to do this by order in council as a result of the foresight shown on the last occasion when this question was discussed. On that occasion the provision to which I have referred was specifically embodied in the law.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar inquired about present Wheat Board cash advances. I have already discussed this subject with officials of the Wheat Board as a result of my own concern about the position of farmers who find themselves in a difficult financial situation as a result of adverse weather conditions-farmers who are in arrears in their repayments and in whose case the Wheat Board feels it is necessary to take some action to protect its own position. I am afraid that the position in which the Wheat Board finds itself is such as to require some steps to be taken in connection with these arrears. The farmers in question had undertaken to be in possession of adequate grain to repay the advances at the time they took out the initial advance. This has created some difficulties.
February 12, 1973

I have discussed the seed grain situation with the Minister of Agriculture. He will certainly see to it that should there be a shortage steps will be taken to ensure that supplies are available.
The government has been attempting not only to assist farmers in difficult financial situations but to encourage the production of crops which are most suited to particular areas as a means of minimizing the size of losses which can occur. I am happy that notwithstanding certain criticisms, the gist of the hon. member's remarks has been to support the measures which have been taken.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I hardly thought when I returned to the House of Commons that my first speech would be on agriculture, but this seems to be my fate. I rise to say a few words to the absent Minister of Agriculture, not only to give him condolences for his job but to support him in what I suspect is his new, fresh attitude toward the marketing of grain in this country. When three weeks ago he asked the farmers of western Canada to grow all the grain they could, I was in western Canada and supported those remarks because they were the direct opposite of what we had been told for the previous four years.
Votes before the committee of $8 million or $9 million, money to help farmers in great distress, can only be understood by the rest of the country when we look at the whole situation in perspective. The perspective of the last four years has been of a government that is going the wrong way in the matter of marketing, that has been reducing the income of farmers to a level where they could not build up reserves with which to meet the emergencies that occur, whether they be in the Peace River area, eastern Ontario, the Maritimes or the eastern townships of Quebec. That was a deliberate decision made by the government of the day after three years of study, and it sent this country in the wrong direction.
Today this country stands condemned in the eyes of the hungry people of this world for not being able to do what it is elementary that we do here, namely, produce food for the world, something we can do so efficiently. By letting the income of our farmers decline to the point it reached in 1969 and 1970 we took away the farmers' ability to produce food and meet the demands of the world.
It is a matter of shame to every Canadian who ponders about this interdependent world in which we live that for the last four years Canada has been a net importer of beef at a time when the world is desperately short of protein. No government sitting in the seat of power during the last four years can escape that indictment. It is no help to the people around the world who need that protein to say that our American neighbours are also importing beef, because their government stands condemned for the same reason. The United States took land out of production and applied restrictions. That is why today the American farmers, indeed the American people, stand beside Canadians equal in guilt and equal in shame for not doing the basic things they should have done.
It is on the subject of grain that I want to speak most strongly. I shall praise the Minister of Agriculture so long as he keeps going in the direction he is going now, namely,
Supply
that of expanding production. When there is a hungry world, any minister or any government that votes for restricting the production of food in a country that can produce food as Canada can stands condemned not only before parliament but before the country and their own conscience. I want to make that very clear.
There has been a debate all over the western world this last 15 to 20 years about the future of agriculture. World economists have been looking at the traditional markets for certain products. To use wheat as an example, in our traditional bread-grain markets of Europe these economists see a declining per capita consumption of bread-grains, and since the population is not increasing quickly enough to take up the slack these economists say that we must advise our farmers in the bread growing areas of the world to reduce production.
They do not see in that model two billion people living in Asia, South America and Africa who would like access to any type of food whether traditional with them or not. They do not see in that model that China has now come into the market as a steady purchaser of bread-grains from western countries. They do not see in that model that they use that Russia, having spread its agricultural production across the Urals and into the volatile, dry land of that area, sporadically comes into the market to buy several hundred million bushels of grain. They do not see any of these new factors in that model. They do not see in the general picture that whereas ten years ago the average trade in wheat between the countries of the world was roughly one billion bushels a year, it is today over two billion bushels a year and is still rising. What was a surplus ten years ago is nothing at all today.
When so much was said in this House two years ago about surplus there was roughly a surplus of two and a half billion bushels of grain, insufficient for one year's marketing. No merchant can stay in business without having something on the shelves, but we took our inventory off the shelves. That is what I want to speak about, Mr. Chairman, putting it in very simple terms.
In addition to the advice given to us by economists, advice was also given to us by those who know the needs of people-nutritionists, demographers, sociologists. A conference was held here in Canada in June of 1969, the first and only conference of this kind held in Canada, attended by all the brains of the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Food and Agriculture Organization, etc. At this conference representatives told of all they had done to bring about a green revolution around the world and confessed that even with all their efforts in the waters of the sea and on the dry land areas of the world, they would be unable to meet the needs of the people of the world. Therefore, they pleaded with governments to go all out to produce all the food they could. Figures were cited showing how they were losing the race.
The minister of agriculture in the previous government, the Hon. H. A. Olson, was given this information and he attended the November meeting in Rome of FAO. On November 11 he stood before the FAO nations and pledged Canada's all-out support for the expansion of production to help meet the deficiency in food production around the world. He made that pledge on our behalf.

February 12, 1973
Supply
Three months later it was repudiated in this House and in the country.
Mr. Chairman, I have got to the point in my remarks where I should like to make them cohesive, so may I call it six o'clock?


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock it was considering the schedule of Bill C-141, particularly votes 15a and 40a.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was in the process of putting before it the type of decision the government made some three years ago which was so disastrous to the farmers of western Canada and to the world as a whole. I described one type of advice coming from the nutritionists, to the effect that no matter what we could do, we could not begin to feed the world and meet the gap which existed between the needs and our ability to supply. On the other hand, there was advice coming from economists mainly, to the effect that governments in the western world should restrict production and match production to the markets in our traditional areas.
To show that this debate was a lively one I hold up to the committee, as an example, the speech delivered by the then minister of agriculture, the Hon. H. A. Olson, in which he quoted figures from nutritionists pointing out that we produced only a certain amount of food in the world but that needs were roughly one-third higher. This speech was delivered on November 11, 1969, by the then Canadian minister of agriculture to the FAO. Three months later, on February 27, 1970, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board made a statement in the House of Commons to the effect that we had too much wheat on hand, requiring farmers, by inducement and by force, to stop producing wheat in the year 1970. That policy enunciated by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was a strike in the back of his colleague the minister of agriculture which destroyed that minister before the producers of western Canada.
When the then minister of agriculture took that stand in November, 1969, I am positive he did so with all the honesty of any minister of agriculture speaking on a subject so important to his portfolio. In the meantime, the government-and I can only assume it was the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who had the biggest say- reversed the policy and the direction of the minister of agriculture by coming out for restriction with the Lift program which is supposed to mean "lower inventory for tomorrow" but which turned out to be "lower income for tomorrow." That is why the farmers in Peace River and in

every other part of the country who have been smashed about by this government for the last four or five years cannot cope with this emergency situation with which we are now faced.
That decision by the government in February, 1970, was only part of a four-point program or package to restrict agriculture. The first as the Lift program to stop wheat production in western Canada for that year. Secondly, the government brought in a marketing act, the infamous Bill C-176, as a result of which farmers were not given control over their agriculture; control and decision-making in every step of agriculture from seeding to selling was put under the power of civil servants, with no control by parliament and no control by the farmers. It was a terrific example of controls and restriction on agriculture along the lines that economists of Europe, and later of North America, advocated. Thirdly, we had the stabilization bill. This bill meant that if you did what civil servants told you to do, you would be eligible for a formula-type minimum wage on the farm of $2,000 a year. I will not go into detail as to what happened to these bills.
The fourth part of the package was the adjustment program. This was a program aimed, as the task force had recommended in 1969, at getting two out of every three farmers in every part of Canada-not just in the west-off the farm, and the farmers in the west to cut grain acreage in half. This four-point program was the result of an economic theory called supply-management. This supply-management theory was in control and was running the government; the ministers had no say and I do not think the government understood what they were walking into. The time when appointed officials of government can run the elected officials of government is about over, and that is what the issue was across this country last year.
I have spoken of these two speeches and have indicated to the committee what the issues were. I simply point out that as a result of these restrictive policies and the whole direction the government took-and it was a wrong direction-income which from 1953 to 1957 had been about $2,000 a year for farmers in Saskatchewan and had slowly climbed from 1961 to 1967 to about $6,000 a year suddenly went down to $2,000 a year. Yet the experts ask me why the west went against the government. If your income had been $2,000, and it went up to $6,000 and then back down to $2,000, would you not think that the government was a wrong-way government? Only one Liberal outside the city of Winnipeg survived the feelings of westerners.
I think I have said enough to illustrate the fact that we have had a wrong-way government because we have had wrong-way ministers. We have had a fire-sale government which in spite of shortages a year and a half ago forced the sale of grain regardless of price, and they come along now and tell us to look at all the bushels they have sold. I know it is hard to explain to non-farmers how the impact of this situation hits the western farmer. If you ran a car lot which was facing another car lot on the other side of the street, and you left an agent in charge while you were away and came back after a short trip to find all your cars were sold, you might say, "What a good boy he is." But if you found he sold all the cars at below cost, you were
February 12, 1973

broke and the guy across the street was still in business, I am sure you would get rid of that salesman.
This fire-sale attitude is the basic reason for the troubles the government is now facing. This is the basic reason for many people around this world suffering a food shortage. They are short of rice in Southeast Asia, and short of wheat all over the world; yet we sit with relatively nothing to sell because of this policy forcing the farmers to sell, not on an orderly basis according to the Wheat Board but through fire-sale type activity.
We tried to get rid of this situation 35 or 37 years ago when we set up the Canadian Wheat Board. However, this government has hit farmers so hard during the last four years that it will take a generation to remove the monument in their minds which says that the Lift program is a program to take farmers out of production. Now, when the price is up to $3 per bushel, there is no grain to sell. The government has just begun to pay the price of that folly.
My final words to the absent Minister of Agriculture are to keep his back close to the wall and not to let them do to him what they did to Olson. In the last days of the campaign Olson said that the Lift program was the greatest mistake of his life. It was not only the greatest mistake of his life; it was the greatest mistake of every member of the government and everybody else who supported that program, because they betrayed not only the farmers but also the hungry peoples of the world. That is the indictment of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I rise with pleasure following the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who is back with us in this House after a period of absence. I do so with pleasure because after the recent election campaign the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain had been saying things far apart from what his leader and other agricultural critics of his party had been saying and they found it necessary to make him the critic for energy, mines and resources.
You may not know this, Mr. Chairman, but during the course of the election campaign the Conservative platform contained a promise that the initial price for wheat should go up by 30 cents a bushel. At that time it was $1.45 a bushel. Shortly thereafter the world price began moving very rapidly, and in order to put funds into the hands of the farmers we raised the price of wheat by 31 cents a bushel compared to the 30 cents a bushel the opposition was advocating. Then they did not know whether they were promising an additional 30 cents a bushel or what. This is part of their policy which allowed them to speak in different tongues in different parts of the country.
I know my own opponent wanted to get one step up, so he said that their 30 cents would be in addition to what the Liberals had done. That set me back a little until the Leader of the Opposition was in town the next day and said that now the Liberals had done exactly what the Conservatives had promised. I should say to hon. members that the initial price at $1.76 meant an elevator price of perhaps in the order of $1.47 or $1.50 depending on
Supply
where you are, which the Leader of the Opposition said they had promised while my opponent said they would go 30 cents better. That, of course, did not bother the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain because he had promised a $2 price at the elevator right from the beginning and he was able to stand with that. However, as I say they made him responsible for the field of energy, mines and resources rather than grain. We have to admit that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain is the visionary of his party. Of course, everybody knows what a visionary is; in the Tory party a visionary is someone who after something has happened can in fact see it clearly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I say that particularly in relation to what the hon. member has just said in speaking about the Lift program. He should go back over the remarks of his colleagues in the House at the time the Lift program was announced. Their criticism ranged from the fact that it would not do any good because, with all that summer fallow, the next year as much grain would be grown again and we would be back with the same problem we had in the first place. That is the kind of line they were taking.
The point, of course, is that they talked about our having to sell a lot more grain than we were. They tried to talk about the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain as their great salesman. It turns out that for the past several years the best year for sales while he was Minister of Agriculture responsible for the Wheat Board has been far surpassed. In fact, I expect within a matter of months to be able to report to the House that we have sold as much in a year as he sold in the best two years put together.
The years in which the hon. member was responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board were years of building elevators in the prairie region. He built more elevators and just put more grain into them. He never really sold as much as was being produced. The farmers were complaining more and more about the problem of accumulated grain. Then along came my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs who had some golden years during which grain moved very rapidly out of the country in record volumes-close to 700 million bushels. Indeed, when he was minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board he had to ask the Wheat Board questions which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain never had to ask, namely, how much was it possible to carry out of the country with the existing handling and transportation system, a system which of course had been inherited in the previous five years from the Conservative government of which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was the key minister in this field. My colleague was told what the limits were and he exported grain in those years when he was responsible at a record level, with the handling and transportation system which we had-a level which was not even conceived of when the hon. member opposite was the minister responsible. That is the fact of the matter with regard to where our grain situation stood.
The hon. member has just made an impassioned speech about how we should be feeding the poor peoples of the world and should have gone on growing grain for them.

February 12, 1973
Supply
Let me ask hon. members whether through 1968-69 and 1969-70, when we had large surpluses of grain in this country, they were treated as assets by our buyers around the world. Not a bit of it. They were treated as reasons for depressing the price. It was not until the United States finally made a large sale of grain to Russia this year-and it probably did not involve as much as we adjusted our inventory by during 1970-that there was a dramatic impact upon the world price and we started to get for our farmers a fair price for grain, a price not below the cost of production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The facts of the matter are that we had an inventory in this country which was treated by all our farmers as being a significant problem. Indeed, if the hon. member will look back at the speeches of his colleague he will find that they were complaining about the Lift program partly because they said tnose farmers who saw the surplus problem as a real problem had already done something about it, and that now we were bringing in a program which did not allow for the fact that they had already coped with the problem. That was the kind of criticism they levelled at us. They saw that that kind of supply on hand was in fact a problem; it was a price depressant problem in the world.
We were told that we should go out and sell grain. I said at that time, and we did it, that we would sell grain at record volumes year after year notwithstanding this program. In the very best year while the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain had responsibility for the Wheat Board we had an export figure of 453 million bushels. When I first asked the Canadian Wheat Board whether it could in fact handle an export of 800 million bushels, I was told it could perhaps handle 700 million bushels. In the year 1970-71 we went beyond 700 million bushels; we reached a figure of 706 million bushels. Last year we exported 824 million bushels. This year, with grain at record prices, we are exporting at new record volumes and can go on into next year exporting again at record volumes, notwithstanding what the hon. member says about supply.
Of course, we know the hon. member said we should have realized the desirability of moving into beef production. He was not here and perhaps has forgotten that with the Lift program we went into a forage incentive program to encourage the cattle industry. When that was over we offered the prairie farmers $40 million at $10 an acre to move grain land into grass because we believed there was a future in beef and that was what we should be producing. We talked about diversification into meat and into barley. I wonder whether the hon. member knows what the word barley means.


An hon. Member:: I don't think he does.


Otto Emil Lang: I am not sure whether hon. members know this, but barley is produced traditionally almost for the purposes of drink; farmers in the prairie area were encouraged to grow low protein barley for the best possible distilling purposes. Occasionally we got into the feed grain barley markets of the world. When barley turned up being high protein it would be fed to cattle, but it was

never promoted to any significant degree in foreign markets. Members from the Tory party are rankling at that and they ask: what are the facts?
Here are the facts: in 1957-58, just as the Tories were coming to power, we exported about 80 million bushels of barley. In the subsequent years 70 million, 63 million, 42 million, 48 million and 15 million bushels of barley were exported to world markets. This includes malting barley of the type which was being grown.
We turned our attention to barley in a big way. We said that we should get into the feed grain markets of the world and we asked the Wheat Board to go to work to market that grain. And they did. In the first year of that decision they moved barley exports up to nearly 90 million bushels. In 1970-71 they exported 179 million bushels, and last year they exported over 200 million bushels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: We are told, Mr. Chairman, that in some fashion the Lift program, which was designed to put $70 million into the hands of the prairie farmers-and it did- contributed to their lower income. But the fact is that the farmers' income depends upon the movement of grain into markets, not the piling up of grain in the granaries on the farms. I am surprised that hon. members to this day do not understand that piling grain in granaries does not provide income. In the following years we moved grain into markets beyond the actual production in those years, and we began to encourage farmers to produce barley and wheat and to stay in the rapeseed markets in the world in a full way; and we can now go out, as our new and enthusiastic Minister of Agriculture is doing-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I would advise members of the committee to listen to the question which the minister has permitted.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the minister why, if the Liberal party has done so well in the west, they practically threw them out lock, stock and barrel last October 30.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has asked a very relevant and important question. Of course, his colleagues have pointed to about 92 identifiable reasons why the west might have done that. I share a seat with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, who was not affected by that; and I should like to point out that, surely, over these years if the grain policy of this government was identified with anyone, it was identified with me-and my majority rose from 500 to 8,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 12, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I am sure hon. members would be interested to hear the minister complete his remarks.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I had better not allow any more questions from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings because it ill becomes my modesty to have to answer him in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: At the moment our situation in the world is such that the price for feed grain, rapeseed and wheat is at a high level. This is of great importance to the producer because grain is moving at record volume to export markets. We can say to producers: go ahead and fertilize to the limit of your knowledge in terms of your production capacity. So long as they were producing for bins which were already full, they were not doing that and they were costing themselves the bushels which in fact are the cheapest to produce. They can now correct that and they can do it with confidence because they know that our marketing policy, and the facilities that we have made available to the Canadian Wheat Board, ensure that we will go on marketing to the extent of our capacity and transport grain into world markets except in years when conditions change so much that it is impossible to do so.
I hope that for that purpose one day the hon. member will look at the stabilization program, and I hope that by that time we will have been able to put it into effect, because if it comes to pass that our volume of export turns down by 200 million or 300 million bushels from the new record levels, it will be on the conscience of the hon. member's colleagues that there is no stabilization program to put $200 million to $400 million into the pockets of the prairie farmers in that year. I have some confidence we will have been able to correct it before that may happen, but in the meantime let it be on the hon. member's conscience.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, if you have been bored with the committee proceedings to date, I think it has come alive in the last little while. I think the committee owes thanks to the Minister of Justice for having met my attack head-on, because he has repeated to the committee what he was saying across the west most of last year. It is this type of gibberish, that he pours out like a fountain without a tap to control it, that cost so many Liberals their seats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Prime Minister has said that he realizes he has made a great mistake in his attitude toward the west. Because of this I was trying to advise the Minister of Agriculture to beware of what he should do. I will answer the Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister responsible for the Wheat Board by giving him the facts which won the west. And let me point out that I did not have anything like the voice he had; I had to stay down in my little corner of the province. He had a staff in Saskatoon working for a year in advance to get this great majority. But he took that majority for
Supply
himself personally and cut the throat of any other Liberal candidate there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: That is a real friend for you.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When I spoke earlier I referred to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister responsible for the Wheat Board striking down his colleague, the ex-minister of agriculture, Mr. Olson, who had come out on Canada's behalf with pledges for an all-out production of grain. The minister came along three months later and said "There is too much grain. Cut down all wheat acreage in 1970." That is the monument that the farmers will carry of him as long as they live.
Now, as for that little highschool boy chit-chat about the initial price, it was clear to us a year and a half ago that Russia was in trouble with the winter wheat crop. The right hon. member for Prince Albert spoke up in this House on several occasions and asked the minister in charge of the Wheat Board when was he going to raise the price to take advantage of this great demand for grain. All the minister could come back and say was, "The Americans won't raise the price." Mr. Chairman, when was there a law in this country which said Canadians could not raise the price? Never in the history of parliament has any minister ever stood up and said he had no right to have any say about the future and the prices of our products, that he had to run down to the U.S.A. and ask the people who have led this whole supply-management nonsense for the last 15 years, "Won't you raise the price?"
Do you think the farmers are going to be happy with all these statistics and figures when they sit on their farms with almost empty granaries and when they know that the grain they grew over the last five or six years was dumped on the market in 1971 and 1972 at a price below the cost of production? Now they sit there with empty granaries when grain is selling at $3 a bushel and the minister sits here in this House and says, "What a good boy am I." Mr. Chairman, he is the boy who took over the automobile lot and sold all the cars at half price before the boss came back. The boss in this case is the voter, and he will clean out the Liberals.
With respect to the initial price, our party met in Saskatoon in June last year. We asked the party to accept the fact that prices had to go up and that the farmers should be told and given a little hope. We said we should increase the initial price of all three main grains. As a matter of fact, we announced that officially at the beginning of the election campaign. Then the minister became terrified that he might lose a vote in Saskatoon-Humboldt and he raised the initial prices by the same amount that we advocated. This does not mean one cent more to the farmer, Mr. Chairman; he simply gets some money into his hands earlier.
Now I want to come to the main issue and get to real grips with the minister. During the campaign, Mr. Chairman, not only did I support the raising of the initial price

Supply
but I called for a price of $2 at Thunder Bay and I said there would be no trouble about reaching it because the price would go to $2.50 by Christmas. I was wrong; it went up to nearly $3. But you have to give farmers some hope when they are broke, particularly after four years of government under the leadership of the type given by the Minister of Justice. Long betore the price rose above $1.75, where this minister was keeping it, I said it should be $2.1 won't go back over all that hash. But back in 1953 to 1957 in western Canada we piled up wheat. Then the government changed and in 1961 and 1962 we gave open quotas to the farmers and all the grain they could produce was sold.


George Harris Hees: Those were the golden years.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I asked the farmers to go out and grow all they could because the world needed it. In 1963 when we were negotiating the long-term agreements, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows all about because he signed them word for word as I had negotiated them, I asked the farmers, "Please grow all the grain you can and help meet the needs of a hungry world." The farmers cleaned off brushland, brought land back into production, put in seed and fertilizer, cut the crops off and raised average farm income from $2,000 to $6,000.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It was not
pleasant for me, Mr. Chairman, to sit out of parliament later and watch the succeeding government, with its restrictive measures, bring that average income down from $6,000 to $2,000 in the years 1969 and 1970. I don't care how many bushels you sell, it is what is left in your pocket when you have sold it that counts. It is for this that we hold the government guilty.
Now we sit here with a hungry world around us, with race riots all through Southeast Asia because of hunger, with trouble in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan and we cannot help those peoples because we do not have the grain. Russia still wants grain. The wheat farmer in Russia is in trouble again this year. Russia wants more grain this year. Where are we going to get it? 1 am glad that this debate is taking place. What is the point of the minister saying, "Look at all the bushels I have sold," when the farmers are broke? Why are we voting this money to help the farmers in the Peace River area? It is because they do not have money to cope with a local, one year disaster. It would be the same in any part of the grain area.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned barley. That is a word he should not have mentioned. We all know about his barley goings on. Barley is a coarse grain that used to be produced for making beer. Then the Americans found a way to produce their own barley to make their own beer, and that market went to pieces. But ever since 1960-61 there has been a rising demand for coarse grains around the world, including barley, not for making beer but for feeding animals. The minister is quite correct when he says that the best future for grain is going to be in the feed grains, not just the bread-grains. I am not

arguing that at all; what I am arguing about is this barley business.
Somebody gave orders to the Canadian Wheat Board in April, 1970, when the farmers were rising in protest against Operation Lift all over the three prairie provinces, and told the Wheat Board to break the law, not to follow the processes of orderly marketing but to dump barley onto the world markets. In the succeeding months the Wheat Board dumped millions and millions of bushels of western barley on world markets; in fact, there was not enough to meet all the feed contracts so in 1971 the minister went out and said to the farmers, "Grow all the barley you can." The farmers looked in the newspapers and saw that the price was $1.30 at Thunder Bay. They said that that was pretty good and so they grew 161 million bushels of barley in 1971. But in 1972, when they went to get the extra above the initial payment, what did they get? They got zero, Mr. Chairman, and there was a loss on the pool of $11 million. This is what we want the minister to explain in committee, not here. There are more angry barley farmers around Saskatchewan than you will find in any other part of the world, and the minister should know that.
Now to deal with diversification. That action was taken by somebody frightened by the fuss farmers were raising about the Lift program. That somebody said, "We have to get money into the farmers' hands. Sell something." The only competition they had to sell against was an American broker down in Duluth who had 20 million bushels of rotten barley in his granaries which he was trying to get rid of for 57 cents or 58 cents a bushel. We sold our barley in competition with rotten barley in a bin in Duluth. Who was this person who interfered and intervened with the Wheat Board? I want to know, and so do a lot of farmers. We want to find out who gave that order. It was not orderly marketing; it was fire-sale marketing. The law says that the Wheat Board is to sell grain at the best possible price for the advantage of the western farmer. But somebody interfered, somebody monkeyed. And somebody has to pay the price. These are the reasons we on this side of the House want some answers from the government.
It is all very fine to vote a $400 grant each to a group of farmers who have been hard hit this year. But that does not cover the gap between conscience and fact. The fact is that the farmers have been betrayed. The farmers have not had their grain sold at above cost. The farmers have not seen the government renew these long-term agreements with the iron curtain countries. The farmers have seen everything that they had hoped and dreamed of in the years 1965 to 1967, when everything was looking up for them, destroyed under the present Minister of Justice who thinks that because he is from Saskatchewan he is the natural crown prince of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not what David Lewis called him.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: These crown princes can always be identified, Mr. Chairman; they have eaten the royal jelly and they know what they
February 12, 1973

want. Not only should the Minister of Finance look over his shoulder, but so should the Prime Minister because when the crown prince from Saskatchewan moves in, God help the Liberal party!


Mr. Prud'homme:: Are you jealous?


An hon. Member:: What about your own party?


Stanley Ronald Basford: You should know about crown princes.


George Albert Proud: Talk about 1962-63.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the Liberal party knows that in order to survive as a national party their next leader must not come from Quebec or Ontario. The minister from Saskatchewan knows that very well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, what we heard here tonight was not only childish chit-chat; it was a man preaching for a call. When all the Liberal delegates come from the west to select their new leader, I suspect they will not call for him. They remember the monument of Lift, and that will be the monument as long as he lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Would the hon. member permit a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am
always glad to entertain a question, Mr. Chairman.


David James Walker: May I ask the hon. member from which part of the country he feels his next leader should come in order for his party to survive?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The question as asked is inviting a prediction by the hon. member, and I do not think it is in order.


Mr. Nesdoly:: Mr. Chairman, I hope not to indulge in too many recriminations during this debate on production, marketing and livestock feed boards. I should like to remind hon. members on my right that when the farm stabilization act was before this House a year and a half ago it took members from Saskatchewan in the New Democratic Party to stop it. Other members tucked their tails under and ran.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Supply


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: I should like to make some constructive suggestions instead of delving into history which goes back 100 years. The Conservative and Liberal parties have their past glories to live with; we in the New Democratic Party have our future glory to come by.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have a lot of hope.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: We have a lot of patience, Mr. Chairman. I should like to point out the necessity of encouraging prairie farmers to produce enough barley and rapeseed to meet market demands at a time when world wheat demand is at record levels. To reduce the supply of other grains may limit the future markets for these alternate crops.
I know that people in the prairie provinces are very concerned that production of some of the other crops will be neglected and they do not want to see this happen. We ought to encourage production of specialty crops such as rapeseed, rye, flax and barley-particularly rapeseed. The federal government should establish an incentives policy for producers of field grains to encourage sufficient acreage to ensure adequate supplies. One step to encourage production of grains other than wheat would be to increase the guaranteed initial payment for barley by at least 15 cents a bushel before seeding in the spring of 1973.
In Saskatchewan we would like to use most of the feed grains we produce to feed our own hogs and cattle, and we would like to develop our own meat packing industry and the secondary industries as well. When we produce enough for export we will gladly ship it to Ontario and Quebec as well as to the overseas markets. If the federal government desires or demands changes in production patterns or a variety of changes for some reason or other, financial incentives should be provided to producers to make the required adjustment.
I should like to say a word or two about the international trade in grains, Mr. Chairman. Since the price range in the International Grains Agreement collapsed in 1971 the world has not had effective international agreements for trade in grains. The present International Wheat Agreement which began in mid-1971 runs to mid-1974 but it does not have any price ranges at all. Producers and consumers of grain, especially wheat, are best served by an effective and strong international agreement concerning price, supply and trading conditions.
I urge the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to work with vigour to develop a climate in which a new and effective agreement may be forged after the present one expires. Things are looking better on the Prairies, Mr. Chairman, and we do not want the things that happened four or five or ten or 15 years ago to happen again. In the west we want to look to the future and make our agricultural economy more stable. The new agreement which, hopefully, will be negotiated by 1974 will cover wheat and also feed grains.
This international agreement on grains should also include national and foreign stockholding policies, maintenance of adequate reserves, a reduction of trade barriers through commitment by exporters and importers, co-ordination of farm programs, maximum and minimum prices for world transactions and adequate food aid.

Supply
Now that the war in Viet Nam is over and people are still dying of starvation in Bangladesh, perhaps we should be laying aside a few million bushels to aid these war ravaged countries.
With regard to marketing, Mr. Chairman, I feel that the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board should be extended to cover the marketing of rapeseed, rye and flax. A recent study committee established by the federal grains group recommended that producers be provided an opportunity to say by plebiscite whether they support the present rapeseed marketing system or an alternative. I support the proposal for a plebiscite, as does my riding, and I urge producers to support the alternative which would give marketing authority over rapeseed to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Rapeseed is produced in my constituency and some is shipped to Vancouver and some to Thunder Bay. Because the futures market in Vancouver is consistently higher than in Thunder Bay, the result is that some points in Saskatchewan have a great differential in rapeseed prices although they are very close together geographically. On October 6, 1972, the price of rapeseed in Glaslyn was 23 cents a bushel more than at Meadow Lake. I was home to Shellbrook last weekend. I talked to many farmers at a hockey match. They told me that in the village of Leask the price of grain was 31 cents more than at Shellbrook. These two villages are 25 miles apart. What is disconcerting is that rapeseed packed into boxcars in Saskatchewan is shipped from Leask through Shellbrook to Prince Albert and on to the west coast, yet the producer of Shellbrook received 31 cents less last week.


An hon. Member:: And he will this week, too.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: We should try to solve this problem, Mr. Chairman. Certainly this anomaly would be liquidated if prices were administered by the Wheat Board and the price of rapeseed was averaged. The only people benefiting now are the boys playing the futures market. There is a lobby in this House of people who are not interested in the welfare of the farmer but in the futures market or grain exchange operations at Winnipeg, or Vancouver, if there is one there.
Consequently, I suggest-and I believe this is part of the policy of the Saskatchewan wheat pool-(a) that the federal government introduce necessary legislation immediately which would give authority to the Canadian Wheat Board to market rapeseed; (b) that a producers' plebiscite be held to determine whether producers support extension of Wheat Board powers to the marketing of rapeseed; and (c) that any permit holder who has produced rapeseed in any one or more of the last three crop years be eligible to vote on this question and that a simple majority of those voting be required in favour before the marketing authority be given to the board. I think this is one step that can be taken immediately. It would be progressive.
Before produce can be marketed, it has to be moved. We hear a lot about occasional grain tie-ups on the west coast or at Thunder Bay. Personally, I favour nationalization of the grain handling system at Vancouver so that it is divorced from other work stoppages at that port. No
[Mr. Nesdoly.J
farmer should be expected to haul his grain more than 25 miles under most circumstances. If the suggested rail lines are abandoned, some farmers will have to haul their grain 50 miles to market. I suggest that the scheduled abandonment of railroad lines be postponed until this entire matter is thoroughly studied to determine its effect on marketing and the movement of grain.
We are debating payments to farmers under farm income maintenance. Because of poor whether conditions and other risks associated with agriculture, we in this House should not begrudge the payment of moneys to farmers who have suffered crop losses. I am certainly in support of them. Perhaps they are not enough.
I hope this House will take some long-term measures in the direction of comprehensive crop insurance programs to ensure that every producer of crops in this country has some kind of insurance so that eventually there will be no need to debate in this House year after year crop losses in one part of Canada or another. This would necessitate co-operation between the federal and provincial governments.
As far as the estimates of production and marketing and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board are concerned, I am in agreement with them and I hope we can soon bring this matter to a vote.


Mr. Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the production, marketing and transportation of our grains. Lately, a lot of fellows have been talking who have not produced too many bushels of wheat or barley. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board, and my friend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, covered a lot of ground in a very few minutes.
There are a few things I would like to say about this world of wheat in which we live. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is on pretty shaky ground when he starts patting himself on the back for the record exports that Canada is now enjoying, because last year 60 per cent of Canadian wheat exports went to production catastrophe areas around the world. That is a pretty shaky basis on which to build some stability into our grain industry. If anyone knows anything about grain, they know that Canada does not sell grain to Russia, India or Pakistan; those people come here and purchase it.
For five consecutive years western farmers saw farm deliveries of wheat go down, down, down. We ended up with a four-bushel quota with production controls in the torm of Operation Lift around our neck. Farmers were ready to rebel. That is when the word came out for the Wheat Board to sell barley. I was on the floor of the Winnipeg exchange the day the Wheat Board offered its barley to the world. The big international traders could not believe what they were hearing. They got their hands on 150 million bushels of barley at a fire-sale price. That deal cost the western farmers $50 million.
The other day we were discussing the purchase of hopper cars. It was ironic that at the very time these estimates were being discussed in committee, American grain for export was being moved through Canada in Canadian cars over Canadian rails to Seattle. I received several calls that day from farmers in Saskatchewan com-
February 12, 1973

meriting on the large number of Canadian cars in Montana and Dakota sitting on sidings. In one case, 52 empty Canadian boxcars had been there for over seven days. I want to read a statement given by a grain farmer to the press in southern Saskatchewan:
Since the first of December, four or five hundred Canadian boxcars full of American grain have entered Canada at North Portal, Saskatchewan, gone up the Soo line, on to B.C., and then down into the states for export out of Seattle.
The farmer said he is critical of Canadian Pacific Railway for allowing the Americans to use Canadian cars and Canadian rail lines to move grain to coastal terminals when there is difficulty in having Canadian grain moved to the west coast. He said:
As an example, North Portal has a six-bushel quota on wheat, and has trouble getting enough cars. But U.S. wheat moves right through there in Canadian boxcars.
The farmer then asked what sense there was in providing the railways with 2,000 additional cars so that it could take its own cars out of service and rent them to the Americans. The CPR claim they are up to date on all Wheat Board deliveries to Thunder Bay and the west coast. The point I am making is that there is no shortage of grain cars in Canada over-all, even now when we are in the midst of a record grain movement.
Senior officials of both railroads have given assurances in the past that they could move one billion bushels to export with the equipment they already have, given a degree of co-operation and planning. Our number one grain transportation problem has not been the number of grain cars available; it has been to get the cars through the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific seaboard so that the grain will be available to our customers when they want it and so that Canada could be classed as a dependable supplier. We must have some order of priorities, some long-range plans so that all segments of the grain industry, railroads, shippers, handling companies and, most important of all, producers will be able to see the future with some intelligence.
We on the Prairies are stunned by talk of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on new airports and hundreds of millions more on pipelines into the frozen north when we cannot now depend on getting our produce to the customers to their satisfaction. I was on board a Japanese ship in Vancouver just about a year ago. That vessel had been waiting there for 37 days to take on a cargo of Canadian feed barley. They hadn't taken on a single bushel. According to the captain, the cost of maintaining a vessel there was some $4,000 a day. Thirty-seven days at $4,000 a day-all of which will be paid for in demurrage and higher ocean freight by the western farmers!
Year after year thousands of loaded grain cars are trapped east of the Rocky Mountains because of the Fraser canyon. Last year the Canadian National line to Prince Rupert was blocked for five weeks. The Canadian Pacific track was blocked for four weeks through the Fraser canyon. Winter comes each year; and labour problems will continue to plague us. This $48 million expenditure will not solve our number one grain transportation problem, which is getting our product to the Pacific sea-
Supply
board. More than 40 per cent of Canada's grain exports go out by way of the Pacific seaboard, yet the seaboard possesses only 10 per cent of Canada's terminal elevator capacity.
It is obvious that the present system has no capacity to stockpile. As a matter of fact, five million to seven million bushels of wheat is about the best they can do at the west coast-about a three-day supply at full loading rate. We are in good shape this year. Nature has been kind to us. The railroads have not been blocked. Vessels are arriving on time. There is no tough or damp grain. And there are no labour problems. According to the Canadian Grains Commission report for the week ending January 24, there were 6,853,000 bushels of milling wheat in seven terminals at the Pacific seaboard. Over a million bushels of that were in Prince Rupert. On the average, this is less than a boatload at each of the Vancouver and Victoria terminals.
Competing with western grain farmers for transportation to the west coast are coal, potash and sulphur. These commodities are handled in solid train and unit train lots through modern bulk handling facilities. There is a capacity for stockpiling for weeks ahead, thereby protecting customers against the consequences of railway stoppages. As the total tonnage handled by the railways continues to build rapidly, the grain export situation becomes more critical with each passing year. Grain, the only commodity under government control, is the one that suffers most.
The government of Canada conducted a three-year study of grain transportation at great cost to the taxpayers. Instead of acting on the report, hon. gentlemen opposite turned this hot potato over to the Canada Grains Council which now estimates it would take another five years to finalize. The expenditure of $48 million on these hopper cars was made for reasons of political expediency. It was announced by the Prime Minister in Winnipeg where it would make the biggest political impact just before the last election.
What we should be doing is using to the maximum the facilities which are already in existence. It is almost incredible that during the three-year transportation study nobody in the federal government ever contacted the bulk handling people in Vancouver-people whose systems contain unused capacity and who are ready, willing and able to help export more grain. The expenditure at the Pacific seaboard of a small portion of the $48 million spent on new grain cars would have increased the throughput of grain at Vancouver by more than a third, more than 100 million bushels a year. It would have allowed us to stockpile against rail stoppages and enabled us to use modern bulk loading facilities to compete with the coal, potash and sulphur moving to export.
A good deal has been said about the Lift program. I shall not say anything more about that. I will say that in 1971 the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board went on record advocating the need for additional grain storage at the west coast. Our good customers, the Japanese, took the unprecedented step of sponsoring a transportation conference in Vancouver as a means of expressing their growing concern. However, the desire of the producers to move more grain to export and the custom-

Supply
ers' pleas for better west coast service have both gone unheeded.
We could and we should be selling and exporting more grain. On September 13, 1972, the Kansas City board of trade, talking about the tremendous increase in wheat prices, released the following news item from which I quote:
-but in Canada's case the increases were almost academic because that country was not booking any shipments at the higher prices, due to the fact that it had already sold all it could move overseas until May of next year.
With wheat quoted today at over $3 at the port of Vancouver, it is a tragedy for western farmers that Canada effectively stopped selling wheat some seven months ago. The expenditure of $48 million for 20 miles of grain cars is pretty dramatic stuff for us in western Canada. These cars are highly visible as they move around the Prairies, painted in appropriate colours, bright orange ana gold. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, nothing like it has ever been seen on Canadian rail lines before. The only thing missing is the minister's signature.
Let me draw attention to some of the things the federal government should be doing to help the grain transportation industry. First, we should be moving away from the inner harbour of Vancouver out to Roberts Bank where there is sufficient depth of water to accommodate the new large bulk carriers, giving us lower ocean freight and where we can stockpile and where pollution will not be such a pressing problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Second, the government should recognize that the expenditure of a few million dollars on dredging the prairie port of Churchill would revolutionize it. This is probably the finest port in the world as far as the stockpiling of grain is concerned. The grain would keep for ever. The drawback is that Churchill doesn't have much political horsepower, and money spent there is not too visible.
Last year the government made trucking experiments in western Canada, moving grain to inland terminals by truck and thus releasing grain cars for export movement. In my view this was an unqualified success. We should be building up a prairie trucking industry ready to take over if railroad abandonment starts.


An hon. Member:: What do you mean by "if"?


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: The lines become unprotected in January, 1975. I charge the government with drawing the wrong conclusions from the trucking experiment. The operation should have been continued. It was never given a fair chance. Now, since the 2,000 new, large grain cars cannot be used effectively on light branch lines, the railroads will have yet another argument in favour of abandonment.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: There is another proposal I have to advance. It is to bypass the Fraser canyon. It involves an alternate route. It involves 45 miles of line.


Otto Emil Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: I should like to continue, Mr. Chairman, and then I will answer the hon. member.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think the tradition is not to interrupt a maiden speech.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, there is an alternative to the Fraser canyon route, and I think the federal government has a responsibility to act on it. It consists of a rail line some 45 miles long, joining our present CN and CP main lines just west of Kamloops to the British Columbia rail line which goes in a southwesterly direction to Squamish and Vancouver. This line would begin at Ashcroft and go up a hilly valley in a northwesterly direction to Clinton which is situated on the B.C. rail line. The proposed 45-mile loop would be built in a hilly mountain valley, not a mountainous canyon, closed-in type of terrain. At the present time there is already a highway joining these two towns.
Let me once again give the committee the figures relating to the three rail routes to the Pacific. The Prince Rupert line was blocked for five weeks last year, the Fraser canyon route was blocked for four weeks, but the proposed B.C. route was blocked for only 24 hours. Records for past years follow a similar pattern.
Our grain transportation industry has been studied to death, Mr. Chairman. In the last couple of years we have had plenty of task forces. We have had the Menzies report, a three-year transportation study which has now been passed on for another five years of study. We have had protein grading studies, quota system studies, block shipping studies and feed grain movement studies which have pitted eastern farmers against western farmers. The latest development was when the Quebec delegation walked out of the CFA meeting in Ottawa a few days ago. The government has done all these studies at great cost to the taxpayer. They have been done by very competent people who have gone as far as they can. It is now up to the government to act. What we want is some direction.
This government's response to our grain problems has been to build more and bigger bureaucracies. Let us look for a moment at some of the government organizations that the farmers and the transportation industry are expected to blueprint their way through. We have the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grains Commission, the Canada Grains Council, the grains group in Ottawa, the Canadian (International) Grains Institute, the grains division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Canadian government elevator system, the National Harbours Board elevator system, the Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Under growing federal government bureaucracy we now have the Manitoba Grain Commission, the Saskatchewan Grain Commission and the Alberta Grain Commission. How many more such bodies will we have to support before the government finally accepts its responsibility and moves to bring some order out of chaos?
I am apprehensive, Mr. Chairman, and so are a good many other farmers. I say this because the government
February 12, 1973

has consistently drawn the wrong conclusions, or no conclusion at all. Our grain industry has been managed by default. Three times during the last ten years we have been taken to the limit of our transportation facilities. In 1963 the Russians bought every bushel of wheat that Canada could export. In 1965 Russia and China again took all the grain we could move to export. In 1972 once again we found a desperate world at our ports and once again we were unable to accommodate the demand. Dr. Boerma, director of the Food and Agriculture Organization, has stated that world wheat stocks are now at their lowest level in 20 years, and during that period the world's population has grown by 50 per cent.
This government's action-or lack of action-is nothing short of criminal. The expenditure of $48 million on hopper cars is very difficult to justify in so far as increasing our exports of grain are concerned. Western Canadian farmers are not being saved by the politics of this government; they are being saved by the politics of hunger, by the food crisis which has made tens of millions destitute. This government must accept the blame for monumental failures in planning and implementing policies.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I rise only to put a few facts before hon. members, particularly in view of the remarks made by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek. When I asked the hon. member in the middle of his speech whether he would permit a question, I certainly did not realize that he was in the process of delivering a maiden speech. Nor did I realize, in point of fact, that there was a rule against interrupting such a thing. However, I do apologize for having done so. What I wanted to ask the hon. member-and perhaps he will take another occasion to tell me the answer to the question-was how he stood on the question whether any branch lines in the prairie region should or should not disappear in the next little while.
The hon. member made reference to the studies that have been made, and to do him credit I think he recognized that there was need to be patient until these studies made of the transportation and handling system had been completed. He criticized us for turning over the matter to the Canada Grains Council. What in fact we did was to turn it over in an effort to get the industry as a whole, and the producers in particular, to give their views as to whether or not we should move in the direction of fewer elevators and longer hauls in view of the savings that are possible.
The hon. member has been associated with the Palliser Wheat Growers Association which took a very strong stand in favour of far fewer delivery points across the prairie region, certainly a much stronger stand than I took in that direction. Indeed, they took a stronger view than that taken by the studies I have referred to, which suggested a certain degree of continued development and consolidation of delivery points. Even that view, however, means it is probable that some of the railway lines now existing will disappear, since grain was hauled along those lines to elevators which now no longer exist. Thus, these particular lines are of no further use for that purpose.
When the hon. member said that hopper cars were apt to be another thin edge of the wedge in regard to rail line
Supply
abandonment, if he meant anything at all I think he meant that he opposes rail line abandonment. Although the hon. member wants us to do something, he reserves the right to attack us, whatever we do and, in the best Conservative tradition, to attack from all sides in order to get maximum flexibility.
I know the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek very well. I also know that in the ordinary course he attempts to be fair and to be accurate. Therefore I must seriously ask him to put forward at an early opportunity his own views on the question whether the branch lines that now exist throughout the prairies are to remain five years from now or eight years from now. The hon. member says we should move faster than that and not wait five years, as suggested by the Canada Grains Council. I am far too impatient a man to see it take even that long. However, the producer must have the chance to make his views known and to tell us the system he wants.
The studies that we have completed show that if the grain that is now being handled by nearly 5,000 elevators in the prairie region were handled by two-thirds that number, the savings per bushel on all grain handled on the Prairies would be about five cents delivered. If those studies are accurate, that would mean a saving of $50 million on producer deliveries of one billion bushels, which I predict we will see for the first time in our history. In addition, the studies have indicated that-


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Otto Emil Lang: By all means.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In view of the fact that the National Farmers' Union and the three wheat pools have resigned and withdrawn from the Canada Grains Council, does the minister still regard it as a producers' organization representing grain farmers on the Prairies?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to tell the hon. member that while the three prairie pools have now withdrawn from the Canada Grains Council, which I regret and hope the hon. member regrets as well, there are other producer organizations of that organization. What I should like to point out to him particularly, if he does not mind listening to the answer to his question, is that the three prairie pools which resigned from the Canada Grains Council, and the National Farmers' Union, which resigned over a year ago, are all agreeable to serving on the transportation committee which the Canada Grain Council set up to study this very question. So there will be representation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek also referred to a number of studies including the block shipping study, the protein grading study and feed grain movement study and seemed to imply that these are perhaps governmental studies on the shelf somewhere. I should like the hon. member to note that in each of these cases the recommendations in these studies supported by the producers have been implemented to the full and are in operation.

February 12, 1973
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, the situation on the west coast is one in which we clearly require more storage facilities. We are all agreed on that. There is no doubt that more storage facilities are required there. I do say to the hon. member that it is not clear at all that the simple use of bulk handling facilities in that area is the answer to anything. The existing Saskatchewan wheat pool's terminal there, which is the most modern one, can handle a great deal more grain than it is now handling if it receives that grain clean. So if we can clean the grain on the Prairies, ship it to Vancouver and put it through that facility, we can handle that grain without using bulk handling facilities. I suggest this is something the wheat farmer and the wheat associations must look at very carefully before saying that bulk handling facilities are the answer.
We are told that the Kansas City review of September 13, 1972, said it was too bad that Canada was not selling grain any more because now the price has gone up so much. The Wheat Board stopped selling grain some time before the United States did because it knew the price was going up and it was waiting for it to go up. Indeed, on September 13 when the Kansas City review was saying it was too bad we were not selling grain any more, the price of grain was 30 cents or 40 cents lower than it subsequently rose to, and at that point after it had risen we sold more grain. Indeed, since that date the Canadian Wheat Board has sold 200 million bushels of wheat. That, Mr. Chairman, is the fact.
I really do not know how long we have to go on having the prairie farmers say such things as that we are out of wheat, because as at the last report I have here in my book, the amount of grain in the country three weeks ago was 1,100,000,000 bushels. We are told we have not been selling any grain. We sold 200 million bushels of wheat and we have been selling barley at a rapid rate and at a higher price, and we are continuing to sell. Those are the facts, Mr. Chairman.
We are now hearing criticism about the purchase of 2,000 hopper cars. We saw a need for the purchase of 2,000 hopper cars on the basis of the information the railways gave us. They could not assure us that in any given year, unless everything went absolutely right, they could in fact take more than about 800 million bushels of grain to destinations for export. We saw the possibility of wanting to take a good deal more than that, perhaps as much as 150 million bushels more than that for export. Hopper cars were needed to assure us that we could do that and to give us some leaway in times when markets were readily available.
We are told, again, that those hopper cars can only be operated on certain of the trackage in the prairie region. Of course that is true and it was known to us long ago when we began to look at the prairie region and the railway system there. I am not sure what the hon. member means when he says that somehow this is going to lead to more branch line abandonment. What it will lead to-and for goodness sake let us look at the positive side-is pressure on the railways to bring up their standards for the use of hopper cars on those lines which should remain in the business of grain handling. That, Mr. Chairman, is the positive side of this whole business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members talk about somebody
encouraging the disappearance of farmer's elevators and that this is a problem for the individual farmer. Of course it is, but that is not something which is going to start tomorrow. This is something that has been going on for years as a result of elevator company decisions. They know they have elevator units that can handle 700,000 or one million bushels of grain just as easily as 100,000, yet they have been handling on the average 100,000 to 200,000 bushels of grain with a man having to operate each elevator.
That is why we made the move and that is why the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta Wheat pools, as well as the United Grain Growers and other elevator companies, have been in the process of closing individual elevators. They had to consolidate grain handling to save the farmers some money. What we are trying to do is get into a position where some of this can be done in a sensible fashion. What we have had is the railways abandoning a line in one area of the Prairies and the elevator companies abandoning elevators in another area, not making very much sense between the two. What we are hoping to do is get them into a position where they all know what they are doing, so that they can save the farmer "X" cents per bushel in hauling grain to the market at a lower cost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The use of hopper cars will mean efficiency in handling of grain, rapid loading and rapid unloading. The elevator companies are agreeable to using the maximum number at their elevators. That is the kind of thing I believe we have to do for the good of the grain industry. I have been one who has been optimistic about the potential of our agricultural grain area from the very darkest days of 1968 and 1969.


An hon. Member:: And the days of Lift?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, even from the days of Lift when we had to take one step in an attempt to get the system into shape as quickly as possible. We had to say to the farmer that this was one step needed to get more grain out of the elevators. We had to get wheat out so we could move the barley that could not be handled until we got this grain out of the elevator. That was an essential step. Since then the record of this government has been to give the farmer information about world markets to the extent that we have given it to him on March 1 before he seeds his grain; we have told him what the initial price will be for the year-not in August as has been the tradition for years- because this year, for the third year in a row, we will be giving the farmer that information on or before March 1, as we promised to do as part of the over-all grain policy announced at the beginning of the Lift program in February, 1970. Those are the facts, Mr. Chairman.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering whether the minister in charge of the Wheat Board would be willing to answer a question at this time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is not a point of order. However, I understand the minister is prepared to answer a question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the interest of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in farm economy, is he planning to make personal representations to the Canadian Transport Commission asking it to impose a moratorium on plans for abandonment of rail lines on the Prairies after 1975? Does he plan on making any personal representation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that in the course of the discussions which are now going on, and on the basis of the studies we have done on handling and the transportation system, well before January 1, 1975, there will be a consensus and agreement in respect of which rail lines must be improved and which will not be used. It is my hope that the consensus which emerges from prairie producers in respect of their needs and benefits will in fact be a decision-making device in respect of what will happen before the CTC.


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks at this time which I feel are pertinent to this debate. I do not intend to become involved in statistics but will as much as possible comment generally and see that my remarks are brief.
The movement of grain on the Prairies has been a very real problem for many years. There has been a great deal of study carried out on the subject. There has been much debate, but very little action. I would suggest that the purchase of hopper cars has been the result of political expediency rather than a decision based on priority. Undoubtedly, at some time in the future hopper cars will become a priority item, but at the moment the railroads have indicated that with the rolling stock existing prior to the purchase of the cars they were able to transport approximately one billion bushels of grain annually to the west coast and Thunder Bay provided they had good weather and adequate terminal facilities.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has suggested a linking up of the CNR and CPR lines from the Kamloops area with the B.C. rail line in the Clinton area, a distance of some 45 miles. This is a rail connection that could be constructed with relative ease and at reasonable cost. This rail link, together with the improvement of facilities at Vancouver and new facilities at Roberts Bank, would save the western farmer many hundreds of thousands of dollars in demurrage. It would mean that there would be adequate supplies of export grains that would be available on site when called for by our customers. These are urgent matters.
There is the urgent matter of the port of Churchill. The port of Churchill is the nearest Atlantic ocean port to the prairie provinces. It eliminates more than 1,000 miles in comparison to the St. Lawrence Seaway route. It represents a reduction in shipping costs of from 10 cents to 15 cents per bushel. An amount of $10 million or $15 million out of the $48 million spent on hopper cars could have been spent in dredging and port rehabilitation. I suggest that such an expenditure should have had a much higher priority than hopper cars.
Supply
There is also the matter of rail line abandonment in Saskatchewan which has been delayed until 1975. The proposal of the railroads is to close down approximately 3,000 miles of the 8,500 miles of line. With the abandonment of this trackage, some 800 of the present 2,700 elevators would close down, affecting approximately 400 delivery points. The closing of these delivery points will spell the end of many of our small towns and an end to rural life, a trend which already is taking place.
I am not suggesting that there should be no rail line abandonment. What I am saying is that before any steps are taken to close down lines, the effect on small rural communities located on the lines should be seriously considered. Too often economics seem to have priority over people. Before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates we were told that something less than half the trackage in western Canada will be able to handle the new hopper cars. When considering the rail line abandonment it is imperative that we also consider rail line improvement at least into areas of high grain production.
In the past few days we have heard questions posed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board with regard to problems of grain delivery in various areas of the Prairies. We have also heard that Canadian boxcars have been used to transport United States grain through the Prairies and out to the west coast. If Canadian cars are available to transport United States grain, why are there not cars available to clear out some of the congested delivery points on the Prairies? What are the priorities? Is the transportation of United States grain more important than the transportation of Canadian grain? Is the welfare of the United States producer more important than the welfare of the Canadian producer?
To summarize, may I say that we have reached a difficult period. Decisions must be made in the immediate future. As the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek stated, there has been a multiplicity of studies. We cannot continue having more studies. Priorities must be worked out based on statistics available from those studies and not, as I said before, based on political expediency. Unless we establish such priorities very quickly, and unless once they have been established the government carries them out, the problems will continue to be compounded and we will lose not only the developing markets but also some of our traditional markets to our more aggressive competitors.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to interject two remarks in this discussion on the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture. I was particularly struck by three things tonight. I never thought I would live to see the day when we would have, as we have now, fourteen cabinet ministers present in this House and many shiny faces in the other rows on the government side. It is a wonderful change. I do not know whether they are paying attention to this particular subject or whether they are interested in subjects which will come up during the remainder of the discussion. As I have said, I never thought I would see the day when they would all be present for this kind of discussion. Had this been the case in 1968, 1969 and 1970 we might have had a much better situation in the agricultural and grain industry than we had in those years.

February 12, 1973
Supply
I listened to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain make a speech that was two or three years old. I heard the hon. member for Crowfoot and the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt make the same speech, very much better, two years ago. The hon. member seemed to be attempting to revive the myth about Alvin selling wheat. I noticed the manner in which the Minister of Justice got up and after years of frustration tried to combat that myth. I believe he had some success. However, had the Minister of Justice said the kind of things he said tonight in 1969 and 1970, and had he used some muscle on the railroads what we are debating tonight might not have been necessary.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was a typical Tory when he took part in the debate, only he is a little more modern than his colleagues who spoke last week. He was marching into 1957 trying to dam the waters that have already gone under the bridge. I appreciated some of the remarks of the Minister of Justice. I even understood and sympathized with his last-ditch defence of Lift. I hope he keeps that up in my constituency. But again, Mr. Chairman, that is water under the bridge.
It is amusing to hear the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the Minister of Justice rise back and forth for four and a half years and say to each other, "I sold more wheat than you did". Which one sold the most wheat? All this has been done at the expense of the wheat growers in the prairie provinces. Both of them talk about maximum production but they say nothing about price or, if they talk about price, they say that we have too much production. Both of them have spoken this way for many years, and while both of them have been in government we have lost tens of thousands of grain growers in the three prairie provinces.
Only the organizational genius of the old-line parties could do such a thing in a country which grows grains naturally. It is amusing to hear them talking about prices. When in mid-September the Tories promised an increase of 25 or 30 cents a bushel, the Minister of Justice pulled their teeth the next day and beat them by a nickel. What both of them forgot was that they were not fooling the farmers. It was the farmers' own money. The Minister of Justice could have announced the price to take effect at the beginning of the crop year on August 1; he could have done it in July. Of course, it made a better announcement coming in late September or October. However, he outbid the Conservatives by a nickel a bushel, using the farmers' own money.
The minister had the fortitude to mention the stabilization bill this evening and I am glad he brought up the subject. If it is his intention and the intention of his government to reintroduce that little item, I would like to refresh his memory. Perhaps he will recall that during the debate on that measure, before it was withdrawn four things were put forward which should have been included in the bill if it was to be acceptable to western grain farmers. One of them, I am happy to note, has been done; that is, having to do with crop insurance.
May I refresh the minister's memory, if he intends to bring that in again, that there are three remaining things

to do or revisions to make in his stabilization plan if it is to have any acceptance in the House or among farm organizations or grain producers in western Canada. The first is grain storage. I hope that by now the minister has given up the idea of repealing the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. We would welcome some positive amendments to it, but we hope he has given up that idea. We hope that he and his colleagues have now come around to what we put forward a year and a half ago, that the nation as a whole should bear some share of the cost of grain storage, not just on wheat but on all grains.
Second, the plan must be based on net income, not gross income. I do not need to say anything more on that subject. The minister went to the farm organizations and to the provinces, and I hope he has that message by now before he brings in any new stabilization plan. Third, the plan must be based on some kind of guaranteed price which has some relationship to the cost of production, or a combination of guaranteed prices and some control over rising farm costs. Those three things must be included before any stabilization plan becomes acceptable to grain farmers in western Canada.
We have had so-called surpluses in Canada and so-called world shortages, and successive old-line governments have played around with farm prices using the farmers' own money. Farm prices have always fluctuated at the beck and call of the so-called world markets. I submit, Sir, that until a national government is prepared to back the grain industry on prices and not leave them to the whims of world markets, we will continue to have the problems we have had in the past.
It is not good enough for either the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain or the Minister of Justice to brag about how much grain each of them moved if, first, the grain was sold at an insufficient price or, second, there was no guarantee or protection on those prices for grain producers when production is at a decent level. Surely this is part of what we have to do. We cannot leave individual grain growers at the mercy of what happens on the world markets. It requires the strength and wealth of the entire nation to support agricultural prices and, in this instance, grain prices.
Earlier tonight mention was made of orderly marketing, which I find most amusing coming from members of the Liberal and Tory parties who have talked a good fight on that subject for all these years. I would say to the Minister of Justice that we in this party support, and always have since the inception of our party in 1932, the orderly marketing of all six grains under the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact, there were only five grains in those years. We still support that.
I accept the idea of a plebiscite. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of grain growers in western Canada want the three grains to be under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am confident that rape-seed growers are sick and tired of the kind of pricing that has been imposed on them. It is all very well for the minister to lie back and rely on a plebiscite. I wonder, however, if his heart is really in it. What action is he personally taking, and what action is the Canadian Wheat Board and the government taking to provide the kind of positive information to grain growers that will lead them

to unanimously want to include rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board?
I am afraid what will be allowed to happen is that fast buck operators from grain exchanges and free enterprises will ride the backs of grain growers and start another propaganda war trying to undermine, undercut and destroy the whole principle of orderly marketing through a public, producer-controlled board. It is not good enough to say that we are all for a plebiscite. It will require some leadership. We submit that it will require leadership from members of all parties in the House if we are to enlarge and enhance the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board for the benefit of the grain growers, and this applies to feed grains as well as to the board's grains.
Unless and until this happens, the kind of things that have been happening to rapeseed prices and to flax and rye prices will be happening, that is, that they will have no relationship to the value and worth of the product. They have only related to what the speculators could make on them, with no relationship to the real value and worth of the product or to what it cost to raise and produce, and little or no relationship to what the farmer needed to have left over for himself. I submit that not until these grains are under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board will we get some fair, reasonable and decent pricing on these three grains.
I would like to hear where the Conservative party stands on this. I would like to hear from all the prairie cowboys whether or not they are in favour of flax, rye and rapeseed being under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would be interested to know, because I can assure them that whichever way they say they would prefer it, I would be happy to circulate every speech in my riding and in other parts of the Prairies.
We would like to know, are you or are you not in favour of those grains being under the Canadian Wheat Board? We would like to know if the Minister of Justice is in favour or not. And if there are any other Liberals from the three prairie provinces, we would like to know their position. There is one from Winnipeg. We would like to know whether he is in favour or not. An answer from him should be a dandy. We would like the Minister of National Defence to tell us whether or not he is in favour of these three grains being under the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Minister of Agriculture may or may not have expressed himself on this matter, but we would like to hear from him as well. We would like to know whether or not he is in favour of these three grains being under the Canadian Wheat Board. If nothing else, we would like to know his own personal opinion. I give him credit for that, Mr. Chairman; he is not afraid to express his personal opinion. He has given such opinions in the past. Is he for or against these three grains being under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board? If these three gentlemen express positive personal opinions they will provide some kind of responsible leadership and help the grain growers of western Canada.
I also hope that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will arrange for a lot of information to be given to grain producers very quickly, to support a plebiscite on
Supply
the question of bringing these three grains under the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope he is not merely playing around and could not care less whether the plebiscite wins or loses in that respect. I also hope that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will be present when we get to the vote in the estimates dealing with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce because we have some questions to ask him concerning hopper cars. I will not go into that subject very much tonight, although others have raised it.
But when it comes to the matter of rail line abandonment, Mr. Chairman, we for one group expect that the minister and the government will either formally make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission or, if necessary, overrule the commission and, as a minimum, place a five-year moratorium on any further rail line abandonment. Anything less than that will be a betrayal of grain growers and of hundreds of towns and villages in western Canada. Just to illustrate, I mention one line in my constituency which connects the villages and towns on Dilke, Holdfast, Penzance, Liberty, Stalwart, Simpson, and Imperial, some 130 miles of track slated to go if the CPR can get its way. The minister talks about a 5 cents a bushel saving from abandonment. I would like him to tell us whether that 5 cents a bushel saving is just for the CPR and the grain companies.


Otto Emil Lang: For the farmers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If that is for the farmers, I would like the minister to explain what will be done when grain is hauled great distances in trucks carrying 1,000 to 1,500 bushels, along municipal road systems not one mile of which is capable of carrying those loads? What will that mean in land taxes to farmers? I repeat, where does the 5 cents a bushel go? Is it still a 5 cents a bushel saving to farmers if, in addition to hauling their wheat a distance two or three times greater than before, they have to travel that farther distance to buy their groceries and farm implements?
What happens if these towns and villages become ghost towns and villages? Add up the cost if these scores of towns and villages with their streets, sidewalks, churches, schools, curling rinks, elevators, and other community services are abandoned, not to mention the grocery stores and implement dealerships. Is the minister going to ask all those people to get up and walk away from their communities? Surely not.
I want to see a lot more information before the minister can convince me or anybody else on the Colonsay subdivision of the CPR, that its abandonment will mean a saving of 5 cents a bushel. But even if by some stretch of the imagination or statistics-bending that was correct, has anybody added up the social and human costs involved? Are they included in that 5 cents a bushel? What is going to happen to those communities? The debenture debt is not even paid on the sewer, water and road systems. Surely the minimum we must have is for the government either to request the CTC or overrule the CTC, so that there will be a minimum moratorium of five years past 1975 on any rail line abandonment. That is the minimum time that will be needed in order to find out all we need to know before one more mile of track is lifted.

Adjournment Debate


Norval Alic Horner: Mr. Chairman, I really enjoyed what might be called the Saskatchewan debate this evening. I think all the speakers were from that province. It was interesting to see the Minister of Justice rise time and again and make accolades to himself. This is one of the disadvantages of coming back alone to parliament; you don't have anyone else to blow your horn so you must blow it yourself. We heard the debate between the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the former minister. We are not really able to judge who won tonight. But the same debate was carried on in Saskatchewan last October and I will accept the judgment of the people of that province; they were in the best position to know.
I take exception to the minister's comments about the Conservative party. It is rather discouraging to have the king of the grain bootleggers make criticisms like that. I say that his pet answer as to why Lift was introduced was utter nonsense. He said it was to clean out the system. He decreased the amount of grain in the system by 200 million bushels. He forced that amount of grain to be stored again on the farms for one reason and one reason only, to reduce the amount which the treasury had to pay under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. There is no way he will get me to believe anything different.
Perhaps this great salesman would rise at the close of my remarks tomorrow and tell us about the barley payment on last year's crop. And what about the final wheat payment? It was rumoured that it would be paid out on February 1, and then on February 12 which is today. I suppose now it will be paid on Friday. Maybe the politicians over there are still trying to steal a little out of this year's pool to make it look good politically?
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on January 24 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) if he intended to present at an early date legislation to provide the promised substantial increase in old age security pensions. The minister replied that he had scheduled yet another dominion-provincial conference and that such a meeting was to be held on February 2. The minister announced that the discussions with his provincial counterparts were "consultations" and that he envisaged no veto power for any or all of the provinces.

It is difficult to understand, let alone appreciate, what the government intends in this most important sector of the social welfare field. The Speech from the Throne declared, "a reconsideration of Canada's social security system must be conducted jointly by the federal government and the provinces". Later, the same document promises, nevertheless, "legislation will be introduced to improve the economic situation of the old age pensioners". The Speech from the Throne has been adopted, the minister has had a conference, he has promised more than once a substantial increase in the old age pension- but where is the legislation? If it were -needed at the time of the drafting of the Speech from the Throne, how much greater is the need now as prices continue to soar and the purchasing power of the old age security cheque shrinks with painful inevitability under this government's inflationary economy.
Two eminent economists, one from the Canada Council on Social Development and one from the Department of Urban Affairs recently indicated that about 50 per cent of Canadians over 65 years of age were living in poverty. Over 50 per cent, Mr. Speaker. What a situation! What a condition in a country with such potential for prosperity as Canada to have one-half the senior citizens having to eke out an existence at or near the poverty line.
It is time to bring on some measure of relief, some measure of justice for those who receive the old age security pension, now possessed of ever-diminishing purchasing power. I assured the minister and the House the other day that if he abandons his immobility on the matter and brings down the legislation we will assist him get it into the hands of the old age pensioners where it has belonged for lo these many months. How wrong it is to think, Mr. Speaker, that just because these people do not qualify for the supplement, do not in fact pass the means test, they are therefore affluent and are living a luxurious life, when indeed many of them are on the very edge of painful poverty.
My colleague from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) was telling me a moment ago about being in a supermarket in Ottawa this morning when he saw an old age pensioner look at a jar of honey, put it in the cart, calculate again what his pension was and then put the jar back on the shelf.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: These people are in dire straits. They need help, and they need it now. Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for delay. Surely, on the contrary, there are compelling economic reasons for action.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on January 24, I should point out that on January 11 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) indicated quite clearly what the government had in mind in respect of increases for old age pensioners. He indicated that consultation was taking place with provincial ministers of health and that further consultations would take place. He made an
February 12, 1973

unequivocal statement that substantial increases in the old age pension would be forthcoming.
On January 24 the hon. member for Hillsborough indicated that he was in a bit of a quandary on this subject. He did not seem to know why we would consult on the matter when in fact we had already made up our minds that there would be a substantial increase. I should like to point out to him that consultation does not mean that they who are being consulted will make the final decision on what will be done. The fact of the matter is that this kind of consultation means that the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned with the view of the provincial ministers and would like to take them into account in its deliberations. However, that does not preclude the possibility of achieving the objective of the government's statement to provide substantial increases. It could be increased in terms of the old age pension itself, the OAS, the GIS or a combination of both.
It is quite important to the government to know the views of the provincial ministers of welfare in this respect prior to introducing legislation in this House. The minister indicated that that legislation will be coming down very shortly. I think all members of this House will agree that when that legislation is presented it will do something very worth while for all the old age pensioners in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Bring it down tomorrow.


MANPOWER-LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-MEASURES TO ACCELERATE APPROVAL OF PROJECTS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I raised the question of the insufficient funds made available to the Department of Manpower and Immigration for its Local Initiatives Program by asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when additional credits would be made available to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to enable him to approve a greater number of projects with a view to creating jobs and settling some of the problems facing the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
In his reply the minister stated that he would take the suggestions into account.
During the previous program, namely the 1971-72 program, 38 per cent of the projects submitted were approved and implemented. As a rule, the results were satisfactory.
When this program was renewed for 1972-73, the minister stated that it met the needs of the rural population as well as those of the urban population and that it permitted a direct and rapid intervention in high unemployment regions and often made it possible to create new kinds of employment. The minister also said that this program would permit the implementation of projects which the people themselves consider essential for their collectivity but which could not be implemented before.
The government saw fit to renew this program this year and, as a representative of the people, it was my duty to inform my constituents and to invite them to submit projects.
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian population responded to the government in such a way that over 16,000 projects have been submitted. Unfortunately, for lack of funds, less than one third have been approved to date.
If the government is truly sincere and willing to fight unemployment it should at least double the funds earmarked for this purpose.
In the second place, it is high time for the government to state frankly what criteria are applied for approval of projects. It is increasingly difficult for a member of Parliament to ascertain the true facts in this respect. Moreover, the public is concerned about allegations that patronage-minded Liberals are imposing their views on selection of projects emanating from ridings represented by non-Liberal members. I hope there is no truth in such rumours, but it is time to give the public frank reassurances in this respect.
The minister has already stated that the main consideration for acceptance of a project is the level of unemployment in the locality from which it originates, which is reasonable.
If such is the case, I suggest that it would be equitable for more projects to be approved in Eastern Quebec, some of them in the riding of Bellechasse which has been sadly neglected for many years, long before I became its representative and where there are major economic and social needs to be met.
That is why I am insisting on approval and implementation of a greater number of projects as early as possible, in order to provide employment for a greater number of workers and to reduce the number of people now forced on welfare.
The minister has instructed his officials to send to all hon. members copies of projects submitted and originating from their respective ridings, accompanied by a letter asking for each hon. member's comments, if any are warranted. This is a most generous gesture on the part of the minister. It will enable hon. members to acquaint themselves with each one of the projects and judge whether or not they will meet the needs of the locality.
I wish to call the attention of the minister to another point which is most troubling, that is, to the announcement of the Quebec minister for municipal affairs to the effect that he accepted such and such a program.
This news published in the newspapers lead the public to believe far more projects are adopted than are in fact. If the reader is the least bit careful, he will discover that the good news of the minister is conditional on the projects being accepted at the federal level because the federal government pays.
In the final analysis, it is just a matter of partisan propaganda of which the public has long since had its fill. This does nothing to help create jobs for the unemployed or to implement projects.
So I ask once more that additional credits be voted for this program, that the project examination and approval procedure be accelerated and that consideration be given to recommendations by Manpower Centres and the organizations concerned, which are more qualified than anyone else to inform adequately the officials responsible for

February 12, 1973
Adjournment Debate
making final decisions. This is urgent; the unemployed cannot wait any longer.
I hope very much that we shall receive a favourable reply and that the projects will be approved in greater numbers and implemented in the best interest of working people.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the question originally raised by the hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert) had to do with the speed of processing LIP applications. The minister has on several occasions this year responded to similar questions. On January 8, as reported at page 40 of Hansard, he said the following:
I cannot give a precise date but in all sincerity it will be done just as quickly as it can be done wisely.
That might be said to be the principle upon which we have been proceeding with respect to the processing of LIP applications. This evening the hon. member has raised several other questions including, principally, that of the sufficiency of the fund. It should be pointed out that the regular LIP fund has in fact been exhausted since January 19, and to the extent that the LIP fund has been kept open since that date this has been possible as a result of the transfer of funds from the on-the-job training program and from the business LIP.
The minister suggested to the hon. member in his answer on February 6 that he thought it likely that $10 million would be transferred from the on-the-job program to LIP but, as a matter of fact, only $5 million has been transferred because there was a considerable upswing in applications for on-the-job training during the last week of the application period and it will be possible to put people to work under this program at a faster rate than the minister had anticipated when he answered on February 6.
With respect to the $10 million set aside for business LIP, $7 million has been transferred back to regular LIP. It is anticipated that only $1 million will be required for fund projects approved under the business LIP segment of the program although, of course, these projects will serve as a valuable tool for assessing the viability of the particular program involved.
To bring the House up to date I should like to give the latest available figures on the Local Initiatives Program, taken from the computer as of Friday, February 9. The applications received numbered 15,269; the dollar value of these applications was $487, 121,698. The number of applications approved was 5,732; the dollar value of the applications approved was $162.6 million. Man-months of employment created, 332,732.
Unofficially, as of this time, all available funds have been committed to approved projects. The official figures from the computer will be available tomorrow or Wednesday. It may be the case that there will be some further small transfers of funds. The balance of $2 million from business LIP may be available for regular LIP, or the decision may be made to pay the money back to the training on-the-job program because of great demand in that area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret that the time of the hon. member has expired.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-STEPS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE NUMBER OF PLANES AND VESSELS FOR ACCIDENTS OFF EAST COAST
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on January 26, as reported at page 683 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). I asked the minister what steps he was taking to ensure adequate search and rescue capabilities off the east coast of Canada, in view of the serious incident that took place recently when it took ten hours to evacuate the crew of a stranded Canadian trawler only a very short distance from the coast of Newfoundland because there were no helicopters based there. The minister replied that the government was looking at the possibility of decentralizing it-that is, the search and rescue facilities-somewhat and increasing our capability in Newfoundland. That is more or less a direct quotation.
My question was prompted by the grounding of the Newfoundland trawler Cape Brule in heavy seas off the south coast of Newfoundland early in January of this year. Because of the heavy seas in the area at the time, the vessel was in great danger of breaking up, placing the lives of the 14 crew members in imminent danger. The nearest search and rescue aircraft are stationed in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, some considerable distance to the west. Consequently, it took ten hours to get the Canadian forces search and rescue helicopter to the scene to evacuate the crew.
This is not the first such incident, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate that the limited time at my disposal does not permit me to go into the others. There was a search and rescue unit based in St. John's up to 1963, when it was moved to Greenwood, Nova Scotia, some 500 miles to the west. The situation has been further aggravated by the departure of the U.S. Coastguard from Argentia, Newfoundland.
The situation concerning the grounding of the Cape Brule and the lack of air/sea search and rescue capability in the area was summed up by the St. John's Evening Telegram in an editorial on January 18, 1973. The editorial is headed "Ottawa needs a map", and I shall quote part of it:
Has anybody in Canada got a map of Newfoundland? We doubt it, for anybody with such a map and the sense that God gave to a broody hen would see right off that Newfoundland is the obvious place in which to locate air and sea rescue operations. It has a long and dangerous coastline, it is close to the major Atlantic shipping routes, it sits astride the main fishing areas and it has five fully fledged airports, as well as a number of suitable airstrips.
The editorial goes on to say:
It is only too obvious that aircraft could have been on the scene within an hour if Argentia, Gander or St. John's had rescue aircraft ready to move at short notice.
On January 24, 1973, I wrote to the Minister of National Defence outlining the urgency of the situation and the need for immediate remedial action. I realize, of course, that the minister has been preoccupied of late with the Viet Nam situation, but I do not think it is overstating the

case to say that unless the government acts, and acts soon, we are going to be faced with a serious marine disaster.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) has already announced that four specially designed lifeboats will be built and placed into service by the Department of Transport. Surely the Department of National Defence, which is currently in the process of redefining the role of the Canadian armed forces, has to bear a great deal of the responsibility since it has aircraft at its disposal plus the experience to co-ordinate and carry out successfully an air/sea rescue operation.
My province, which has a coastline of 6,000 miles, is involved in year-round deep sea fishing operations. God knows, fishing is a hazardous occupation at the best of times but is particularly dangerous in the wintertime. The province of Newfoundland, particularly the east coast, should be the logical site for an air/sea rescue unit. Thanks to the United States, there are adequate and excellent base facilities available. An aircraft stationed in eastern Newfoundland would add almost a thousand miles to their capability and would reduce substantially the time it would take to deploy a helicopter to a stricken vessel.
In addition, I think it is also fair to say, for the record, that the province of Newfoundland has been shortchanged in so far as national defence spending is concerned. We do not have a major Canadian forces base in the province of Newfoundland, apart from a very small communications unit stationed at Gander and a very small unit based in Goose Bay, Labrador, which is there mainly to assist the huge U.S. base located there.
I believe this would be an excellent opportunity for the government to correct that situation and to provide the province of Newfoundland with an air/sea search and rescue unit which would serve to protect the many thousands of Canadian fishermen who fish off the coast of Newfoundland and, more particularly-I underline this because I think it is urgent this winter when we are experiencing severe ice conditions-it would serve in my view to avert a very major marine disaster. I believe it is incumbent upon the government to act immediately because of the seriousness of the situation.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I
Adjournment Debate
should like to compliment the hon. member for bringing forward this subject of search and rescue as it pertains to the Canadian armed forces, because they have had an excellent record over the years. In this very serious task we do run into many difficulties.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has expressed his very real concern on the subject of search and rescue to the minister in private discussions, by letter, by question in the House and during this debate tonight. I wish to advise him that the minister also has a very real interest in the search and rescue capability of the department.
I believe the hon. member is aware that the Department of National Defence is, by cabinet direction, responsible for providing search and rescue facilities capable of responding to air distress incidents in accordance with Canada's international responsibilities as agreed with the International Civil Aviation Association and also in terms of our own domestic requirements. Providing resources to deal with marine distress incidents is primarily the responsibility of the ministry of transport. I understand that department will shortly be commissioning four new lifeboats, as the hon. member mentioned, for use in the Newfoundland area.
I know the hon. member does appreciate, however, that when there is a distress call, be it air or marine, the search and rescue facilities of the Canadian forces are immediately alerted and provide whatever assistance is possible. The Canadian forces do, through the rescue co-ordination centres, provide co-ordinating services for both air and marine incidents.
In the specific rescue operation involving the motor vessel Cape Brule to which the hon. member has referred, I should like to point out that from the first indication that the ship was in distress until a search and rescue aircraft was over the Cape Brule, was 5 j hours, not 10 hours as the hon. member indicated in his question on January 26.
Furthermore, from the time it became apparent that a helicopter was required to effect a rescue of the crew members until the search and rescue helicopter was taking the first survivors from the Cape Brule, was 4 hours and 21 minutes. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does have the minister's assurance that he is looking at the possibility of some decentralization of the search and rescue capability.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday. February 13, 1973