1974-11-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Boulanger.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question or two to the Prime Minister relating to certain matters that were not clarified by the budget address last evening. The first relates to the tax status enjoyed by Time magazine and Reader's Digest. Is it the decision of the government to continue with the present status?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Obviously if nothing was said in the budget, nothing is contemplated at this time. This does not preclude any further action.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand what the Prime Minister is saying is that no decision has yet been taken. If that is the situation indicated by the Prime Minister, when may we expect a decision since the general impression has been created that perhaps the situation would have been covered in the course of the budget.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we cannot be responsible for that general impression the Leader of the Opposition has gleaned from God knows where, but so far as the first part of the question is concerned, that is right; no decision has been taken and the matter is still before cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition on a final supplementary.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, there is another matter of some obscurity relating to the remarks made by the minister with regard to the size of the public service, the minister having said he would place limits on the growth of the public service. I should like to ask the Prime Minister precisely what that means. Does it mean there is to be a pause in the recruitment of the public service and that it will be held to its present size? Has any decision been taken of a precise nature or was this simply a generalization which the minister does not ordinarily use?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, so far as the statement is meant to have effect, I suppose it will be judged only by the effect it does have in due course. I can only emphasize that the minister's statement was a serious one and the opposition and the country will have to judge us on our ability to administer it.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
MINIMUM SAVING FOR TAXPAYERS IN 1974 and 1975 AS A RESULT OF BUDGET CHANGES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the minister would be good enough to clarify some confusion which exists in the minds of a number of people as a result of last night's budget, namely, that the minimum saving which will occur as a result of this budget for the 1974 taxation year for Canadians is in fact $50 and not as has been reported by a number of people $150?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, for 1974 it will be $150 and for 1975 it will be $200. Obviously, in terms of the deductibility tables this will not be implemented until the deductibility tables are changed early in January.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister has not clarified but rather has further confused the situation. Will he correct me if I am wrong that the $100 minimum deduction was passed in the 1973 budget and all that the minister is adding in the current budget is a $50 reduction for 1974?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is perfectly right with regard to the February, 1973 budget. There was a five per cent reduction, a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500. In the May 6 budget, the minimum was proposed to be raised to $150 for 1974. That was implemented last night in the ways and

November 19, 1974
Oral Questions
means motion. In addition, for 1975 the minimum will be raised to $200 and the maximum raised to $750.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister has acknowledged that there is only a $50 reduction in addition to what was proposed in the 1973 budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Edward Broadbent: I would like him to clarify that for 1975, in contrast to what has been suggested by a number of people, the real minimal saving in terms of those who are paying taxes in 1975 is simply an additional $50 over what they will get in 1974. I would like to hear the minister's opinion on this also since he did not document what he expected in the form of inflation. Given the rate of inflation which will inevitably take place, that $50 inevitably will be eaten away by inflationary pressures. Is that the minister's opinion?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman is engaging in a little game of semantics here. Certainly, he will recognize that the May 6 budget was defeated largely as a result of the efforts of the hon. gentleman and his friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: When I entered the House last night, the minimum tax reduction, as the hon. gentleman states, was $100. I reinstated at one stroke the $50 which would have been implemented had the hon. gentleman passed the May 6 budget, plus another $50, for a minimum of $200. Two thirds of that tax reduction will apply to taxpayers at $12,000 or less.


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
Can he say if the chartered banks will soon reduce their prime rate now that the Bank of Canada has decreed the V2 per cent reduction last week?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it behooves the chartered banks to react as they want about the rate reduction prescribed by the Bank of Canada and so we have to wait.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Has the minister met the Canadian Bankers Association to ask them to do their share by lowering the prime rate with a view to stimulating the Canadian economy which is something the minister seems to hope?


John Napier Turner: I imagine the banks will follow the market, Mr. Speaker. I have always told the chairmen of the nine or ten Canadian chartered banks that priority must be given first of all to the economically

weak regions, as well as to the small contractors, farmers, fishermen and independent businessmen in Canada.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have another
supplementary.
The minister still has not told us whether the Canadian Bankers Association agrees with stimulating the Canadian economy through lower interest rates?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I should like to have a clarification of the policy with regard to beef. On many occasions in the past the Minister of Finance has indicated that the way to beat inflation is to stimulate and increase production in various phases of the Canadian economy. In view of the events announced in the United States a couple of days ago with regard to beef and in view of the fact that it appears now that beef production is being reduced by the producers, could the Prime Minister inform the House what the government policy is in fact with regard to beef production specifically? Is it to stimulate greater production of beef or to ask farmers to cut back production of beef?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, over the long haul we do want to increase supply but as the hon. member realizes there are specific points in time over this long haul where the supply cannot be disposed of, such as the examples we saw earlier this winter. As far as the question of the United States action is concerned, the government decided to send a note to the United States which has been sent to them this morning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not by mail, I hope.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, it is being presented to them in the usual manner.


ALLEGATION CANADIAN DELEGATION WRECKED SUGAR AGREEMENT-REASON FOR PRICE INCREASE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of allegations that the Canadian delegation played a leading part in wrecking a sugar agreement which would have provided sugar at 11 cents per pound, can the minister explain why sugar is now selling in Ottawa at about 70 cents a pound and is likely to go to more than a dollar per pound by next spring?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no sub-

November 19, 1974

stance whatsoever to that allegation. The reason that it has not been possible to negotiate a new international sugar agreement is that the producing countries do not at the moment consider it in their interests to come to the negotiating table.


SUGAR-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ENSURING TWENTY-FIVE PER CENT OF DOMESTIC MARKET FILLED BY CANADIAN SUGAR BEET PRODUCERS
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister's counter charge could lead to debate as I certainly believe the facts to be different. I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Since Canada and Japan are the largest importers of free market sugar in the world, is the government at this time contemplating the formulation of a national sugar policy which would ensure that at least 25 per cent of the Canadian market would be filled by Canadian sugar beet producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question in the form of a representation by the hon. member and will consider it.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns the price of sugar which is being outrageously advanced without regard to anything except the profits of the refining organizations and the sugar corporations. May I ask whether the minister is able to inform the House how much sugar was on hand as of January 1 this year among these various refiners and how much of that sugar was still on hand on July 1? Does the minister have that information? If he has, I think it would indicate that what is happening is that the sugar companies are simply, with stock on hand, piling up additional costs to the Canadian taxpayers who are perfectly defenceless because of the fact that the Combines Investigation Act has never been used.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As a result of the question put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I got in touch with the refineries requesting information. I have received part of that information. I expect the second part of those details within the next few days. I shall be pleased to communicate them to the House as soon as I have received all pertinent information.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question and I thank the minister for his courtesy in advising the House that he has at least communicated with these people. When he receives a communication from them I hope he will investigate to see if it is as far removed from
Oral Questions
the truth as some of the defences the sugar companies have recently revealed in connection with prosecutions.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member and all his colleagues that, each month, Statistics Canada makes public some information on the volume of sugar we have in reserve in Canada. He can therefore by himself and on his own initiative check the amounts, which are general and do not apply to specific refineries. I could have given him that information, but since the question is more precise and refers to the amounts of sugar of each refinery, a detail that is not made public by Statistics Canada, I have been forced to ask the refineries themselves. If they agree to give the information, I will be pleased to disclose it in the House.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Expansion. As the regional cities price index released by Statistics Canada at one o'clock today, showed a dramatic increase in food prices at St. John's, Newfoundland, which are largely influenced by the increase in the price of sugar and other items, and as the 3.8 per cent increase in food prices in one month represents an annual increase of 20.8 per cent in food prices for St. John's, Newfoundland, may I ask the minister what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Food Prices Review Board, bearing in mind especially that most food consumed in Newfoundland must be imported from the mainland.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that this report comes under my responsibilities, I am of course as concerned as the hon. member, and I think this deserves further investigation and action. On the matter of transportation, which is one of the factors involved, I propose to consult with my colleagues, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. There are some studies under way already, and have been for some time, on the improvement of service. I point out that, at the moment, subsidies in excess of $50 million are paid on the gulf service alone. As to the more substantive part of the report, which I hope the provincial government has taken into account, the Food Prices Review Board has of course made strong comments about the distribution system on the island. I will be glad to talk to them about it and see if we can find some cooperative arrangement to improve it.

November 19, 1974
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


FOOD PRICES IN NEWFOUNDLAND-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ELIMINATE DISPARITY BETWEEN NEWFOUNDLAND AND OTHER AREAS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who answers in this House for the Food Prices Review Board. Has he examined the recommendations of the board on food prices in Newfoundland. Also, on the basis of his examination, is he now prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues measures for closing the disparity between prices for food charged in Newfoundland and in the rest of the country?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the manner in which the Minister of Finance dealt with natural resources last night, and bearing in mind the way his colleague has also dealt with the question of natural resources, will the Prime Minister take part in the important budget debate and explain in clear terms to the House and to the country why the government has decided to act as the architect of disunity in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if it appears after that debate has begun and proceeded that some members like the hon. member still do not understand, not because of prejudice but because of inability, I might even invite the hon. member to lunch, and explain this to him.


Gerald William Baldwin: But I understand very well.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: We understand only too well. That's the trouble.


FINANCE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as minister and also in his capacity as the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton. My question relates to a statement made in the budget speech to the effect that fiscal stimulus will come from something other than an increase in expenditures. May I relate that comment to the Public Service of Canada and ask the minister, both in his capacity as minister and as the member for Ottawa-Carleton, what are his plans for reducing the numbers serving in the Public Service of Canada. How big a reduction does he have in mind, as a member of parliament and as a

minister, in the size of the Public Service of Canada- because if the budget means anything, it suggests such reduction-and what methods does he intend to use to achieve the aims of the budget. Can he answer this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Despite the importance of the question, I have some reservation about the hon. member's ability to pose a question to the minister in his capacity as the member for Ottawa-Carleton. The fact is that questions can only be addressed to the minister, and therefore only to the minister in his capacity as Minister of Finance and not in his capacity as the member of parliament representing his important constituency or any other. In addition, it appears to me, unless the minister wishes to answer the question at this time, that the question is of a kind which ought to be put on the order paper. However, if the minister wishes to answer, he may.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member would probably rather have an answer to his question, I prefer to answer at this time. I suggest that he has misread the budget speech. We were not talking about reductions in the Public Service. We were talking about restraints in the increase of expenditures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: And, restraints in the increase of expenditure will obviously involve some restraints on the increase or growth of the Public Service. The Prime Minister has indicated that will be determined as the government reconciles its priorities in its various government programs.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Has there been consultation and agreement with the Public Staff Association through the National Joint Council with the government with regard to the position the minister now indicates is the position of his government?


John Napier Turner: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, there was no need to negotiate something that was not in the mind of the government. We are not talking about reduction. The hon. member really would not expect me to negotiate that aspect of the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State, I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Is the government aware that the CBC does not plan to televise the final game in the Canadian Intercollegiate Athletic Union schedule between the University of Western Ontario and the Univer-
November 19, 1974

sity of Toronto this Friday evening, in spite of the fact that these finals have been televised for many years, and the CBC has exclusive telecasting rights which prevents any alternative arrangements?


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make note of the question. I will refer it to the minister.


INDUSTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to the study he is making into possible assistance the federal government can give to the lumber industry. My question is twofold. When can we expect a statement in the House as to what the federal involvement will be? Has the minister discussed with his colleagues the possibility of making changes to the Bank Act to allow for government guarantees of loans made under Section 88? This would certainly be of immense help.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be discussing a number of these questions with my colleagues this afternoon. As to when I might make a statement in the House, I can only estimate that it might be sometime next week.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General of which I have already given him notice. It relates to payouts from the post office guaranty fund during the last fiscal year based on figures supplied to me by the department. A province by province breakdown of the losses caused by the most part because of conversion and postal employees indicates very wide variation and I want to ask the minister why, for example, losses in Newfoundland appear to be $25,000 while there are no losses indicated at all for PEI, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick. Also, why in the province of Quebec were there losses of nearly $70,000 while in the neighbouring province of Ontario, having an approximate comparable population and number of employees, there was a loss of only $6,000? Can the minister indicate why these conditions and inconsistencies exist and what he proposes to do?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member with his usual courtesy informed me several days ago that he intended to ask this question. I wish to answer it in two stages; one, orally and, two, with a written answer.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have reservations about the extent of the question posed by the hon. member as to whether it is a proper question for the oral question period as opposed to the order paper. It seeks detailed information about comparative losses on operations in different provinces. It seems to be a proper question for the order paper. However, if the minister can answer in a brief preliminary way, he will be permitted to do so.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, there exists a guaranty fund that began in 1890 and ended in 1920. It was collected from postmasters in order to financially compensate for inefficiency or criminal action. This fund is still in existence. Last year there was a considerable loss in the province of Quebec. It was related to three specific instances, one a criminal action and the other two negligence or lack of collecting COD charges. I will follow with more specific written information.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering the uncertainty and insecurity that prevail in the textile industry, particularly in Quebec, of which both the minister and the Prime Minister are well aware, does the minister intend to do something about the import quota policy, an area where his department has been slackening for some eight months, so that the quota of our industry, that increased from 35 to 50 per cent, be raised to 65 per cent and, finally, about at least the protective measures his predecessor brought forward in 1971 so that they be revewed for three more years?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question from an hon. member yesterday, I mentioned that I had referred eight or nine particular textile product groups to the Clothing and Textile Board for urgent examination in terms of the situation. I expect to receive their report in the near future at which time we will consider what quotas or other actions we should take.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the minister intend to take steps, either alone or in co-operation with his colleague responsible for regional economic expansion, to help the textile industries which must recycle or transform their production and if so, could he tell the House where in the throne speech was there reference to that assistance to the textile industry, particularly in Quebec?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the problems now affecting the textile industry are caused by a world situa-

November 19, 1974
Oral Questions
tion of over-supply, distress selling and a turn-down in the major markets for the producers of these products. This is the situation which has created difficulties for the Canadian textile industry. The Clothing and Textile Board will be examining this on an urgent basis.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Minister of Finance has taken steps to improve the position of the 40 per cent of Canadians 65 years of age and over who have other income, what steps does the government propose to take to provide a meaningful improvement in the economic position of the 50 to 60 per cent of Canadians over 65 who rely exclusively on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement and who already pay no income tax?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Mr. Hees:: -is travelling again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That shows how badly informed the opposition is. The minister is meeting with the provincial welfare ministers today to discuss the whole problem of a policy paper published a year and a half ago, I believe, on welfare in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on more than one occasion the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that from time to time there have to be adjustments in the basic rate of old age security, may I ask whether consideration is being given to increasing that basic rate during this session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can the minister tell the House if, in accordance with the statements made lately by the representative of the Canadian government in Rome, his department will take steps to increase the efficiency of the Canadian agriculture in order to encourage the production of food and thus fight more effectively the problem of hunger in the world? Following those statements, when will the minister

announce these new long term measures and make the agriculture industry really efficient?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman knows that most agriculture in Canada is profitable today, certainly more profitable than it has been for many years.


An hon. Member:: What about the beef producers?


Eugene Whelan: There are some sectors of agriculture that may be suffering from a short term problem at the present time, but the intention of the government is to provide stabilization to agriculture. We said we would and we will.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Inasmuch as in the budget speech last night the minister made a good deal of the need for restraint in fighting inflation, is not the minister's position that the various segments of the Canadian economy should take the 15.6 per cent increase into their calculations in dealing with their negotiations and things of that sort?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, every sector will have to look at its own position. The message of the budget was that, all taken together, there are only limited resources in the economy, and that the consensus that we have built up should keep that in mind. The hon. gentleman will recognize that on the basis of the increased expenditures contemplated for the next fiscal year it is just slightly above the rise in the gross national product in normal terms.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. The minister talks of a consensus among segments of the economy as to how to deal with the problem, but inasmuch as there is an enormous number of labour settlements coming up, I take it that the position of the government is that the 15.6 per cent increase in wage rates in these labour negotiations will be appropriate in terms of fighting the inflation battle?


John Napier Turner: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that just as business should take into consideration in setting prices the additional cash flow given them by the budget last night, so working men and women will also take into account the additional money returned to them in terms of disposable income in the next fiscal year. If this is done, increases need not be anywhere near the range the hon. member suggests.
November 19, 1974


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that United Nations figures released at the world food conference in Rome indicate that the global demand for fresh water will increase by 240 per cent during the next five years, and in view of the fact that the government has no policy regarding the export of Canadian water, does the Prime Minister still hold to the view that: "I don't want to be a dog in the manger about this, but if people are not going to use it, can't we sell it for hard cash?"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, last week there was made public the permutations and combinations of declarations of interest of ministers of the Crown vis-a-vis conflict of interest-frozen trusts, blind trusts, over declarations, everything, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reaction that the Prime Minister has obviously had to this confusing situation, will he, including himself and the rest of his ministers, not insist that an open declaration of their affairs, including assets and liabilities, be made and given to the Clerk of this House, thus levelling with the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be promoting his own brand of openness. The principles which guide the cabinet were set before the House. We would welcome discussion on them if the House wants so to discuss them, but they are the principles that thq cabinet is following.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since traditionally this has not been a question for House discussion but a question of the leadership of the Prime Minister, will the Prime Minister resolve the matter in that way? What I do as a private member of parliament is different from what the Prime Minister decides for himself and his cabinet. Would the Prime Minister insist on this kind of procedure that I suggest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been prepared to give, and indeed do give, the kind of leadership that I thought best. The leadership that we are not following is that of the hon. member. Nor, indeed, are the rest of his colleagues following that leadership.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may put a final supplementary


William Heward Grafftey: Has it not been made clear to the Prime Minister by many people in this country since the declarations were made last week that the Canadian people are not satisfied with blind trusts, frozen trusts and that sort of thing?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not been made clear. I have heard the hon. member voice that opinion but I have not seen general, overwhelming support for his opinion. Nor is this the case even among his own members in the Tory party.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the increased emphasis on offshore resources, pollution off our coasts and a presence in the north, would the minister explain the rationale for the cutbacks in the operations of Maritime Command which have resulted in one flight every six months in the north, next to no effective coastal patrols, and no joint exercises with our NATO allies?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have before me figures for the last month. There were 15 Argus flights in October and 12 Tracker flights. This amounted to 150 hours for the Argus and 67 flying hours for the Tracker. We have carried out more flights than this in other months, but these facts confirm that the surveillance flights are being flown on a regular and continuing basis.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister assure the House that the figures he has just read out are flights for training, which has top priority to keep men in a training stance so they can learn; and can the minister confirm that there has not been a flight to the north or over the north, about which we talk so much, and that none is intended until after this fiscal year?
To conclude this supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House what we are not doing now that we did do before the financial restraints of the minister cut back operations?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think my previous answer indicated that the surveillance flights are continuing. Some of them are training flights, but there are flights over the Atlantic. Flights to the north have been curtailed and no date has been set for the next flight to the north.


EFFECT OF FINANCIAL RESTRAINTS ON STRENGTH OF FORCES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question though it comes closer to a question of privilege. The minister knows that that answer is pure pap and that we are in serious trouble. My supplementary question to the minister arises out of a response given by the Minister of Finance, who has indicated to the House, by way of explanation of his remarks last night, that it was not the intention of government to cut back the numbers of people in the public service of Canada. I ask the Minister of National Defence

November 19, 1974
Oral Questions
whether he has a clear understanding from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister that that philosophy will apply to the Canadian Armed Forces and defence employees.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the House on earlier occasions that the numbers in the Canadian Armed Forces must be related to the tasks, and we are in the process of bringing the numbers and the tasks into balance.


EFFECT OF FINANCIAL RESTRAINTS ON STRENGTH OF FORCES IN YUKON
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. In view of the announced intention of the government regarding the cutbacks and the avowed policy of the government to establish and retain Canada's sovereignty in Canada's north through the presence of armed forces personnel there, is it also the intention of the government to cut back on the existing armed forces' strength in the Yukon, which is now five to cover 207,000 square miles of Canada's sovereign territory?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I would remind hon. members that the defence budget has not been cut; it has been increased by more than a quarter of a billion dollars this year over last year.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to a matter I raised in the House a week ago obviously seeking either comment or information from the government, and regarding which I have received neither. My question relates to Mr. Charles Spatero, a convicted arsonist, with very obvious international criminal connections who, while on weekend leave from the Warkworth prison, a federal institution, crossed the border in a green Cadillac traceable by law enforcement agencies on both sides of the border to an international criminal figure. During the period Mr. Spatero was in Buffalo, he was even interviewed by a Toronto newspaper-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -is to the Minister of Justice. Why was there a delay from June 15 to July 26 before the extradition papers were signed in the minister's department, and
[Mr. Forrestall.J
why was there a delay from July 26 to October 29 before these same extradition papers were received in the office of the law enforcement agency in Buffalo, New York?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it from memory, the actual locating of this individual took place on July 4, and after that the proceedings to put the necessary material into flow began with the Crown prosecutor in the province of Ontario playing his part through the Department of Justice, the Department of External Affairs, the United States Consulate Office and so on. There was in this particular case some difficulty with the material in that some backup work had to take place which resulted in the lengthy time lapse.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, does the minister mean there was difficulty in the Department of Justice here in Ottawa in respect of the actual serving of the papers from July 26 to October 29?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the problem in respect of the papers was actually between two arms of the United States government.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the projection last night by the Minister of Finance that 250,000 new jobs will be created next year as compared with over 400,000 jobs in each of the last two years, and in view of rapidly increasing unemployment in the United States, would the minister indicate what he and his advisers have estimated as the number of unemployed in the year 1975?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I never make any prediction as to the rate of unemployment because of the number of variable factors that can play a role, including the inability to predict what the labour force will be, how many young people will leave or enter it and how many women will be part of it. As a result, I confined my prediction, as I have since holding my portfolio, to the number of new jobs and to the rate of growth.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in view of the layoffs already announced by such industries as the labour industry, the textile industry and the auto industry, would the minister indicate what specific steps, if any, the government intends to take to deal with this accelerating problem of unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that was the reason for the stimulus added to the economy last night.
November 19, 1974


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the Minister of Justice said that wheat producers will see the price of their product increase, does the government intend to take the same measures to help beef producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this is related to the initial prices paid to farmers in the west and has nothing to do with feed grain costs in the east.


UNITED STATES QUOTAS ON BEEF-SUGGESTION ACTION CONTRAVENES GATT
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell the House if United States restrictions on Canada's beef exports to the US contravene the GATT trade agreements signed by the two countries?


Eugene Whelan: We think so, Mr. Speaker.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister in connection with the conflict of interest position that exempts spouses of ministers from any control and provides a very substantial period of time before ministers need register their arrangements. I should like to ask what the reason is for that time span and how he is going to overcome any suspicion that this would provide a minister with the opportunity of transferring embarrassing resources to his or her spouse.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the time span is not part of the policy guidelines. In reality I think the guidelines should be implemented as soon as reasonably possible. In the case of some ministers, this really means immediately, and in other cases this means disposing of various forms of holdings, which very often cannot be done overnight and takes some time. I feel it is within my responsibility, and that of the ministers, to proceed with all due diligence in making sure that in the meantime there are in fact no conflict of interest situations which do arise.
As far as the spouse is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the guidelines do not include them directly. The intention is, of course, to ensure that the minister, whether the minis-
Oral Questions
ter be male or female, is fully responsible for any conflict which might arise through his or her spouse. The government quite frankly felt, and I would be interested to hear if the opposition has contrary views, that it was not in keeping with modern standards that the spouse be guided or obligated by whatever career his or her spouse has, and that the spouse should not be prevented from engaging in the pursuit of his or her choice.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will make it clear to the Prime Minister that I have the opposite view for the simple reason that the provision makes a complete farce of any regulations that have been developed.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services.
Could he tell us when he intends to release those documents relating to United Aircraft of Canada Ltd. and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and why they have not yet been released?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have been studying the matter of publishing United Aircraft of Canada Ltd. development contracts with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Officials of my department have had talks with United Aircraft representatives with the specific aim to disclose publicly as many documents as possible. The result of that procedure is that we now have a great many documents which will require several days to be translated. Therefore I kindly ask the House to wait until we are ready to table every required document to meet the wishes of the hon. member.


FINANCE
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's previous objection to removing the sales tax on building materials because in his mind the benefits would not accrue to purchasers, will the Minister of Finance tell the House what persuaded him to make a change of this kind and, if his original view still holds, has he made arrangements with his colleagues, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to monitor the situation in respect of these price changes, and also the changes in respect of production machinery in the hands of those who produce mobile and prefabricated homes?
1446

November 19, 1974
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind about the tax because the economic situation changed. I held that view for two or three years because of the strong demand for housing as opposed to the inadequate supply, and that the removal of or a reduction in that tax would not have much effect on the price of housing. Now, the demand has slacked and there is an inadequate number of houses being built, so the economic force would come into play and that reduction in the cost represented by the tax cut would be reflected in lower prices. To insure that this is the case I have asked my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, to conduct a monitoring of the results of that cut.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONSUMERS BENEFIT FROM REDUCTION OF TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.
Since a recent inquiry clearly demonstrated that repealing the tax on clothing and footwear was of no avail to consumers, I should like to ask the minister how-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question to the Minister of Finance. May I ask the minister, considering that the tax on building materials dropped from 12 to 5 per cent, and considering there is no price control-


An hon. Member:: It is not true.


An hon. Member:: You need information.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will understand that his role during the question period is not to make a speech but rather to ask a question. If we are to get around to as many members as possible it is simply impossible to accommodate this kind of preamble.


Mr.   La Sadie@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How can the minister assure the House that the 7 per cent reduction of the tax on building materials will benefit consumers, taking into consideration the examples which I gave.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the preamble of the question, because there was confusion in the House as well as in the question asked by the hon. member. Anyhow, I can assure him that the reduction will be closely checked.


EFFECT OF BUDGETARY PROPOSALS ON JOB VACANCY RATE-INTENTION OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the partial thrust of the

budget is to create something like 250,000 jobs, at the same time he made no mention of any policy to remove the disincentives. I would point out that the job vacancy rate is something like 20.2 per cent or some 130,000 job vacancies. Would it be fair to ask the minister whether he is attempting to add to the job vacancy rate as a result of this thrust without giving any direction or introducing any policy to remove the disincentives to work.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


MANPOWER
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the fact that the job vacancy rate has risen to an unprecedented state in terms of 20.2 per cent or some 130,000 jobs outstanding for the past four weeks, does the minister not now believe he was a little premature in bringing about curtailment of immigration in light of the fact that many of these jobs will continue to be taken by the immigrant labour force?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is indicating a complete misunderstanding of the regulations and changes we did make which, while curtailing the increase in the rate of immigration, still permit the expediting of people from abroad where that is the only avenue or only source for workers, Canadians having been considered as to availability willingness and competence for the jobs in the first place.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege concerning the remarks made by the member for Joliette that consumers did not derive any benefit from the withdrawal of the tax on clothing and footwear. I can assure him that the work done by the officials of my department, far from disclosing-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I see that the members opposite do not want to learn the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor on a question of privilege. Until I hear what he has to say I am unable to decide, as is the case in respect of all hon. members in the House, whether it is a proper question of privilege.


André Ouellet: I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that what should be revealed in this House are facts, not allegations. I think it is my duty to inform the House that this inquiry is going on. Until now there is no reason to
November 19, 1974

believe that this tax bears unjustly upon consumers. On the contrary, I can assure the hon. members that if this tax had not been removed, prices would likely be higher still by now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River,


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the question period, but Your Honour has clearly held, and properly, in respect of members on this side of the House that it is not a question of privilege for a member to stand up in the House and try to correct a statement made elsewhere. Your Honour has clearly ruled in this manner. The minister has violated the rules of the House. He knows better and should not be allowed to get away with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not find myself in great difficulty in deciding on this question of privilege. However, if there are other members who wish to make a contribution I will be happy to hear them at this time. Without further contribution on that particular question of privilege, I have no difficulty in deciding that that is precisely the same kind of exercise in which members of the opposition have often engaged the House by suggesting they are unhappy with the content or quality of a statement made by a minister in reply. Similarly I do not think it is a question of privilege for someone on this side of the House to comment on the quality of a question from the other side.
Orders of the Day.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order which arises out of an answer of the Minister of Supply and Services a few moments ago. A week ago in the House I asked the Prime Minister if the government would provide all the documentary details concerning the contractual arrangements entered into between the government and United Aircraft pertaining to grants that company had received. At that time the Prime Minister had said that in principle he would be in agreement if the company agreed. Subsequent to that, on the next day in the House, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce confirmed that that would be done. Today in his answer, if I heard the Minister of Supply and Services correctly, he used the words "as many documents as possible", the implication being that all of them would not be provided. I wonder whether the minister, on this very important question, would take a minute to clarify the situation. Are we to get all the documents and contracts entered into between the government and United Aircraft or are some to be omitted?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member has a very valid point of order to clarify what documents the minister proposes to table in view of the fact that it was the minister who indicated that he proposed to table some documents.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I related my answer to the development contracts.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, with respect, may I say that that does not exactly clarify the situation. Is the
Oral Questions
minister saying that all the details pertaining to research and development contracts will be tabled or will some of those be omitted, or are all of them in that category?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make public the main contracts and most of the attachments annexed. The only texts I do not intend to disclose are those related to technical problems and problems related to the engine itself, not the financial arrangements or the capacity of the corporation to hit external markets.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer rises on a point of order.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to a note sent to Washington. I wonder if he would be prepared to table that note in today's Hansard as an appendix.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer has the floor in this debate.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: With due respect to the hon. member, I heard his suggestion that he had a point of order. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave no indication of an intention to table any document.


An hon. Member:: He did not hear.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, apparently you did not hear me when I rose on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the hon. member very well. He rose on a point of order and asked a question. I am simply endeavouring to indicate to the hon. member as clearly as I can that he does not have a point of order; he has a question for the Prime Minister but the question period is over. In the case of the previous hon. member who had a point of order, the minister indicated that he proposed to table certain documents and the hon. member wanted clarification as to the documents the minister wished to table.
In this case there has been no indication of any intention to table documents. I submit, therefore, that it is not a point of order but simply a question put to the Prime Minister, which may only be asked in the question period and not after orders of the day are called. I recognize the hon. member for Red Deer because he has the floor in the debate before the House.

November 19, 1974
Grain



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-10, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak in this debate I feel it is our responsibility on this side of the House to warn people in western Canada who are in the business of producing grain to watch with great attention the agreements they are entering into with regard to advance payments. We recognize the fact that this piece of legislation is generally considered to be good, but it could well be that we will be making amendments to it because there are shortcomings in the bill which should be considered in committee.
We know that the maximum rate of advance payment is $15 per acre for wheat, $18 for barley and $14 for oats. In view of the fact that this constitutes only about 10 per cent of the income from the vast majority of the land used to grow these grains, it could well be that we will have to consider this matter in committee. It seems to me that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is playing a game of roulette with western Canadian grain producers. I warn producers to be careful with the arrangements or agreements they make with this minister, because I consider some of his statements to be devious. One of the first things I learned as a boy when at an exhibition was that when you saw somebody with money in his hand, you had to be careful. I remember that on one occasion I learned what was probably the best lesson I ever had: a man was standing with $4 in his hand and he said to me, "If you give me $2, I will give you $4", but when I gave him $2 his $4 disappeared.
I am reminded of this story now, when the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is bringing in legislation to advance to individual prairie grain the sum of $15,000. We must realize, also, that this amount is multiplied for two or three producers. This is as it should be, because agricultural operations are becoming much larger. However, one of the shortcomings in the game the minister is playing is that inevitably the initial payment for grain each year is much lower than it should be. A case in point was this year.
Yesterday the minister rose in his place and increased the initial payment, and rightly so. There is no reason in the world why there should not be such a reasonable payment at the beginning of the crop year. There would not, then, be any reason for an interim payment. The minister always seems to be handing out a little bit of candy as you would to a youngster. I can assure the minister that the producers in western Canada do not wish to be treated like children: it would be wise for him to recognize that they do not appreciate this. There is no reason why the minister cannot make a fair assessment, at the beginning of the crop year, of the vicinity the final

payment will be in. He should at least be able to give the producers 75 per cent of the final payment initially, and I am sure the producers would be happy with it.
It would be in the best interests of the producers, the grain companies and the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as members of the House, if the minister would take it upon himself to increase the initial payment to 75 per cent or 80 per cent of what he anticipates the final payment will be. Of course, the minister juggles around with the final payment. If there should be an election in the current year he will grant it early, but if there is no election he will hold it back until a later date.
The deviousness of the minister was evident yesterday when he suggested in the House that the income of western producers was increasing at a phenomenal rate. He said that the increase in the first three quarters of last year was 90 per cent in the province of Saskatchewan. Perhaps it was, if he wants to use percentages, but he did not tell members of the House on what he was basing his percentage.


An hon. Member:: Cash receipts only.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Cash receipts only, my colleague says. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has stated, the income of the western grain producer is still far below that of other people in the industry. Even the grain handlers are making far more than the prairie grain producers, so I do not think it is exactly cricket when the minister uses percentages. It would be far better, far more honest, if he used the dollar value, because this is what should be recognized.
Also, the minister is trying to push through committee the two-price system for wheat which was dealt with in Bill C-19. We have reservations about that legislation. There were weaknesses in that bill and we notified the minister of an amendment we were going to put forward. In all these cash transactions the prairie grain producer must exercise a great deal of caution in dealing with the minister. At a Grains Council meeting in Edmonton not too long ago, the minister started meddling with the Crowsnest freight rate. Now he is putting forward another piece of candy for the prairie grain producer. He says he will give the grain producer a subsidy if he, the minister, will be allowed to juggle the Crowsnest freight rates.
I warn grain producers to watch the manoeuvring of this minister because they must remember that the candy might disappear. I suggest that one of the prime responsibilities of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), who represents a large wheat growing area, is to cast a scrutinizing eye on what the minister is doing, and to at least help us on this side of the House to keep the minister within bounds. Then we come to the matter of stabilization on which the minister said he will bring in a bill. He will tak" a dollar from the grower and the government will put in a couple of dollars. Mr. Speaker, I suggest it would be a good idea if the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) got together and worked out a policy on crop insurance in lieu of a stabilization bill. When the Minister of Agriculture brought in his crop insurance bill, it was supposed to resolve all the problems of agriculture-but it did not go far enough. The Minister of
November 19, 1974

Agriculture did not accept our suggestions nor, apparently, did he accept any from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Surely, if the two ministers put their heads together they could present a policy that would be for the benefit of agriculture in Canada, especially western agriculture.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that stabilization will establish another large bureaucracy for this country. Last night in his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) hinted at a freeze on the size of the civil service, but there is no denying the fact that one of the largest bureaucracies that western Canada has known would be required to implement a stabilization bill. This is the area where the minister should co-operate with the Minister of Agriculture to bring in one all-encompassing program for the benefit of all. As things stand now, some farmers will be in the crop insurance program, some in the stabilization program-if they accept it at all-and probably some farmers will not be in either.
Next comes the farm credit program which is to be enlarged. There is the danger that it will involve farmers in such a large amount of debt that they will never get out of it. Some years ago a former minister of agriculture who is now a member of the other place prophesied that the time would come when those who operated farms would not own them. As a westerner and one who has, with a good wife, raised a family on a farm, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it will be the saddest day Canada has known if we reach the point where the farm operator is not also the owner. We just have to consider what is happening in Russia in this regard: at the present time, 15 per cent of agricultural production comes from the 3 per cent of the land allocated to the operators. This should be a lesson for us, Mr. Speaker. No program should ever be initiated in this country that would take ownership of the farm away from the operator.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am glad my hon. friend across the way agrees, because it means he will keep his eye on this devious minister. The sad thing is that the minister is also the Minister of Justice, so it is hard for the Canadian Wheat Board to get justice if he does not see things the same way as it does. This minister also lent support to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when the grain handlers were on strike. Western Canadians have not forgotten that, and are not likely to for a while. I should like to draw the attention of the House to an item which appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Journal. It reads:
A spokesman for the Public Alliance of Canada said Sunday federal grain inspectors in Vancouver have voted to reject a conciliation board report. The conciliation board report called for a lump sum payment of salary retroactive to July 29 and a 12.5 per cent raise in a one-year contract dating from November 15.
Mr. Speaker, I said this minister was devious and I believe this to be true. He tried to back the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour by sending word to the western farm groups, the basic producers of wheat, oats and barley to put pressure on the grain companies to agree to the grain handlers' demand for a 61 per cent increase in
Grain
wages. The government is now offering 12'A per cent to its employees.


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you would draw to the attention of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) the fact that the bill before the House deals with cash advances to grain farmers. We had a debate some time ago, and probably could have another if the hon. member wants to put forward a motion, on this labour question and the award. The bill before us deals with an entirely different matter from that which the hon. member has spoken about for the last half hour.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I do not believe that is a valid point of order, with respect. I do not think the parliamentary secretary would want to tell my colleague the type of speech he should make. I find the hon. member's remarks relevant to the topic at hand, and I think it is improper-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Whether or not there was a point of order, I am sure the last intervention had nothing to do with it. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) is touching generally upon the subject of agriculture, and I think this is fair. It is very difficult to speak of financing and inflation in the field of agriculture without touching upon the general subject.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), and I realize that he does not seem to comprehend what we are talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: What we are talking about is a two-price system. We are talking about the financing of the western grain producer.


Otto Emil Lang: You are filibustering.


Thomas Gordon Towers: We are talking about financing the grain producer. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley apparently does not understand when we talk about a two-price system. He said it was a small item, but we are talking about $70 million and that is a lot of money to us. If the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley does not think so, he can report to his producers-


Otto Emil Lang: Tell us how to paint a granary.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I have to report to my producers, and they tell me that $70 million is a lot of money. The western grain producer has to be careful not to get too far in debt, because financing is available to him and his margin of profit is so small that he will not be able to pay off his debt. We were dealing with grain inspectors. At present the elevators in my area are plugged. We are on a three-bushel quota and grain producers find it difficult to deliver grain while people on the other side of the world are dying of hunger. This government sits on its fanny and does nothing to improve transportation to reduce the amount of grain in our elevators. Farmers rely on advance payments because grain does not move. They need money to pay taxes and to pay grocery bills. They, too, are consumers. It costs them as much to live as it costs any

November 19, 1974
Grain
other consumer in Canada. That is why we must chastize this government: it is not moving grain as efficiently as it ought to be moved.
Farmers need extra money with which to buy fertilizer, the price of which has also been inflated. Fertilizer prices have risen from $103 to $163 for 11-48. That is a 60 per cent increase in one year. In addition, machinery prices have increased this year by approximately 30 per cent. The price of land has doubled, not because it is in demand for agriculture but because outside money has pushed up the price. Only if those engaged in agriculture can make even a modest profit will some land continue in use as agricultural land. Without a modest profit, farmers cannot stay in business.
Advance payments are not the answer. They have nothing to do with profits. Every cent of the advance must be repaid. The minister himself said that 99.9 per cent of advances over the years have been repaid. What else should we expect? Does he not realize that he has been dealing with farmers, who are honest. This money must be paid back. He has asked the grain companies to administer this program. Is this fair ball? He has asked them to distribute money and to collect it. When the Minister of Finance asks the banks to sell bonds, he rewards them. The banks do not worry about collecting money.
Under the present program, however, the grain company or the elevator agent is accountable after five years for money not collected. That is, they are accountable for the debt outstanding. There are bound to be some people who find it hard to pay because of unforeseen circumstances. I say this is a very important question on which we should spend some time. Does it matter if the agent is accountable for 10 per cent of outstanding debt or for one-quarter of 1 per cent of total advance payments? By giving him that responsibility, are we playing fair ball? The government is asking these agents to advance money to farmers. In return they will receive nothing except the goodwill of those whom they serve. We must examine this aspect of the bill in committee.
Surely the minister will be fair. He may even consider the suggestions of members from western Canada which could be of fundamental importance to western Canada and all grain producers. After all, we want to continue grain production at its maximum. If it were not for our grain, our balance of payments in Canada would be in terrible shape and Canadians would not be enjoying their present benefits. But for our exports of agricultural products and natural resources our trade balance would be one of imbalance. No country can long survive under such conditions.
Therefore, I urge the minister to consider the proposals we shall bring forward on behalf of prairie grain producers. We want to facilitate passage of this bill. We are not trying to filibuster: we merely wish to demonstrate some of the shortcomings of this bill and impress upon the minister and his colleagues how important these issues are to grain producers. We shall look after the interests of the prairie grain producers as long as we are able to stand on our feet and voice disapproval of policies which we do not think are in the best interests of all concerned.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of this opportunity to voice my concern about agriculture. This bill deals with one aspect of agriculture, the provision of advances to grain producers for wheat stored on the farm. It has been generally accepted that the principle behind this legislation has been useful. Although this bill will be useful, I suggest that its usefulness will be limited. Why, Mr. Speaker? The agricultural industry is now working under conditions of deep distress. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) occasionally expresses interest in the plight of agriculture, but apparently he is not supported by his cabinet colleagues. This was made abundantly clear in last night's budget speech which did not contain a single reference to incentives or assistance to farmers in any part of the country. That was deplorable. I think the government ought to be ashamed of that omission, especially in view of the importance of agriculture to the well-being of this country.
The bill we are considering is designed to increase the amount of cash which may be advanced to a wheat producer. It will assist him until he must repay the cash advance. For that reason I suggest that the bill is one of limited usefulness. The basic difficulty facing our farmers stems from the fact that the government which has been in power most of the time since confederation has taken no interest in agriculture. This government has acted in accordance with a report on agriculture which was produced several years ago. That report suggested that surpluses of agricultural commodities which could not be disposed of were responsible for the difficulties facing farmers. The government then decided that the obvious answer was to reduce the number of farmers on the land and most of its agricultural policies were aimed at reducing the number of farmers. Once farmers were taken off the land the government did not need to worry about their income. That basic policy has been detrimental to this country. It must be changed or thrown out because it has not helped Canadian farmers.
In the five-year period 1956-61, approximately 95,000 farm families left the land. In the next five-year period, 1961-66, when a Conservative government was in power, because of the great interest which that government took in agriculture the rate of farm depopulation decreased- only 50,000 farm families left the land. Significantly, between 1966 and 1971, when the Liberals were back in power, rural depopulation escalated and 65,000 farm families left the land. These figures speak for themselves: I do not need to elaborate on them.
We have to ask ourselves how long this kind of depopulation can continue before this country is in the position where it can no longer produce enough food to feed its own people. I think the answer is, "Not very much longer." Indeed, in 1969, for the first time in the history of this country, there were many areas of agricultural production in which we did not produce enough to feed our people. We had to depend upon imports to supply our needs- imports which this country is well equipped to produce: I am referring to meat, dairy products, poultry products and sugar, commodities we are well able to produce.
We witnessed no particular action by this government to relieve that situation. Instead, we have had general poli-

November 19, 1974

cies, on a continuing basis, designed to create disincentives to our farmers. An example of this is the LIFT program. At that time, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the minister from Saskatchewan who at least theoretically should be familiar with agricultural problems, visited his rural constituents and found they had a lot of wheat in their bins. It so happened at that time Canada was having difficulty disposing of its wheat. In his wisdom, the minister decided not to seek markets but to pay farmers to stop growing wheat. That was somehow supposed to help farmers. The minister's thinking was that if you reduce the farmer's income by 100 per cent in one year, it does not matter as long as he does not have any wheat in his bin which the minister has to worry about disposing of.


Otto Emil Lang: We found record, new markets.


Paul Yewchuk: If that is the case, can the minister explain why LIFT was introduced?


Otto Emil Lang: I have explained it many times, but I will explain it again.


Paul Yewchuk: I would also like the minister to explain how much that program cost the western wheat producer in terms of loss of income. I had the figure calculated not too long ago. I do not have it before me, but it was billions of dollars.


Otto Emil Lang: That is fictitious.


Paul Yewchuk: It is not fictitious.


Otto Emil Lang: Totally fictitious.


Paul Yewchuk: The reduced production of wheat caused by the 1970 program was not even recovered in the succeeding four years.


Otto Emil Lang: How do you know?


Paul Yewchuk: Figures were provided to me by Statistics Canada for 1970, 1971, 1972 and, I think, 1973. They show that total wheat production was not up to the level which was achieved prior to the LIFT program. The LIFT program was followed by another brainchild of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It had the same goal: reduce the production of grain. That was the grass incentives program. Those two programs combined have almost destroyed western agriculture as we once knew it. If the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is honest and sincere, I do not think he will say to the House and the people of this country that those two programs were useful to western agriculture. He cannot say that either of those programs has stopped or even decreased the depopulation of rural areas that is taking place at this time. He cannot say that either of those programs caused the farmer to say, "Yes, there is a great future in agriculture. I will stay on the farm and encourage my children to do the same."
In his opening remarks the minister made reference to the great incomes which farmers are now receiving. It was less than honest, to say the least, to suggest that farmers' incomes are substantially better than they were 20 years ago. I have some figures for individual items. I will first
Grain
deal with the price of oats. In 1952, 22 years ago, the price was 76 cents a bushel. In 1964, ten years ago, it was 62 cents a bushel. In that twelve-year period the price decreased by 14 cents a bushel. During that time farm costs did not go down by that percentage; in fact, they increased. In 1972, oats sold for 89 cents a bushel. For 1973-74 the price is $1.03 a bushel. This represents an increase in farm income, insofar as oats are concerned, of approximately 25 cents a bushel over the past 22 years.
In 1951, wheat sold for $1.55 a bushel. In 1962, it was $1.66 a bushel; and in 1972, $1.86. The figure for 1973-74 is $3.50. In the 20-year period 1952 to 1972 the price of wheat per bushel dropped from $1.55 to $1.35-20 cents a bushel. Can the minister tell me of any farm cost that went down a similar amount in that 20-year period? I challenge the minister to show me where farm costs were reduced during that period.
I now wish to deal with live beef sold at the stockyard. In 1951, the price was 28 cents a pound; in 1961, 19 cents a pound; and in 1971, 29 cents a pound. That is one cent a pound more than in 1951, over 20 years ago. I challenge the minister to show me where the cost of producing beef has decreased or even stayed the same during that 20-year period. The figures today are a little higher. However, the report of Mrs. Plumptre, chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, indicates that although the price the beef producer receives for his product is better than it was 20 years ago, he is still selling beef between 5 and 10 cents a pound, live weight, below the cost of production. I do not think the policies this government has put forward over the past two years in so far as beef is concerned have done very much to stimulate the industry. The government has not put forward anything to encourage beef production: indeed, everything that is happening does exactly the opposite.
The beef producer is in absolute despair at this moment. Many are dispersing their herds because there is no profit in beef production. We have read in the press in the last couple of weeks that farmers were slaughtering their animals to emphasize to the public of Canada the desperate plight they are now facing because of complete lack of action by this government to assist them in keeping the industry viable. I am concerned about keeping agriculture viable. That must be the concern of us all. Where will this country go if we continue to face policies which take people away from the land, create disincentives toward production and end in loss rather than profit? Keeping animals alive on the farm actually costs the farmer money now that he cannot sell them even for as much as it costs him to raise them. So I ask, where is this country going? I should like to know the answer to that question.
Let us now consider farm costs. I have spoken at length about farm incomes, which the minister gleefully said were so great at the moment. I have pointed out that over a 20-year period farm incomes basically have not changed. However, it can be readily pointed out that farm costs have tripled, quadrupled or even more over the same period. So where is the justice in this just society of the present Liberal regime? People are slaving away for long hours, summer, spring, winter and fall, producing food to feed this country and, indeed, to feed many parts of the

November 19, 1974
Grain
world. As a matter of fact, I think it is fair to say that our farmers are probably the most hard working people in the country, when looked at in terms of hours put in to keep their businesses going. Where is the justice when at the end of the year these people wind up with zero profit, or even suffer a loss? Some make $2,000 profit or a minimal amount like that. I wonder whether the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is proud of his achievement that the average net income of a western farmer at the present time is $2,200 a year?


Otto Emil Lang: Where do you get that figure?


Paul Yewchuk: If the minister would care to do his own research he would find that that figure is close to accurate.


Otto Emil Lang: I will talk about that figure later.


Paul Yewchuk: I ask the minister to show me which other group in this country, or indeed in North America, would be willing to work for one year for that kind of wage. I do not think he could do so. I should like to give a couple of examples of the kind of costs farmers are facing. Let me take the tractor that is equipped to pull a three-bottom plow, if I may put it in its simplest terms. In 1950 such a tractor sold for between $2,000 and $2,500. Five years ago it was selling for $5,000 to $6,000. I do not know what it is selling for today because of rapid increases, but I think it is around $10,000. This means that while farming income has basically stayed the same over a 20-year period, the cost of the basic implement of power on the farm, the tractor, has tripled or quadrupled.
Other farming costs, such as fertilizer, twine, barbed-wire and machinery parts have similarly doubled, tripled, quadrupled or increased even further during the past 20 years. Indeed, we do not need to go back that far; this increase has taken place within the past two or three years. The government indicated some small interest in this problem not too long ago when it appointed the Barber commission to study the prices of farm machinery. The commission made a report which included several recommendations. The Minister of Agriculture, in response to a question about a year ago, informed the House that he had implemented all of those recommendations but one, which I think was the one dealing with a tax on the profit made by farm machinery companies. The same minister has been asked since that time to tell us the effect of his implementation of these recommendations. Either he did not implement any of the recommendations or the recommendations were of absolutely no value in terms of keeping down the price of farm machinery.
I have already mentioned the beef producers. There seems to be some confusion on the part of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) about what the policy really should be. On one hand the Minister of Finance says we should increase production, though the events of recent weeks and months suggest the very opposite to producers. Indeed, as I have said before, many producers are in the process of dispersing their herds. Many questions have been asked during the past few days about how the beef producers can be assisted, but the only answer we have had was from the Prime Minister today. He said he had sent some sort of note to the United States, which I presume was a protest note but

which he refused to table or to divulge to the members of the House when asked to do so. I think that is a pretty feeble effort in dealing with a crisis situation, as feeble an effort as made by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board when the international grains arrangement ran out. The effort was so feeble that no international agreement was reached on the price of grain and no effective action was taken in terms of dealing with United States policy on the importation of Canadian beef.
If the minister, who considers himself the Messiah of agriculture-he told me that personally, using those exact words-is as good as he thinks he is, why has he not taken the opportunity of going to the United States to talk about the beef situation? Instead, he sits back and does nothing except to say that some day a stabilization program will be brought in. I do not think that kind of statement does very much to encourage farmers to stay in business. It does not help the cow-calf operator who is now faced with winter and no feed to winter his calves. If he disposed of them he would do so at a loss. This is why he is waiting impatiently for some solution from the government that was so recently given a mandate.
So, Mr. Speaker, basically we must do two things if agriculture is to survive. First, more aggressive and effective action must be taken to increase farm incomes. On the other side of the coin, more aggressive and effective action must be taken to decrease or at least stabilize farm costs. During the last election campaign we proposed a solution to this problem. I am not saying it was necessarily the best solution, but it was a solution. We proposed the placing of controls on farm costs. Indeed, we proposed placing controls on farm costs nearly a year ago. If our advice had been taken a year ago, I can say quite sincerely that our farmers today would be suffering nowhere near the distress they are suffering at the moment.


Otto Emil Lang: Look at United States farmers.


Paul Yewchuk: Instead of listening to good advice-


Otto Emil Lang: What about the United States farmers?


Paul Yewchuk: If the minister looks at the figures of economic performance in the United States during the time their controls were in effect, he would find they were a very useful instrument at that time. The difficulty has arisen since the controls were removed.


Otto Emil Lang: Exactly.


Paul Yewchuk: That simply indicates that further action was required, not the do-nothing attitude the present government is taking and with which the United States government followed up its program. In any case, it falls under the whole general subject of inflation control. I am not suggesting to the minister that he must use controls if he does not like them, but he must do something. If he does not like controls, then what would he suggest to keep farm costs down? I have not heard him suggest anything. He has been mocking me for the past couple of minutes for suggesting controls on farm costs, but I have not heard him offer any kind of alternative that would be better.


Otto Emil Lang: The anti-profiteering bill.
November 19, 1974


Paul Yewchuk: The fact is that to date nothing has been done by this government to keep farm costs down. No matter what their promises have been-promises of an anti-profiteering bill or anything else-nothing has been done and farming costs continue to accelerate at a rate which is absolutely unacceptable. As long as this minister, the Minister of Agriculture and this government continue to follow do-nothing policies or policies designed to discourage production, the agricultural industry in this country will continue to decline, with its only hope for the future being continued depression and despair.
I do not know what we must do to impress upon the minds of this minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the government, that drastic action is required in agriculture today. We can talk about promises and we can listen to them; we can listen to the minister commenting on problems in other countries of the world-but none of this really comes to grips with the agricultural problems of this country and none of it is helping our farmers to survive. It is time the minister and his colleagues reassessed the situation. It is time they realized Canada must remain self-sufficient in food production and, in addition, that we must remain a major food supplier for the world.
The World Food Conference in Rome, which dealt with massive food shortages in many parts of the world, has just concluded. This is an area into which Canada can fit extremely well, because if there is anything this country can do well, it is in the field of food production. All we need are policies from this government which will encourage food production, assure a reasonable return to the producers and assure some kind of long-term stability. If we can guarantee these things to the farmers of this nation, their long-term survival will be assured.
One of the things we might also consider-this goes hand in hand with my suggestion-is that more of our foreign aid should be given in the form of food, since producing food is one of the things we do best. I make that suggestion in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister responsible for the Wheat Board will consider the suggestions I have made. I noticed him making notes: I am sure he will take them home and study them carefully. During the remainder of this session I expect to see legislation dealing with these matters to the benefit of the Canadian farmer.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be long in my comments on Bill C-10. However, I would like to make one or two points, first on the legislation itself and then on the whole area of grain production in Canada. Most members of the House would agree that increasing cash advances from $6,000 to $15,000 is a step in the right direction. It has been said-and it is certainly true-that inflation has hit farming in Canada, specifically in western Canada, as hard as it has hit any segment of our society. One might suggest that the increase in cash advances is a partial buffer against further inflationary rates and it can be assumed that members on this side will not be opposed to the legislation when it comes to a vote perhaps on third reading.
One matter about which we must be concerned is that of providing a guarantee, a floor price or an intervention price in respect of grain production. We hear continually from people engaged in grain production about what will
Grain
happen if the world market price drops. At the present time it looks as though grain prices will remain stable at least until 1977. One of the more important pieces of legislation to be brought in for scrutiny in the House of Commons is the grain stabilization bill, if and when it is presented.
From the little we on this side have seen of the grain stabilization bill I can only make two comments. Firstly, if the government is including all grains under this grain stabilization bill in respect of payments, I think that would be wrong. Secondly, if the government clings to its $25,000 limit as the total amount that can be accumulated by any one producer, that is totally and completely unrealistic having regard to the grain prices we are experiencing at the present time. We are all looking forward to a close examination of the grain stabilization legislation when it comes before us and, hopefully, we can make that legislation more acceptable and more in tune with the agricultural situation which now exists.
One thing I should like to refer to which is of concern to a lot of people in western Canada is this: we in the west, because of our energy resources and our agricultural potential, have a considerable responsibility to feed Canadians and other people around the world. At the present time we have high input costs in agriculture. Some examples are fertilizer, chemicals and fuels. Labour costs have also increased significantly, as have the costs of machinery and land.
If we are to maintain the kind of production required in present world circumstances, we must expand production in the area of grain. The one major problem that we are faced with in this regard is the problem created by increases in agricultural input costs. If the price protection the government proposes is not realistic in terms of dollar values, then we could conceivably have a reduction or cutback in grain production because of a reduction in the number of acres seeded to grain. If a farmer can make money by seeding a given number of acres, why should he expand the number of acres and take that added risk unless he is sure there will be a reasonable return to cover the extra risk involved? Consequently, unless something is done in a positive manner we could conceivably see a reduction in the actual number of acres used for the production of grain. I think this would be very detrimental to agriculture in Canada and to our balance of payments as a country.
The minister spoke about the positive aspects of what is taking place at the present time, and there are many. However, there are two or three uncertainties so far as grain is concerned. One is the whole aspect of transportation. No meaningful conclusion has been reached concerning the direction our transportation industry in Canada is to take. Discussions, meetings and studies have been undertaken, but there is still no clear path concerning the direction transportation is to take in western Canada. We are still at the point where we speak about inland terminals and whether there should be more, about the trackage situation at Vancouver and about whether the whole concept of grain elevator rationalization should continue.
1454

November 19, 1974
Grain
The government has given no indication of its intention in respect of the abandonment procedure. The deadline for this will be within the next month. The whole question of grain transportation and the direction it will take in the latter part of the 1970s and into the 1980s is rather vague. This creates many uncertainties so far as the western agricultural producer is concerned. Another matter closely coupled with transportation is the Crowsnest pass rates. I believe the minister has been sending out feelers in the form of recent statements about what the government might like to do. At the resent time the government is not doing anything. In other words, the government'is running a flag up the flagpole to see which way the wind is blowing. Rather than making positive statements, the government is making overtures. This creates uncertainties in the area of grain transportation.
When we speak of the Crowsnest pass rates we are speaking about something which is fundamental and almost a basic way of life. If the government feels that a change is necessary, it should state what is to be done in return for the removal of the Crowsnest pass rates. I think this is the type of thing the farmers will be looking for.
Another matter of frustration, contention and uncertainty is the movement of grain at both our grain ports- Vancouver and Thunder Bay. The longshoremen once again are talking about a strike and the grain inspectors, from the information I receive, are almost sure to go on strike in the very near future unless they receive the kind of pay increase the grain handlers received some months ago. There are examples of the types of uncertainties that exist at the present time. The government has not taken the lead in respect of these uncertainties, and in fact has left this matter basically to the grain industry. While this is not bad, still the government must assume the major role and be the major catalyst in this whole affair because decisions will have to be made in connection with transportation, the Crowsnest pass rates and, ultimately, labour.
These matters will have a great effect, not just for the next year but certainly for the remainder of this decade. Therefore, it is very crucial that at this time leadership is shown by the government. I expect that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board will have to assume a major portion of the responsibility in this situation.
In the area of the amounts and kinds of grain we have on hand in Canada, it is well known that the yield of the 1974 crop was disappointing. There was a decline in the grades of grain and a great proportion of it would fall into the category called utility. Because of this, I think prices will remain high for the foreseeable future, certainly into 1977 and perhaps even into 1978. An example of our supply situation is that the Canadian Wheat Board is to sell down so that it virtually has no grain left on hand. I think this is a commendable aim. It certainly is satisfactory at the present time.
Because of the quality of the grain, and because the price is remaining strong in respect of wheat in Canada- well into the $6 level-I think it must be pointed out to consumers well in advance that for the next few months, or possibly the next couple of years, they will have to pay higher prices for food in Canada. If the price of grain is

high to the livestock, hog, cattle and poultry industries, this will affect the price of other commodities. I think the consumer will have to bear with the agricultural industry in this case and be prepared to accept higher consumer prices for food.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the increase from $6,000 to $15,000 in Bill C-10 in respect of cash advances is certainly welcome. I would caution the government, however, that if it should be found at some point that there is a downturn in the rain market-although this is not likely- the $15,000 limit may not be high enough. If farm input costs in respect of producing grain gallop along as they have, it will not take much of a downturn in the end price before farmers will be in a financial position similar to the one they were in during 1969, 1970 and 1971. If this situation should arise, I hope the government will be prepared to introduce an amendment to this legislation in order to increase the limit to more than $15,000, which would be more in line with the costs being incurred by farmers.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on this bill. I support its general thrust: I believe it is recognition of the fact that the cash advance idea put forward by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was feasible. I remember in the discussions of 1957 that the Liberal government of the day felt that cash advances were not a good thing, that farmers would make off with the money or that the money would not be collected in substantial amounts. It has been proved that these fears were unfounded, and now we have an expansion of these advances more in keeping with the present situation.
So I agree in principle with the bill. However, I wish to make a few comments about the necessity of the elevator agent being a collector for the government. I feel that this situation should be looked at and that someone other than the agent might well be in charge of collecting accounts, particularly where there are disputes or in cases where the individual concerned may be in difficulty. The elevator agent is in a difficult position. He is an agent of the company, which very often is the pool or the United Grain Growers. He is also an agent of the Canadian Wheat Board and must interpret what is meant by the board's regulations, and so on. He must act as arbitrator in respect of grades.
In other words, he is caught in the cross-fire between his employers, the government-through the Wheat Board- and the Grains Commission, and he attempts to satisfy his customers and often his friends and the people with whom he lives in the community. Therefore, while there do not seem to be many accounts that are delinquent for a long time, it seems important that if possible these problems should be removed from the elevator agents and taken over by someone else. Surely, in the hierarchy of people who look after the grain growers some group might be found which would be better equipped than the elevator agents to cope with this problem.
Now I should like to turn to a few other matters that are related to this bill, although not directly. One is the budget. Last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) spent a great deal of time telling us that we should grow
November 19, 1974

more grain, and I think he almost used the expression that Canadians were living too high off the hog. I do not want to expand on this subject, but it seems to me there was nothing in the budget last night for farmers, for the grain handling system. Perhaps there was a little in it for the flour processors, but there was practically nothing for the individual farmer or grain grower. In the last six years there has been a steady erosion of the tax position of grain farmers in the provisions concerning straight line machinery depreciation and the basic herd for cattlemen. We are faced with the fact that the outlook for the world is not very good. One thing which we will be able to grow and which we can export is grain, but not beef in quantities. After 70 years in which Canada has been growing grain, at least wheat will be king in the next few years. Our ability to grow and to export grain is dependent to some extent on what is in this bill.
The next subject on which I would like to speak is the settlement by the government of the grain handlers' strike. I would like to comment on this matter because in the curling rinks, the coffee bars, the pool meetings and UGG meetings across the west everyone wonders whether the federal government is ready to nationalize the grain handling system, particularly the terminals. Perhaps it is not generally known that most of the terminals are owned by the grain handling companies and are in the hands of the western co-operatives. I think it was forgotten when we put through the grain handling bill that the farmers on the prairies own these terminals. As an official of the grain handling pool said to me, "If they take away our terminals, they will be taking away the guts of our system and then we might just as well give up the country elevators".
I was impressed by an article which appeared in the Toronto Star, written by Mr. Ed Finn, public relations director of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. In this article he presents a unionist's point of view on the grain situation. I do not think Mr. Finn knows too much about the grain handling business, but I think he was expressing a point of view that is prevalent in the country. I think it is a mistaken point of view and perhaps Mr. Finn is somewhat uninformed, but I believe it will bring to the attention of the government, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) in particular, that bad relations at the grain handling end cannot be solved by nationalizing terminals and thinking that everything will then be all righ.t. Mr. Finn suggested that our attention span with regard to labour matters is momentary and we forget about them as soon as a dispute is settled. Nevertheless, the after effects in Vancouver are still with us.
It is important to look at the facts. At the moment we have the demands from the Thunder Bay terminal union which are up for negotiation. These not only include the fringe benefits gained by the Vancouver workers, but $2 an hour in wages in the first year and $1 an hour in the second year of a two-year contract. This compares with the 87 cents and 65 cents legislated for Vancouver and would put the Thunder Bay workers far ahead of their Vancouver counterparts. This is an unheard of wage relationship when judged by any previous experience. I think the pool elevators and the UGG did realize that the demands would be high because of the Vancouver labour
Grain
settlement, but the Minister of Labour kept reiterating that the Vancouver settlement would not be a benchmark on which to base settlement of disputes of other workers in the grain handling industry. The situation is very clear in the minds of Thunder Bay workers and their representatives and it will be a long time before the aftermath of that situation is over. Furthermore, Mr. Finn said in Vancouver that the four grain elevator companies and local 333 of the grain workers union have never been able to negotiate a contract voluntarily. There is no reason to be optimistic about their next confrontation.
It has been suggested in this House, and indeed throughout the country, that over the years grain handling companies have not negotiated in good faith. I think that is inaccurate, Mr. Speaker, and just helps to create an unhealthy atmosphere. It is agreed that the relationship between union representatives and the Vancouver management group is not good, but I do not think there is a hostile relationship between the men and the supervisory staff. At the UGG, 800 loads a day have been handled since October 11. Prior to that time only 300 or 400 loads a day were handled, so it would appear that relationships between management and the union are pretty good at that terminal. The government appointed Mr. Justice Bayda to look into the grain handlers' dispute, and his findings may be of some help.
The longshoremen will soon be entering into negotiations on their contract. The main difference between the longshoreman's role and that of the grain handler is that he does not work regularly and so traditionally has received a higher rate of pay. We must realize that although this bill will help to some degree, we will have to face interruptions in the supply of grain to world markets because of the demands of unions as they attempt to keep up with the cost of living. Another consideration is the budget measures which were announced last night, which will certainly increase inflation. Mr. Finn also made an observation, which has gained wide credence, to the effect that grain co-operations are almost entirely to blame for the problems on the west coast and at Thunder Bay. This is the impression given by the appointment of Mr. Justice Bayda by the Minister of Labour.
There has been a lot of talk about the nationalization of grain terminals. However, this is not the solution unless the government intends to give in to every request made by the grain handlers' union. The government has not had much success in handling its own employees-and I make this statement with regard to any government. The problem of the federal postal employees comes to mind, and also the problem of the federal grain inspectors who must clear the grain through Vancouver harbour. If the government should take over the grain terminals, it is likely that they would grant the grain handlers a raise in pay every time they demanded one, because the money would not come from the taxpayers but from the handling charges paid by farmers. We must rid ourselves of the notion that grain must be moved at all costs. There may well come a time, Mr. Speaker, when it is just too expensive to move grain and union wage demands must be resisted. Mr. Finn made a statement which I believe to be wrong but which received wide coverage. He said:
1456

November 19, 1974
Grain
But the grain companies wanted to have a settlement imposed on them, so they could blame added costs on the government and claim further federal subsidies.
It is his view that governments would be more free with settlements if they owned the elevators, because they would be using the farmers' money and not government money. There is also widespread belief that the federal and other governments are involved in subsidizing grain handling. But this is not the case, Mr. Speaker. Any wage increase must come out of the handling charges paid by farmers. I raise this matter because I believe the western farmer is uneasy that the grain terminals may be taken away from him and nationalized, leaving him completely at the mercy of the government. Some western farmers feel they are too involved with the government already; that government is trying to tell them what to do and is not allowing them to work out their own problems.
I support this bill in principle, Mr. Speaker. I believe it will help the farmer to plan the difficult operation of moving grain from his farm to consumers across the oceans; but we must remember that there are many other people involved who can stop the flow of grain.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-10 from which farmers across this country may expect to receive some benefit. It is a bill that was first introduced in this House some 17 years ago by a different government, and while the objectives and philosophies seem to be the same, the motives have changed. It seems to be an attempt to keep pace with the feed grains policy-a policy which has not worked as well as it should. I should like to make it clear at the start, Mr. Speaker, that a cash advance is not a hand-out to farmers. The publicity that is so often associated with such a proposition might give people the impression that farmers are getting something from the government for nothing. Perhaps the minister could clarify this and make it known that the farmer pays back the money.
We have been hearing a lot about food in these past weeks and I sometimes wonder why it has taken us three decades to realize the consequences of our agricultural programs. It is only three or four years since the LIFT program was introduced. We can look at the bill in that light and see that it begins to implement a philosophy relating to farmers which is long overdue. At long last farmers are beginning to be recognized as professionals, a status which agricultural producers have never enjoyed. Let me ask, why were farm people not represented at the World Food Conference in Rome? There, a whole organization was talking about international food production and there was not one farm representative from this country except the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). There was much talk of food production but there was no farm representation.
Although I applaud this legislation as being one small step toward implementing professionalism in agricultural production, I say that we are doing too little, too late. If the conference in Rome had dealt, say, with oil instead of with food, can you imagine oil interests being represented only by the government? Would not one have expected to
(Mr. Ritchie.]
see representatives of the oil industry at such a conference?
This bill is important because it represents one small step toward professionalism in agriculture and permits farmers to make predictions concerning agricultural production. If farmers are to be managers of their businesses, they must be granted the right of prediction. Thus, this bill starts to introduce what may be termed as the element of predictability. For example, consider what has happened in the beef industry. Some time ago the Liberal government in its so-called wisdom said to Canadian farmers, "We do not need so much grain. Grow grass." They introduced LIFT, and the results are there for all to see.
Now, because of an excess of beef, we have witnessed on television the slaughter of cattle. This is happening at a time when markets have not been stabilized. This instability has resulted from our interfering with the market system. That is why I say there can be no professionalism in farming until there is professionalism in the marketplace. Production will only be stabilized when farmers can predict market demand. The ability to predict is important if we are to maintain high, stable, ongoing, effective methods of production. For too long farming has been associated with life style and not with business. The farmer has been treated as a labourer, not as one who deals with pesticides and insecticides or acts as a veterinarian, or one who looks after a large capital outlay. The average farm on the prairies is worth at least as much as the average small business, perhaps even more.
This bill is to increase maximum advances from $6,000 to $15,000 per individual borrower and in so doing it seeks to keep abreast of conditions in the agricultural industry. It takes into account cost increases brought on by inflation and the difference between today's production costs and those of 15 or 20 years ago. However, I must raise one question about this bill. The increase provided for is not based on any principle: there is no sliding scale for advances and no formula which will take into account increases in costs of production. I suggest that if farmers are to become professionals and produce great quantities of high quality food, the bill must do more than just set a figure.


Otto Emil Lang: We changed the law last year.


Arnold John Malone: The bill provides for a greater advance but does not seem to take into consideration costs of production.


Otto Emil Lang: It can.


Arnold John Malone: With respect, there is no connection between the cost of production and the amount per bushel advanced. In other words, the bill provides for a flat rate. Let me talk about another important area. The federal government and provincial governments must accept an increased responsibility for maintaining agricultural land in production. Failure to do this will bring consequences which will be absolutely frightening in view of current trends. Literally, on every parcel of prime land in Canada we see industrial development and transportation systems.
November 19, 1974

If we were to examine a soil zone map of Canada we should see that land of the highest quality is being swallowed up by industry and transportation systems. I have learned that in the United States about 100,000 acres per day are put under concrete or pavement. Although I do not have Canadian data, I suggest that an equivalent amount of our land is so used, if we bear in mind our lesser population. We need soil and water for food production. If we ignore the importance of these resources we shall suffer the consequences.
Anthropologists say that human beings have been on earth for at least 50,000 years, every day of which men have eaten food or searched for food. Only in the last 2,000 or 3,000 years have we used hard metals, and only in the last two or three generations have we used oil. Yet we allow agricultural land to be destroyed. I suggest that we are much more conservation-oriented on land containing hard metals or oil. We must resist the tendency to gobble up 80 acres of prime land merely to build a highway system which will allow one to make a right-hand turn. Why does the government build airports in the midst of class 1 and class 2 soil, especially as this country, contrary to popular myth, is limited in its possession of really high quality soil?
Finally, it behooves us to talk about deplorable conditions in the grain industry for which the government must take the major responsibility. I am talking about what happened on the west coast. Hon. members will recall that in face of the strike of grain handlers on the west coast the government said, before negotiations had taken place, that it would stand by the recommendations of the Perry commission report. That report provided for an increase of about 61 per cent. The government asked farmers to write to grain companies and demand a settlement before parliament was recalled last fall. Now, grain inspectors who work in the same dust, in the same conditions and in the same buildings say that they will not accept the government's offer of 12.5 per cent. Who can blame them?
Originally, the government wanted to give grain handlers parity with longshoreman who worked alongside. The grain handlers said that if the government followed any principles it would grant them 60-odd per cent. We knew what would happen. Now we are witnessing the prospect of another strike; another mess in the grain industry. If the inspectors go on strike, we shall know whom to blame. Certainly farmers in this country would be most frustrated. But that perhaps is only part of their concern. Another concern must be the whole food situation about which we hear so much. We have just finished a week in which people all over the world have been talking about food. We must take a look at the kind of policies that are being established and the kind of commitments that are being made. They do very little to encourage farmers to raise more either in terms of quality or quantity.
The whole transportation system across the west is in a mess. You can walk from my constituency to Vancouver faster than you can ship grain-and I mean that literally. The average speed at which grain leaves the side postings until it arrives in Vancouver is an average of 4!4 miles an hour. This takes into account the number of stops it makes
Grain
at the various locales, the number of days it sits in Calgary before moving west, and the number of days it sits in port waiting to be unloaded. If you can walk from central Alberta to Vancouver faster than government trains can get there, obviously something is seriously wrong. Perhaps the government might suggest we carry grain out there in bags.
All of that is really to wrap up what I am saying. While I support this legislation in principle, the fundamental thing that must be a part of all legislation is to professionalize the farmer to the degree that he feels a sense of predictability, is encouraged and receives a reward for raising food. Obviously, the need is there to raise increasingly vast amounts of higher quality food measured not just by the style and appearance of the food product but by its nutritive value in terms of some kind of nutritive analysis. I simply say to this government they have a lot more work to do if they want to make the farmers comfortable and have as the end result a whole world that is well fed.


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to Bill C-10. We in the official opposition have always supported cash advances. This legislation was first introduced in 1957-58 by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). When it was introduced, the legislation made possible the survival of many western farmers who were under extreme cash pressure. The minister stated yesterday that the main reason for bringing forward Bill C-10 was to keep cash advances in line with the growth in inflation. I am glad the government realizes how hard the farmer has been hit by inflation.


Otto Emil Lang: I didn't say that.


Donald Craig Stewart: That is how I interpreted it.


Otto Emil Lang: You did not hear my remarks.


Donald Craig Stewart: The minister must agree that no one is harder hit by inflation than the western farmer. We need only look at the extent to which his costs of production have increased in the past few years. In order to increase production he must use fertilizer in large quantities. However, the cost of fertilizer has doubled and in some cases tripled. In the past year the price of baler twine tripled. We must also look at the price of farm machinery. A combine that not many years ago sold for $15,000 now costs over $25,000. A half-ton farm truck that cost approximately $2,500 in 1967 now sells for over $5,000. Inflation is increasing the farmer's cost of production.
Yesterday the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) hit on the real reason for increasing cash advances. Last year the government introduced a new food grains policy. Under this new policy a farmer can sell his wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board or directly to the elevator companies. However, because of the low initial price of grain, farmers are almost forced to sell on the open market. The minister will have to admit that because of this policy, cash pressure on the farmer has been very great. This is the real reason we are seeing an increase in cash advances.
I want to stress to urban members that cash advances are not a hand-out to farmers. They are advances made on

November 19, 1974
Adjournment Debate
future grain deliveries. The farmer must repay every cent. I have found that many urban members and others from eastern Canada think that the final payment to the farmer is a subsidy or hand-out. That is not true. When the Wheat Board sells the farmer's grain, part of the money is held back. At the end of the crop year the final figure is arrived at and the farmer receives the final payment: it is money owing the farmer on completion of the sale.
Yesterday the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) announced an increase in the initial prices of grain. He stated that wheat is being increased to $3.75, barley to $2.25 and oats to $1.20. It is hard for members on this side to understand why the minister took so long to raise the initial prices of grain. Farmers have been demanding this increase since the end of the last crop year. If the initial price for grain was not so low, there would not be so much need for cash advances. The government has continually played around with initial prices: we have seen them increased during an election campaign and reduced after the election. The formula for initial prices should be at least 75 per cent of the expected prices. In this way the farmer would have some idea of the direction in which he is heading. This has certainly not been the case with this government.
One wonders why the minister chose to bring forward the cash advance legislation at this time. There are far more urgent matters affecting western agriculture. It makes one wonder about the priorities of this government. We have repeatedly asked what the policy of this government is on transportation as it affects the movement of grain. At this time we do not know the government's policy on railway branch lines. We know a freeze was put on the closure of all branch lines until the end of this year. The farmer and the grain companies do not know what is going to happen in less than a month and a half. This lack of policy is costing the grain companies, the pool, the grain growers and the farmers great amounts of money. I can give many examples where indecision by this government has been very costly.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. 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 Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-External Affairs-Possible Canadian participation in debate at United Nations on the Middle East-Canadian position on rights of Israel; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Air Canada-Proposed construction of base at Winnipeg- Date of completion; the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker)-National capital-Establishment of com-
[Mr. Stewart (Marquette).)
mittee to study Fullerton report-Suggested consultation on terms of reference.
It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Frank Oberle: that Bill C-212, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help being somewhat disappointed that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) is not here this evening. I know of his interest in this matter and of his concern with the problem that this bill is trying to correct. However, I am sure his representative is here. I should like to appeal, not only to members on the government side of the House but to members of the other opposition parties to allow this bill to go to committee since it is designed to correct a very serious discrepancy in the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I have just returned from a visit to some of the more remote areas of my constituency in northeastern British Columbia where it has always been difficult to enjoy many of the services of both the federal and the provincial governments. I suppose it is natural that a member of parliament is looked at, in areas as remote as the Alaska Highway, as a liaison officer or ombudsman, and one should not be surprised if a member from an area such as this is always confronted with problems which he is very seldom able to explain or to solve himself. When one thinks of government from as far away as northeastern British Columbia, it becomes an almost impossible task to reconcile the activities of government with the actual needs of the area. One finds in almost all cases that the activities of the various government agencies work at cross-purposes. The Unemployment Insurance Commission and the services offered by Canada Manpower are a perfect example of this, and my bill addresses itself to this problem.
Even if we ignore the fact that the services of these agencies are available only on a very limited scale to people in remote areas, limited service is totally useless to Canadians in areas such as I have described. First of all, even though my bill does not provide for the reamalgamation of Canada Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, I should like to say that the separation of these two agencies, if they can be considered separate at all, had an even more disastrous effect in the remote areas of our country than in others.
November 19, 1974

During my travels I am constantly confronted with a paradox which demonstrates the chronic and acute shortage of people in almost all categories of the labour market, not to speak, of course, of the total absence of professional people which is a different problem altogether. I refer to the paradox between the lack of people and the rate of unemployment in these areas, which is usually higher than the national average. I could, of course, use many examples but one which demonstrates better than anything else the serious discrepancy that my bill is trying to correct is the situation that exists in the lumber industry of British Columbia and, I am sure, in other areas of Canada as well.
The difficulties experienced by that industry have in recent days and weeks been the subject of attention by the House of Commons and people throughout the country. We have had proposals to set aside any other business of the House of Commons in order to discuss, under certain rules and orders, the problems of the forest industry, and in particular we have addressed ourselves to the serious question of unemployment that is connected with the difficulties facing the industry.
In British Columbia alone we know that at least 15,000 people have been laid off, even without considering the massive cutbacks and shutdowns in the service industry as a result of the slowdowns. The unemployment rate in northern British Columbia now appears to be approaching 10 per cent. British Columbia is considered to be a "have" province, but I am sure that the "haves" must all live in the lower mainland, in Vancouver, since in northern British Columbia there is, as I say, an unemployment rate of 10 per cent. In spite of this, it was necessary for a firm called Fort Nelson Forest Industries to limit their production to one shift since they were not able to employ 75 people. They did not limit production to one shift because of the depressed lumber market, for a change, or even because of shortage of boxcars or a breakdown in rail service; it was for no other reason than shortage of labour. The shortage is not confined to one category but is apparent in all-skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labourers.
If you were to travel, Madam Speaker, along the Alaska Highway by automobile, as I often do, you might find the operators of a rest stop or roadside facility unable to provide you with service because of lack of help. If you do not know how to repair your own tire, I would advise you not to travel the Alaska Highway this winter because you might well become stranded somewhere between Fort Nelson and Watson Lake, unable to find someone who is able or prepared to assist you. Several business people have told me they find it impossible to continue their operations, and lack of facilities along this highway will make winter travel extremely hazardous, if not dangerous.
One must ask oneself what is wrong with the system. Certainly it would seem that the established guidelines for the two labour-management agencies, namely, Manpower and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, were designed to deal with these problems and I think that in theory they have. Canada Manpower has a wide range of services. A person can apply for a grant to explore a new area in which he might find an opportunity to work. He can get a travel grant to go to another part of the country in order to find employment. We can provide, through
Unemployment Insurance Act
Canada Manpower, a person's moving expenses to a new location if it is found to be a suitable location for work. We can retrain an unemployed person to help him or her find new skills. We can maintain storefront offices in some areas of our country in order to help people seeking employment and employers to get together, and so on.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission has its own programs designed to help people find new employment and to upgrade their skills. But quite often-altogether too often-in remote areas where there are no offices the two agencies work at cross-purposes. Let me give the House an example. Yesterday I telephoned the regional office about a constituent who found himself chocked and buried by a mountain of red tape. When I explained to the regional officer the claimant's case and he gave me a ruling, I said to him, "Would you allow your mind for one moment to be exposed to reason and would you tell me if you think your ruling makes any sense at all, looking at it from the claimant's point of view?" His reply to me was, "Mr. Oberle, I would rather not comment on that". I hope he will not want to comment on it because no one in his right mind could make sense out of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which would better be called "Catch 22".
[DOT] (mo)
This is what happened. The man consulted the Manpower and Unemployment Insurance offices before he left his employment on September 5. He was allowed to leave to attend a school sponsored by Canada Manpower at which he wanted to upgrade himself. He was told he would have an additional three-week waiting period, which he was prepared to accept, so in total he would have to wait five weeks before drawing unemployment insurance. The Manpower course was cancelled after he had given his employer notice and lived up to that commitment. He then started looking for work, but in his field-exploration for petroleum and natural gas-the employment scope is limited. I suggest it will be more limited as a result of last night's budget, since most of the companies carrying out this activity have left the country. As a result of this man's honesty in stating on his weekly report card that he was not taking the training-not because he did not want to; and he quit his job to do so-he is not eligible for unemployment insurance and is now living off his neighbours.
Perhaps that little example illustrates some of the things my bill attempts to correct. Let me discuss in more specific terms the bill I have proposed. On November 22, 1973, in a statement to the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration the minister said:
The heart of any employment service is the technique it uses to match job orders with available workers.
In Canada, we have used, and used well, the traditional approach to job matching followed by other advanced industrial countries, seeking from employers their job vacancies and registering Canadian workers by occupation. The match is then made between the two by comparing occupational codes. Our level of employer patronage, referrals to jobs and placements compare very well with those of other countries. However, this approach has not kept pace with the growing complexity of the labour market, and the growing adaptability and mobility of Canadian workers.
The minister admitted we have a special problem because in that statement he said:

November 19, 1974
Unemployment Insurance Act
The current paradox in Canada of high unemployment and increasing labour shortages indicates that employers, as well as workers, may have special problems.
We have special problems and there is no way, in Canada today, that we can carry out the commitment the minister made in his statement to the committee. There is no way we can effectively match employees with job vacancies. My bill would correct that situation by making it compulsory for employers to list with Canada Manpower services and, preferably, with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, a total inventory of job capacities. My bill would establish, in a compulsory way, a job inventory throughout this country.


Mr. Caccia:: More bureaucracy.


Frank Oberle: My friend suggests that this would create more bureaucracy. The fact is that all the reporting that would have to be done to carry out and maintain such a job inventory is already being done by our existing bureaucracy.


Charles L. Caccia: No, it is not.


Frank Oberle: All we have to do is ask Manpower to make use of the many services and statistics already being provided by the bureaucracy to which my friend refers.


Charles L. Caccia: It is not being done any more.


Frank Oberle: If the hon. member would keep quiet for a minute he might learn something. I carried out a very interesting survey in the city of Prince George. Interestingly enough, this survey was carried out in the same city where we spend annually $334,674 to maintain the services of Canada Manpower, where we employ-my hon. friend speaks about bureaucracy-35 individuals to do what I can demonstrate is being done there. I made a study which pointed out some very interesting facts. Canada Manpower is only involved, in that area, in 7 per cent to 10 per cent of job placements. Only 15 per cent of employers in both industrial and service sectors normally consult Canada Manpower in respect of shortages of employees. A large percentage of job seekers told the people who carried out the survey for me that the only reason they consult Canada Manpower at all is to provide proof to the Unemployment Insurance Commission that they are actively seeking employment.


Charles L. Caccia: Oh, come on!


Frank Oberle: I told you if you would just be quiet you might learn something. The greater percentage of employers would welcome such a scheme as I have outlined and only a small number would object to it. Their argument is that most of the information is already in the hands of one or other department of government, Statistics Canada or Information Canada, and they would not object to an exchange of this information. The implementation of such a program would certainly eliminate all abuses presently experienced. We would know what the true unemployment picture is in Canada, and we would know into what areas of Canada special assistance programs should be directed.
In addition, we would no longer have to subject the unemployed to the harassment of proving they are active-

ly seeking work. If we could provide them, with the first week's cheque, with a list of employment opportunities which would be categorized to suit individual needs, this would provide Canada Manpower with factual information as to the areas to which training programs should be directed. It would also give Manpower officials the information needed to justify the implementation of many other services which the office provides.
I have concerned myself particularly with the obvious argument one could expect from employers, namely, that this would be a further infringement by government on their affairs. This argument was discounted by the many comments I received from employers who stated they considered the unemployment situation a problem which must be faced by government, business and labour alike. Almost all businesses interviewed were ready to make their contributions to the cause.
I can go into-I do this at least twice a month, and often more than that-an air terminal or office of a travel agent and tell them I am travelling from Fort Nelson to Fort St. John, to Edmonton, to Vancouver, to Toronto and to Ottawa and the agent will invariably walk over to his little computer, punch a few buttons and give me certain information. He will tell me that my flight will leave at 16.40, Fort Nelson time, flight 48. He will tell me that I get into Fort St. John at a certain time, leave on the same flight at a certain time and that I will have to change to a different flight at Edmonton. He will tell me that again in Vancouver I will have to change flights, but that I will be on the same flight from Vancouver to Toronto to Ottawa, with a short stop-over of 20 minutes. The computer tells him that and it does not take three hours, a day, a week or a month: he gives me that information in two minutes.
I say the advancements in respect of computers and technology must be applied to some of the more serious problems in Canada today, of which unemployment certainly is one. An unemployed person should be able to walk into a Manpower office, where a person would go to a computer and tell him that his category was such and such. He should be able to say that this person could go from category 15 to category 15A, B, C, or D. If there is no opening in that particular category, he should be able to tell the unemployed person that there is an opening in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Watson Lake, Edmonton, or St. John's. That information could be available to the unemployed person in two minutes. But, of course, Canada Manpower does not have this information in the first instance, so how could it pass it on to the unemployed person who must prove to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in order to have his basic right recognized, that he is looking for work?


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Frank Oberle: Certainly, Madam Speaker. Obviously I am here to inform, and I will permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Because the hon. member's allotted time has expired, we would need the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
November 19, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles L. Caccia: Would the hon. member inform this House whether he believes empty seats and unemployed people are the same?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I would say there are many empty seats on the Liberal side. Would the hon. member be more specific? I have some information here as to what the minister thinks about this bill, if the hon. member like information in that respect. Frankly, I do not understand the question.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to take this opportunity to offer you my sincere sympathy in connection with the recent passing away of your mother. She was a respected citizen of my riding and please believe that we are most sincerely distressed by the ordeal that has be fallen you.
I would like to thank my hon. friend, the member of the Official Opposition, who has given us the opportunity to discuss the very important and up-to-date subject of unemployment insurance. It is obviously useless to insist upon the tragedy of those who, for one reason or another, do not have an opportunity to find work and for whom the consequences are extremely tragic not only for themselves but also for their families. It is equally useless to insist upon the fact that the unemployment insurance budget has reached astronomical heights and that any solution which might help diminish its alarming growth should be seriously considered.
Bill C-212 would compel every employer to give the Unemployment Insurance Commission a list of his total job capacity together with the kind of job held by each employee and the employer would also have to advise the commission of any vacancy or change in the number or type of jobs. It is easy to see that this bill is made up of two parts. First, we are asking each employer for an official list of his employees and second, no unemployed person would be obliged to further submit to the procedures involved in finding a new job.
In his bill, my hon. friend refers to the 1971 act which, as we all know, contained a considerable broadening of benefits for those who, for one reason of another, are faced with the impossibility of finding a job.
In my opinion, it goes without saying that the 1971 act is not perfect yet, but it is a clear indication that the government is always preoccupied by the unemployment situation, and it is very important, and I agree with the government on that, the unemployed enjoy adequate benefits so he and his family can go through that difficult period because it is then impossible for him to get a job and to contribute effectively to find solutions for his family and for his own community.
However, Madam Speaker, I believe my hon. friend's proposal has a great defect and I say so with all due respect. Indeed the suggested inventory constitutes a duplication of what already exists. We in Quebec are a bit used to that sort of arguments which may not impress my
Unemployment Insurance Act
hon. friend, but we know people who never miss the opportunity of reminding us that we have two forms of government, that we often have two departments, which in a way constitutes duplication.
In order to apply that argument to the matter now before us, I must remind my hon. friend that the Department of Manpower and Immigration already has an inventory of available jobs to which unemployed people may refer easily enough if they are really interested in solving their problems. For if it is a moral necessity on the part of the government to help the unemployed, one must not believe that unemployed people should purely and merely be content to stay at home and wait for public servants or government legislation to bring a complete solution to their problem.
Both the government and the unemployed have responsibilities they must try to share. I know personally that in the Jonquiere manpower office, in the constituency of Lapointe, such an inventory exists. Unemployed people can be provided with general information enabling them to make active and effective efforts to find a job. It is a new form of procedure. Those offices have been created tentatively, at least in my area, a few months ago only and, on the basis of consultations I had with the director of the manpower office, that solution seems acceptable, profitable and effective at the present time, provided of course unemployed people are really willing to participate and have an opportunity to do so.
I recognize that the solution advocated by my hon. friend is somewhat relevant, but I believe it would be preferable to find a mechanism that would ensure better cooperation between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Unemployment Insurance Commission rather than try to find formulas which may be excellent but burden the public budgets and in fact are not new solutions. There are often complaints about the lack of communication between the Department of Manpower and Immigrations and the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
I know the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) has looked at the problem, is seeking solutions and has even found some which, however, did not work as expected.
I believe what the manpower offices now have as inventories is the answer, but that does not exclude my hon. friend's proposal, if the unemployment problem is really not worked out sooner or later.
Second, my hon. friend suggests indeed that the unem-loyed be relieved from having to make any effort to find a job. With all due respect to my hon. friend. I do not agree with him on that. I think that when you are temporarily without a job, you must contact the authorities at the appropriate places to try to get one.
In my opinion, it is unfortunate that the unemployed feel that it is enough for them to register at the Canada Manpower Centre and wait very quietly at home, when they are not travelling or on holidays, till someone communicates with them to offer a suitable job.
If we do not want to erode the desire of the unemployed man or woman to make an effort to settle his or her problem, I think it is important to keep this obligation for

November 19, 1974
Unemployment Insurance Act
the individual to take some steps. I recognize that public servants do not always show the best judgment. Often, they require the unemployed to take absolutely useless steps and sometimes too many of them. With their overly strict interpretation of the law, they often deprive the unemployed of their right to unemployment benefits. Far be it from me to suggest that the unemployed be deprived of their right to unemployment benefits through excessively strict interpretation of the law, but I feel that the unemployed owes it to himself to take concrete steps, in a field in which he can work, to find a solution to his problem.
The bill submitted to us by my hon. friend gives us an excellent chance to realize that perhaps, on both sides of the House because neither party has the monopoly on this we have been traumatized, and rightly so, by the acute problems of unemployment. Beyond considerations of political nature, we are trying to find real solutions. I must congratulate my hon. friend for having introduced a bill that is totally honest, totally interesting, which I cannot support wholeheartedly but for which I feel we can certainly commend its author. It has given us an opportunity, though perhaps too brief, of reflecting again on the serious problem of unemployment. This is perhaps a new occasion to to work together towards finding solutions, for there is no worse problem than that of unemployment. Though we must sympathize with those who are without work, we must above all else work together, setting aside political considerations, and find adequate solutions to the trials besetting those people.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that there is a certain sense in Bill C-212, proposed by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). As the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) pointed out, he would like to match the job vacancies with the unemployed, a problem which has defeated many people for a long time. There is no question, of course, that that is the ultimate that one would look for if one had a perfect scheme, and if in fact people were airplane seats.
Unfortunately, as my friend does not seem to understand, people cannot be equated with empty seats on airplanes because there are a great many more people than airplane seats, even in the region of Prince George-Peace River. I do not think for a moment that my hon. friend, when he reads what this bill would propose and takes the time to think his thought through, would want to establish a gigantic bureaucracy, another bureaucracy, when he is already complaining that there is too much bureaucracy in manpower and unemployment.
A few moments ago the hon. member commented on the reasons given for someone in his office being refused a claim in a complicated issue, where the man quit his job to undertake a retraining program, and something went wrong. The hon. member would only multiply that kind of thing one thousand times if his plan were implemented. I think we must consider the unemployed and we must also consider the problems of an employer who reports vacancies. Let us remember that an employer in a small business frequently does not even know how many people he may be using. He has not got a certain number of staff that he uses at all times.
At one time I operated a small business and often hired about 50 people from the National Employment Service, as it was at that time. Usually it was for the Christmas rush and I did not know too far in advance how many people I would need. I am sure that the seasonal nature of the employment is an important consideration in the hon. member's area as well.
The hon. member mentioned that his proposal would do away with the need for the unemployed person to conduct an active job search because that would be done for him by the Manpower Office. Surely this would be a step backwards, Mr. Speaker. Of late we seem to have come down a bit hard on people who register at the Manpower Office and, for some reason, are disentitled.
The hon. member's party claims that unemployment insurance benefits are a disincentive to people, and on the other hand he claims that we should not require people to make an active job search when collecting benefits. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. I do not see how the hon. member can say that an unemployment insurance scheme should be arranged so that not many people will take advantage of it, and then present us with a bill that would make it easier to collect unemployment insurance without conducting an active job search. Surely that is not consistent with the philosophy of his party.
The hon. member must know that a claimant just does not register at a Manpower Office and immediately collect benefits. Hon. members from urban areas, or areas of high unemployment, I am sure receive many complaints that people register at a Manpower Office and are cut off after a five week period because they are not considered to be actively engaged in job hunting. I notice that one of my friends from Newfoundland, who I am sure has these problems, indicates his agreement.
The hon. member mentioned that Manpower provides 11 per cent of the jobs, but I was not clear whether he referred to his own district or whether that was presented as a national figure. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that is not too bad. When you take into consideration the fact that most people find their own jobs, for a single employment agency to find 11 per cent is not bad at all.
I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary has a few things to say, but before I sit down I would remind the hon. member that people and airplane seats are not the same things. That may come as a surprise to him, but it is a fact.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this bill, but obviously members on the other side intend to talk it out and I think we should correct some of their statements before they do that.
I took the time to cross the floor and ask the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) what his question meant when he compared people to seats. Apparently he was referring to a statement made by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) about how computers work for airlines. Members from the other side have inferred that the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River was comparing people with airplane seats,

November 19, 1974

when what he was trying to do was point out the advantages of using computers.
We know the trouble the Manpower Offices got into when they became involved with computers, but an examination of how airlines use computers to fill seats might be useful to them. If an aircraft did not operate at maximum capacity the airlines would be here looking for subsidies, but the use of computers has enabled them to fill their planes and use their facilities to the maximum.
The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River used that illustration to make things as simple as he could for hon. members opposite who concern themselves with trying to talk out bills that sometimes have a lot of merit. I notice some of them are laughing. I had a private member's motion recently, Madam Speaker, and one of the members opposite, who yelled loudest, told me it was a good bill when he met me later and said he was sorry he had to talk it out. I think we should have discussions on a non-partisan basis sometimes to see if members who do not sit on the government benches have ideas that the government could use.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) seemed to think that a Manpower Office that filled 11 per cent of the available jobs had a good record. I have had some experience with the Manpower Office in my riding, which has an aggressive manager and staff who make sure they find out what kind of people industries want. The area is growing very quickly and private agencies have not entered the market yet. But Manpower Offices in general do not seem to know what kind of people employers want. A private agency, on the other hand, keeps an inventory of jobs available and knows what kind of people are required. Some of them are using computers and doing well with them.
The hon. member stated that private employment agencies place the people on the top half of the scale, and Manpower gets the people on the bottom end of the scale. That is not quite correct, Madam Speaker. A company in Vancouver called Hospitality Services provides staff for restaurants-dishwashers, waitresses, cooks, etc. I think a dishwasher would be considered to be at the lower end of ' the scale. This company is doing well because Manpower was not filling that need.
This same company, although it is a private company, as the minister well knows, is willing to work in cooperation with the Manpower Office. Actually, it is willing to pay a fee if the Manpower Office will handle some names. The Manpower Office deals with people who are looking for jobs. The agency I am speaking of goes across the country trying to place employees in various restaurants, hospitals, work camps and so on.
An hon. member opposite mentioned computers and said that we cannot compare airplane seats with people. That is exactly what we are not doing. We are trying to solve a serious difficulty within Manpower Offices and place people in jobs. We want to help the employer who goes to the local Manpower Office for an employee. We suggest that there is a better way of bringing employers and prospective employees together.
Unemployment Insurance Act
Some hon. members on the government side say that the kind of program suggested will entail the creation of a massive bureaucracy. I suggest that that is not correct. Most will agree that in West Germany great expansion of the economy there has taken place with zero unemployment. The program which the hon. member opposite suggests will not work in this country has been in operation in West Germany and, as those who have visited that country will testify, you will not find a massive bureaucracy. It is a country dedicated to private enterprise and it is flourishing. Therefore this suggested program has been proved. It works. It is not one which members on my side have dreamed up, Mr. Speaker. As I say, it has been shown to be a good program.
It is important for us to create an effective inventory for jobs. All I am suggesting is that if an employer is looking for a particular type of employee, he should fill out a card. However, we must make sure that the card he fills out bears some relationship to the card which the prospective employee fills out. Computers are designed to deal with this kind of information. They only fail when the information fed into them is wrong. Surely the government, with all its resources, can see to it that cards are designed so that the card the employee fills out is compatible with the card the prospective employer fills out. I suggest that such a system would be better than the one under which we presently operate.


An hon. Member:: Anything would be better than the present system.


John Douglas Reynolds: My hon. friend says that anything would be better, and I must agree. In my area, and I cannot stress this too strongly because I have close working relations with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Manpower Office, government services are working relatively well. I represent a small community of 150,000 people and Unemployment Insurance and Manpower Offices, because of their small size, have become involved in the community to an extent I have never seen elsewhere.
When I was first elected, the major complaints of my constituents had to do with shortcomings of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Manpower Office. I received four or five complaints a day. At that time these programs were handled in Vancouver, in one massive office which was several storeys high, and contained several hundred employees. Now that these matters are handled in the municipality of Richmond, many of our difficulties have ended. Perhaps that sort of thing can be discussed if the bill goes to committee. I suggest that computers could do the job I am talking about now. I do not think my suggested program would require a large bureaucracy. Once the computer system is working, fewer and fewer people will be needed to work the system.
Some hon. members opposite are under the impression that the work load of counsellors in Manpower Offices is staggering. In certain areas the workload is staggering, but the workload of counsellors working in the private industry is not. I am thinking of a company in Vancouver known as Dunhill's. I know very well the two men who run it. One is the treasurer of the Liberal party in B.C. and

November 19, 1974
Unemployment Insurance Act
the other fellow happens to be a good Conservative and a good friend of mine. Both are businessmen, and both work in cooperation with the Manpower Office and the local Unemployment Insurance Commission. I think hon. members opposite should look closely at what these men are doing, as it will become evident that we can improve greatly on our present system.
The hon. member for Spadina said, "If anyone is really interested in improving the situation, it is easy to do so".


An hon. Member:: Did he say that?


John Douglas Reynolds: I wrote down his words. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I do not think so. I did not pick those words out of my earphone.


An hon. Member:: Maybe he did not say that.
Mb. Reynolds: Perhaps he did not. People do not remember everything they say in private members' hour. Some of them read speeches which have been prepared by research departments. If the hon. member did make the statement, it will appear in Hansard. In any event, I suggest that the unemployed in Canada are usually interested in improving their situation. In the odd case the unemployed person may be content to stay on unemployment insurance, which has been all too easy to obtain. However, by and large, I suggest that most unemployed people want to improve their situation.
Sometimes a fellow may decide in December that he wants to improve his situation in March or April, and he takes three months off skiing. That was possible until fairly recently. The minister tightened the regulations because of complaints from my side of the House, as well as from his side. Actually, the former minister of the environment spoke out loudly before the last election about abuses under the unemployment insurance program. He wanted the government to end them.
I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that the time has come to change our system and allow private bills, proposed by backbenchers on both sides of the House, to proceed to committee. I know that some on the government side are given the task of talking these bills out. That must be changed. We should use private members' hour to consider private members' bills, so that after one hour we can send them to committee and discuss them in a non-partisan fashion. At present, as I say, some members opposite are given the task of talking these bills out, so that they are not sent to committee and the responsible minister is not asked to give up some of his valuable time.


An hon. Member:: They are trained seals.


John Douglas Reynolds: Some call them trained seals. Of course, if we, on this side, were to sit on the other side, as we shall one day, we might operate on the same basis. I think we should look at my suggested program in a non-partisan way. This program has worked in other countries, and I do not see why it cannot work in this country. I think we should follow the example which has been set by others, and for that reason I hope hon. members will allow this bill to go to committee and allow us to correct a difficult situation.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Madam
Speaker, the hon. member conceded that the system works quite well in his area. If the system works well in one area, clearly, it can work well anywhere. Therefore, the hon. member is making a judgment. He is passing judgment on the staffs of certain offices. He is suggesting that some staffs are not as good as others, and is therefore passing judgment on certain staffs. Clearly, he does not condemn the entire system. He said that he had a very good relationship with a certain aggressive, able manager and that the system works well. I would argue-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but the hour appointed for private members' business having expired, I leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-10, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Donald Craig Stewart: far as branch lines are concerned. It has added extra cost to the grain companies and the farmers.
I want to use, as an example, a branch line in my constituency. This is a CNR line that runs from Neepawa to McCreary, Manitoba. Several years ago, because CNR would not guarantee future service on this line, Manitoba Pool Elevators and United Grain Growers consolidated service on it. There were four points served on the line, Eden, Riding Mountain, Birnie and Kelwood. To improve service at that time, the United Grain Growers took over the elevator at Riding Mountain and had the farmers in that area deliver their grain to Kelwood. The situation was vice versa with the closure of the Birnie Manitoba Pool Elevator. They had their customers deliver their grain to the pool elevators at Eden. This happened two years ago.
At that time both the United Grain Growers and Manitoba Pool Elevators asked CNR about the future of the line because they wanted to keep up the facilities. They wanted to make sure the elevators could be kept in top condition. No matter how many times they asked CNR, they received no assurance.
This summer the main Manitoba Pool elevator at Eden more or less collapsed. This meant that the farmers from that area had to find a new delivery point to handle their crop for this fall, as well as their crop for next year. All this has come about because of a lack of government decision as to which direction it will head on branch lines. Manitoba Pool Elevators have now advised the farmers in the Eden area they will not rebuild their facilities there. Instead, they will build a large elevator at Neepawa. This means a haul of an additional 10 to 15 miles for farmers in that area.
Because of the location of these elevators, sometimes close to our national parks, the farmers have to negotiate a few steep grades, which present them with considerable difficulty with their present equipment. The Manitoba Pool Elevators have told their membership, and all farmers in the area, that they will be glad to build a new elevator at Eden, but because the government has not yet decided the future of these branch lines the CNR will not guarantee servipe. This lack of policy is going to cost both the pool elevators and the farmers in the area a lot of money.
I can give other examples where the lack of government policy on branch lines is causing extreme concern in western Canada, a matter mentioned many times before in the House. Instead of bringing in legislation like Bill C-10 I hope the government will soon announce its new transportation policy and disclose its priorities as far as western agriculture is concerned. The government should put its priorities in proper perspective.
In his earlier remarks the minister responsible for the Wheat Board stated that the government was not raising the cash advances because of inflation. I do not know what the reason is, but it does make me wonder. Perhaps the reason is the over-payment made to the western farmers in early June. Perhaps it is the two-price wheat payment that the government is now demanding back from the western farmers.
Grain
Perhaps by increasing cash advances the government feels the farmers will be able to afford to pay back the over-payment that was made at election time. Between May 27 and June 3 cheques were mailed out, by the minister's office, to 9,586 special permit holders in western Canada as two-price wheat payments. Later it was disclosed that 7,635 of these permit holders were overpaid varying amounts totalling in all $1,449,000.
At the time the minister stated that the computer had made a mistake, but it makes one wonder whether it was not another form of election bribe to the western farmers. As I say, perhaps the reason the minister is raising cash advances is to enable the farmers to repay the bribe that was made at that time. In closing, may I say I support Bill C-10. However, I feel there is much more important legislation that the government should be bringing forward to solve some of the problems in western Canada.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board speaking yesterday on this bill, and I was interested to hear him speak so highly of it. This bill is amending an act which came into being as a result of legislation brought in by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was Prime Minister some 17 years ago. Naturally the minister gave no recognition to this fact in his address. He delivered his speech in such a manner as to lead people to believe that this piece of legislation was entirely his own doing.
Of course this is not uncommon with government members. They very often adopt the policies and ideas of the opposition, and later on rather brazenly give the impression that they are their ideas. In particular I recall quite vividly that our policy of indexing income tax, which was brought forward in 1972, was ridiculed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), but subsequently adopted by him.
In his speech yesterday the minister had this to say about the income of farmers, as reported at page 1404 of Hansard:
Hon. members will have recently noticed figures for the whole of Canada which show that farmers' cash receipts are up to more than 43 per cent in the first nine-month period of 1974.
They will have noticed, too, that in the province by province analysis the greatest increases have taken place in the prairie provinces. Saskatchewan leads the way with cash receipts which have moved to $1.93 billion for the nine-month period, from $1.02 billion for the corresponding period a year earlier. That is an increase of approximately 90 per cent for Saskatchewan, over what I believe was itself a record.
Was the minister is charge of the Wheat Board attempting to give the rest of the country the impression that farmers in the west have never had it so good? The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) straightened the record out, however, when he spoke shortly after the minister and quoted statistics to the effect that in 1973 the average income of the farm family on the prairies, after expenses and interest, amounted to some $2,200. I believe the minister is out of touch-if he ever was in touch-with the farmers of Saskatchewan.
I wonder whether he realizes that up until two or three years ago farmers on the prairies were living on their equipment depreciation allowances. Year by year their machinery was getting older and they had no money to buy new machinery. They now have a few dollars in their

November 19, 1974
Grain
pockets but equipment prices are very high, having gone up four, five or six times in the last few years.


Otto Emil Lang: Do you believe the $2,200?


Douglas Charles Neil: It is very close, I would say, Mr. Minister.


Otto Emil Lang: Out by about $10,000.


Douglas Charles Neil: I would say that the increase in income that the farmer has realized in the last two or three years has largely been eaten up by his expenditures on replacing farm machinery. The price of fertilizer has gone up two or three times, the price of fuel has gone up, grocery bills and general living expenses have gone up. The farmer has been called upon to pay interest on loans at anywhere between 10 and 15 per cent.
While we must admit that cash receipts for the last year or two have been high, it is a case of considering what the farmer has in his pocket after he has paid his bills. The minister will find it is not just that much. Certainly there are some large farms doing quite well and those farmers have bank accounts and so on, but the average farmer has used most of the money that he has received in the last two or three years to update his equipment and pay off some of his debts.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) who stated that, in his opinion, this bill became necessary because of the feed grain policy that was instituted last year. This is probably the only reason the bill is before the House.
I assume the minister and the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board are concerned about the possibility that when elevators are plugged, and quotas are closed, some No. 1 and 2 CW wheat will be sold on the open market as 3CW, unless farmers have a fair amount of cash available under the provisions of this bill.
The minister spoke yesterday about a logical and full-scale stabilization program for grains on the prairies. I wonder if this program started with Operation LIFT and will end with the abandonment of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. I am afraid that might be the case, as the minister has been putting out feelers recently, testing public opinion on the suggestion that producers on the prairie will not suffer if the Crowsnest Pass freight rates are abolished.
It has been suggested that the subsidies being paid to the railway companies should be paid either directly to the farmers or to the municipalities for the construction of roads and public works following certain rail line abandonments. Perhaps the money will be put into the Wheat Board Pool account and divided up in that manner. I wonder whether some producers in Saskatchewan realize that if we take off the Crowsnest Pass freight rates this could mean an increase in transportation charges on wheat of from 50 cents to 75 cents per hundredweight. The whole transportation and grain handling systems must be examined thoroughly.
We have received no answer from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to our questions about his intention in connection with rail line abandonments following the

freeze which will end December 31 of this year. A decision must be taken fairly quickly, as the elevator companies must know what is going to happen in order that they can make necessary plans for the construction of elevators and storage facilities. I suggest that the railway companies and the producers must know what is to happen. The farmers must know if they will be able to deliver grain to the local elevator or how far they will have to travel to get their grain to market.
The farmers must also know what kind of trucks they will require to transport their grain, and the cost of moving the grain to market. If the Crowsnest Pass freight rates are abolished it might be cheaper to move the grain to the Lakehead by truck rather than by rail. This is what is happening in the United States at the present time.
Will the full-scale stabilization program suggested by the minister involve on-farm storage? It would seem to me that if we had a type of on-farm storage it might eliminate the need for a cash advance program such as we are discussing tonight. The farmer would benefit by being paid for the storage of his grain on his farm. This would enable him to build modern storage facilities, dual purpose or otherwise, thus assisting him to modernize his farm. This in itself would make quite a difference in the appearance of farms in western Canada. If one travels around the prairies at the present time he will see some pretty poor storage facilities, mainly because the farmers have not had the cash to build new grain storage bins.


Otto Emil Lang: I don't think you have travelled there.


Douglas Charles Neil: The Canadian Wheat Board would also benefit from such a scheme involving on-farm storage, in that it could buy the grain from the farmer and would know exactly what quality and quantity of grain there was in storage, and would then be able to call for delivery of grain in an orderly manner.


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


Douglas Charles Neil: At the end of my statement I will entertain questions.


Otto Emil Lang: This is relevant to what you are now saying.


An hon. Member:: It will still be relevant.


Otto Emil Lang: I am very interested in the analysis the hon. member is making about on-farm storage. Would he explain how the grain would be graded, what kind of arrangement would be made to assure that it was being kept in place, and how it would be called forward when it was needed?


Douglas Charles Neil: There would be no problem in assuring that the grain was in storage if a scheme existed that enabled farmers to build proper facilities.


Otto Emil Lang: How would it be graded?


Douglas Charles Neil: It would be graded by the elevator men taking samples of the grain in the bins. The grain could then be locked up and would belong to the Canadian Wheat Board. The system would be somewhat similar to that which is in existence in the State of Montana. Perhaps the minister is

suggesting that the farmers would be dishonest and would sell the grain in storage. I suggest to him that the fact that farmers have repaid over 99 per cent of their indebtedness under the cash advance program indicates the honesty of farmers. If the minister talked to some of the farmers in the west they would explain to him that a program of on-farm storage would work, and would be of value to them. I would urge the minister to look into this matter and give it very serious consideration.
In closing let me say that I support the legislation. I believe it is necessary, but I feel that at some future point it should be replaced by an on-farm grain storage program.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth.


Mr.   Sean@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Sharp:: Filibuster.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: It may seem unusual for a member representing the great riding of Hamilton-Wentworth to want to participate in the debate on Bill C-10, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


Mitchell William Sharp: You have run out of speakers, I guess.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: The government House leader suggests we have run out of speakers. That is not so, but even if it were, it would put us in a better position than the government which has run out of ideas.


Otto Emil Lang: You finally have a good speaker with no knowledge.


Mitchell William Sharp: Go ahead, fill in the time. We can waste our time, too.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: It is not because I come from the constituency of Hamilton-Wentworth, which contains some of the most arable land and the most dedicated farmers in Canada, that I rise to speak, because obviously this bill will have a particular interest, not for the farmers of southern Ontario, but for the Canadian grain farmers, chiefly those in western Canada. I rise to make the point that this bill affects not just those members who have the honour of representing grain producers, and not just those of us who represent other segments of the agricultural industry, but simply because this bill affects all hon. members. It is because of the implications of this bill for people from every walk of life and every part of the nation that I speak.
I make this brief interjection in the hope that the debate will not review the bill with the narrowest of views, thinking only of the direct implications, but will take the widest possible view, recognizing that Bill C-10, coming as it does in the particular circumstances of today, is significant for all Canadians and, very hopefully, is significant for all the people of the world.
I am particularly pleased to note that cash advance legislation for our grain producers was first introduced by the government of the right hon. member for Prince
Grain
Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). At that time the Liberal Party opposed such legislation. It is interesting and noteworthy that the government now has turned around and presented this bill, under the name of its minister from the province of Saskatchewan.
It was in connection with my work with the right hon. member for Prince Albert, before becoming a member of this House, that I first visited the province of Saskatchewan to campaign with him in his constituency. That was in 1968. I have been back to that province campaigning with him in the last election. I have also been back to that province, for other reasons, on many occasions. During my visits to that province I had occasion to spend some time in the beautiful city of Saskatoon, which is represented in part by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and also by my colleague who has a distinguished record as a barrister, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
During these visits I have had the fortunate opportunity to speak to some of Canada's grain producers. I have come to appreciate, to some limited extent, the many difficulties they face. That over-all personal impression has been buttressed by the many conversations with my hardworking colleagues who represent them in parliament, and through listening to the speeches of hon. members in debates such as this.
As well, I have become aware that one does not necessarily have to be involved in the industry to be knowledgeable or concerned about the problems and the potential of those involved in grain production. This is evidenced, I suppose, if one wished to be particularly generous, by the fact that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board does not claim personal involvement in the industry. This has been evident to me from my personal conversations with his predecessor as a member of parliament from the city of Saskatoon, Dr. Lewis Brand who, although a member of the medical profession not involved in farming, demonstrated a knowledge of the problems facing the farmers in the constituency of Sas-katoon-Humboldt that brought great credit to him and to those who supported him.
One of the most pressing problems expressed to me is the need for stability if people engaged in the grain production industry are to enjoy living in an atmosphere of security. I believe this is necessary. I am glad the government has finally recognized that the maximum amount that may be payable under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act must be increased to take into account the economic conditions facing Canadians earning their livelihood in this way, and facing Canadians generally who have felt the continuing effects of rising inflation over the last several years.
In agreeing with this provision of the bill I feel obliged, as well, to note the fact that we in this party also have some reservations in respect to it. However, these, I believe, have already been clearly voiced by other members of this party who are far more knowledgeable with respect to these aspects of the legislation than I could ever claim to be, Mr. Speaker. What I do say is that in commending the minister for the positive reform this bill provides, I hope he will also take the reservations and suggestions expressed by my colleagues in the true spirit

November 19, 1974
Grain
in which they are offered, and that he and the government will for once be willing to give careful consideration to the merits of the arguments presented by members on the other side of the House.
In the atmosphere of partisanship that is inherent in our parliamentary system and in this business of politics, given the party system in Canada, we face the daily and considerable temptation of allowing our party loyalty to blind us completely to the possibility of there being merit in the expressions of our political opponents. I think we must recognize we all have a common goal, to seek ultimately that which is right and best for our country. So, our approaches may vary, our words may be different and our techniques may change, but our objective, our goal, remains the same. I hope the minister will understand and take this into consideration as he ponders the proposals put forward by my colleagues. This is in keeping with what the late Dag Hammarskjold wrote in Markings:
Without the humility and warmth which you have to develop in your relations to the few, with whom you are personally involved, you will never be able to do anything for the many.
It is incumbent upon those of us who represent the many, the many in a country that is diverse and extensive, and who also represent the hopes and aspirations of the many throughout the world, to recognize that our personal relations with the few, and by that I mean other members of this House on all sides of the chamber, must be developed in a spirit of friendship that transcends all partisanship.
Earlier I spoke of the significance this bill has for all Canadians because of the particular conditions in which we are living. By this I refer to the present world food crisis, which must surely be of concern to every member of this House, and to every man and woman living in a land as bountiful as ours, who feel compassion and a sense of responsibility for our brothers and sisters of mankind. We have been reminded in recent days, from many sources, of the grave implications that the world food crisis has for millions of people. We are reminded of it every day through the media, and by particular events such as the recent World Food Conference in Rome, where my party was so well represented by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), whom I know to be a man of great compassion and bearing a sense of true international responsibility.
In the same spirit in which I have made that comment and those which preceded it, I should also take notice of the contribution made by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). Hon. members are also reminded of this situation by their constituents. We receive letters of representation from constituents writing as concerned Canadians. We were eloquently reminded of the problem during the special debate which took place in this House last Friday, which debate was initiated by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan). I refer to the international food crisis.
The point I wish to emphasize in supporting this contention is that the bill has implications for all of us, rural and urban dwellers alike. In the continuing fight against inflation, which all Canadians have faced and are facing, the

central concern has been the production and cost of food. This is a common concern of all hon. members, reflecting as it does a common concern of all Canadians who, in recent years, have been asked to set aside much larger percentages of their family budgets for the purchase of food.
This is a very serious situation and one of continuing and pressing importance to my colleagues and myself in this party. Indeed, we believe that any attack upon inflation, any general thrust to ease its impact, must first be directed against inflation that has affected particularly the cost of the necessities of life: food, shelter and clothing. I make this observation because nothing that I am about to say is in any way meant to lessen the importance of the need for this government, and all governments in Canada, to wage an effective fight against undue increases in the cost of living, particularly as they relate to food.
At the same time I think it is incumbent upon us, at this particular stage of world development, to reflect upon the great benefits that are ours simply by the good fortune of fate which has called us to be Canadians and to live in this land. Just as partisanship, which I mentioned earlier, must not blind members of this House to the merits found in the ideas of members of other parties, so it is that we, as Canadians, must never let our domestic problems, however great they may be, blind us to the more serious and pressing problems of peoples living in developing countries. It is essential that this government, this House and all Canadians recognize that whatever our problems are as they relate to food, these are small when compared with the daily struggle for life faced by so many throughout the world.
I view this as one of the most serious challenges facing the world today, placing a special responsibility on those of us who are privileged to live in a developed and prosperous nation, and particularly placing a responsibility upon men and women involved in the public life of such a nation. At the basis of any action to be taken by governments must be the understanding and support of citizens willing to show the kind of self-restraint that so many Canadians have unselfishly come to accept in recent days.
My colleagues and I are committed to use all the resources available to us to the end of bringing true peace, justice and hope to all the peoples in the world. This problem has also been recognized by spokesmen for the government, and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen)-whom I am glad to see in the House tonight-will know, I have recently passed along to him comments in support of Canada's position taken at the World Food Conference, and directed to the government by constituents in Hamilton-Wentworth. I was pleased to read a speech made by the minister at that conference, delivered on November 6 of this year, part of which reads:
-mankind has no choice but to arrange his feeding in harmony with a balanced use of all the earth's resources, or his civilization will go the way of those of Nineveh and Babylon-which destroyed the soils that fed them. The World Population Conference at Bucharest marked the first, albeit halting, step towards using a full range of policies to control the pressures exerted on this planet's resources. Progress in this area must be accelerated.
The spirit reflected in the minister's remarks has been one that has caught the conscience of Canadians in all
November 19, 1974

walks of life. This is evidenced further by a resolution recently passed by the Hamilton Steelworkers Area Council representing a group of men who, I am sure even the minister will admit, work in a much different environment than does he. Yet they too recognize this concern and recently passed a motion which reads as follows:
The United Steelworkers recognize the world-wide problems of hunger and starvation, and condemn any policies which result in uncalled for cuts in food production, or in storage policies which risk the spoilage of food.
This is a problem which transcends all political considerations and all economic differences that may separate Canadians. It unites us all, whatever our background, whatever our walk of life, whatever our aspirations for our own personal development, in a common concern to feel a commitment and to make a contribution to international relations.
This is why I further support, as a general rule, the provision by Canada of aid to assist the citizens of a country rather than the giving of assistance directly to a foreign government. In this way it is possible to disagree with the policies of another government, but not to let those policies stand in the way of assisting people who are in need, and who should not be made to suffer as a result of the shortcomings of their country's officials. A significant problem presented by such a policy, we must admit, is to ensure that this really benefits those citizens and is not misdirected by the government in question. It is in this spirit, with this intention, that any action on the part of the federal government, to provide aid for the people of any country in need, is deserving of our support.
So I welcome this bill chiefly because it should create conditions favourable to high productivity on the part of our grain producers. Productivity, high productivity, absolute and ultimate high productivity-that must be the byword and the objective of every farmer in every part of Canada in the coming years. Never again should we have a government policy, as this government had, to pay farmers for not producing food, the chief among the essentials of life. Rather, we must adopt the attitude enunciated so eloquently by the late President Kennedy when he said:
I don't regard . . . agricultural surplus as a problem. I regard it as an opportunity ... I think the farmers can bring more credit, more lasting goodwill, more chance for peace, than almost any group, if we recognize that food is strength, and food is peace, and food is freedom, and food is a helping hand to people around the world whose goodwill and friendship we want.
It is in this spirit that I welcome this legislation, and express the deep hope that the government will act in consequence of the deep concern which, I believe, is felt by all Canadians for the needy people of the world.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity of this debate to present a few of my views on the matter of grain handling and grain production. Before the minister closes the debate I would like to have an opportunity to mention a few of these matters.
Bill C-10 will increase cash advance payments from $6,000 to $15,000. According to the Order in Council that has been passed for quota acres for the purposes of cash advances at 10 bushels for wheat, 20 bushels for barley, and 20 bushels for oats, at a rate of payment of $1.50 for
Grain
wheat, 90 cents for barley, and 70 cents for oats, a farmer applying for a cash advance, if he is a wheat producer, must have approximately 1,000 acres to get a $15 per acre maximum advance. I should like to ask the minister if the formula could not be changed to take into consideration the producers in Manitoba, whose operations are likely to be smaller than producers further west?
Although I believe it was the minister's intention to present this bill as a housekeeping measure, I think it was also a recognition of the increased costs of production faced by all western farmers.
The constituency of Provencher is located in the so-called designated area of the Canadian Wheat Board, but despite this it is also a large importer. Production costs of beef, poultry-and I almost hesitate to mention eggs in view of the government's attitude toward that product- have increased in past years. I would suggest to the minister that he might consider a stabilization program for other agricultural products within the Wheat Board area.
In view of the food crisis facing the world today it behooves us, as one of the few countries with surplus capacity, to produce food so that the hungry people of the world can be fed. The impact of the crisis becomes more vivid when one realizes that many thousands of people in the world did not eat dinner neither today nor yesterday.
The government, however, embarked on a deliberate program of cutting back production, reacting to what it thought was a surplus situation. Operation LIFT was introduced in order to take the political heat off the government, and now we find ourselves not only in a "cash short" situation but in trouble with the beef industry as well. To a large extent the leadership of the government has brought us to this point. It will have to show much better leadership to get western Canadian farmers into a cash position so that they can produce at maximum capacity and help feed a hungry world.
I support the concept of an international food bank to which Canada would be a mojor contributor. But the burden must be shared by the industrial countries of the world, Mr. Speaker, including the newly rich countries of the Middle East which should make a cash contribution toward the creation of such a food bank.
The cyclical nature of agriculture means that it cannot be regularized, and the government should seriously consider giving financial aid to Canadian farmers in order to ensure steady production. It needs to be made clear to the consumers, however, that such assistance should not be classified as farm subsidies but rather as consumer subsidies. Such aid is only available to the farmer to give him a reasonable return on his input costs. This matter should be set straight for the record.
It is possible that Bill C-10 would not have been necessary in its present format if the initial payment had been higher. That has been changed recently, but we still have the three bushel quota which is forcing many farmers on the open market.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to impress upon the government that if agriculture is to remain viable it must be in a cash flow position. Production must be

November 19, 1974
Grain
increased so that we can help the hungry of the world, but it must not be done at the expense of the farmer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) I would remind hon. members that, if the minister speaks now, this will close the debate on this stage of the bill. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things in response to the comments of hon. members. First of all, however, I must observe that we have had another of these fairly typical debates that take place when the subject is grain or wheat. This debate perhaps confirms the wisdom of the suggestion made by the government House leader that debates in this House should be televised.
Some 11 Conservatives have spoken in succession after the first round was completed and it was made clear that all members would support the bill presently before the House. The advantage of television would have been that every set in the country could have turned off ten Tories ago and that might have-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You haven't got any Liberals in western Canada at all. You can't restrict debate.


Otto Emil Lang: The important thing is that of those 11 speeches, two might have been worth discussion if they had been allowed to go forward because they had some relevance to the subject of the debate. I should like to make it clear that I do not refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). I appreciate his entering the debate, recognizing as he did, that he does not represent an area which is greatly concerned about the subject, but that he wished to utter important words of poetry and get the subject off his soul.
I thought the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) spoke well on current issues and, in a sensible and rational way, put forward questions and propositions of relevance. This distinguishes them completely from other Conservatives who took part in this debate. If one thing is clear, it is that those other Conservatives who participated in the debate have not taken advantage of the services of their research bureau in preparing material to be presented in the debate.
We heard two sorts of presentation: we heard the sort of thing we have heard many times previously, that is, hackneyed repetitions of old charges, old comments and old analyses. There was nothing new in them. Yes, there was something new in this debate, and that was the completely fictitious and completely false positions put forward by some. It was absolutely astounding for members sitting on my side to listen to that kind of impossible contribution made by hon. members opposite on a bill which, as 11 members in succession said, they will support because, "after all, we invented this idea and therefore it is good."

Members opposite began by observing that they could not understand how the Liberal government can support cash advances 17 years after Conservatives introduced the principle. They, being Conservatives, think that if you are against something in 1957, by George, you will be against it in 1974. Well, Mr. Speaker, some Liberals who were here in 1957 are not here now. Times and ideas change, and the Liberal party has changed. It adopts the best policies put forward by any side of the House, and does so unashamedly.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) made a number of remarks attempting to show, I think, that the Conservatives seem to be against demurrage payments being borne by the Canadian Wheat Board. Clearly, demurrage payments on wheat, are the responsibility of the board and are borne by the board. Demurrage charges on grains which are not the responsibilities of the Wheat Board, whether on rape or flaxseed, are borne by those involved with those particular grains. He was also concerned about the possibility of the cost of boxcars being borne by grain farmers. He ought to know that these boxcars were paid for by the treasury.
I also found interesting the hon. member's suggestion that the increase in cash advances represents some kind of effort to rescue our feed grains policy. He said that he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and with the agricultural critic of the Conservative party, the hon. member for Lisgar; he agrees that the open market for domestic feed grains is a good idea. But he was worried in case this bill would undermine that principle. He ignored the fact that when the feed grains policy was provisionally announced in 1973, part of the announcement said that cash advances would be raised in order to assure that farmers are given the choice of delivering to the Canadian Wheat Board or on the open market, as they see best. Cash advances were designed to take financial pressure off them. I mention this to show that there was support for our feed grains policy on the part of the Conservatives.
Then the next member who spoke, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), indicated his tremendous contempt for the feed grains policy and anyone who supported it. Here, again, we saw Conservatives showing their need to speak. Indeed, I suppose they should speak on every issue, otherwise we shall not know how that party stands, as it has not adopted any party policy of any consistency on any subject. It is amazing that they do not seem to know that they take these opposite positions.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) was worried in case the feed grains policy will destroy the Wheat Board. I assure him that it will not.


Mr. Benjamin:: Why do we need it?


Otto Emil Lang: We need it because the operation of the federal agency created a different price in one province than was possible in other provinces, and that was unacceptable in economic terms in Canada. We must have one economic price throughout Canada. This should be clear to the hon. member. The feed grains policy will not bring more grain on to the open market than is needed by the domestic market. The limit will be set by demand, and the
November 19, 1974

only relevant question is what price will be charged. Let me say clearly that I believe farmers, generally speaking, will obtain a better return if they deliver to the Wheat Board for the export market. Of course there will always be those who will be attracted by a price close enough to the Wheat Board price to deliver to the open market for domestic use.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But only Tories will take the lower price.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member says that only Tories will end up delivering the wrong way and getting the lower price. In that case, why is he worried? The fact is that the domestic price on the open market for feed grains will be close to the basic, long-range price as estimated by the Wheat Board. So, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre need not worry.
In addition to comments on feed grain policy, we witnessed the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) speaking against the grass incentives program. This is the first time I have heard a Conservative speak this way about that program. Usually they voice support for the program, but the hon. member spoke against it. The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) heard him and, not having been a member of this House for long did not realize the strangeness of his colleague's position and spoke against the grass incentives program as well.
I still say that we needed to switch additional acreage into forage, and I am confident in the long-term development of the beef industry of this country. That was the correct program to introduce, as Conservatives at one time knew, but as present Conservative members no longer seem to know. I suppose one can expect no less, considering that 11 speeches were made without the help of research facilities. As members opposite are confused in their positions, all things considered, it might be better if they were to allow this legislation to pass, as most have said that they support it.
The hon. member for Dauphin made useful suggestions, as did the hon. member for Lisgar, concerning the elevator agent as the collector of the cash advance and the administrator of the program. Let me say that I believe the cash advance system has worked so well because the elevator agent has assumed responsibility for an important role. When he is involved in cash advances he knows the farmer he is dealing with, knows how much grain the farmer possesses, and is able to deal with him in a kind, neighbourly and responsible way.
The question arises: is the elevator agent being paid adequately for the part he plays in administering the program? Of course this may involve the elevator agent, the Canadian Wheat Board, and others, but that is another question. We should appreciate the role which elevator agents in this country have played in making the system work as well as it has, Mr. Speaker.
Many speeches, as I indicated previously, just repeated old monstrosities and accusations raised in times gone by-


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) that there is such a thing as relevancy in debate. He should know
Grain
that, considering his academic background; if he does not, his ignorance stems from the depth of his inexperience and ignorance about how this chamber operates. Presumably the government would like to see some progress. We have tried to make arrangements so that that can be done.
I would just ask the Minister of Justice to recognize the principle of relevance, and make a special effort to refrain from the innuendo that there is some restriction on members speaking in this House on a piece of legislation that is of special interest to them. It would be impossible for there to be 11 government members speak on this bill who would have any direct interest in it, because such members just are not here. They do not exist. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further. I appeal to the minister to try to help us expedite business.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the advice of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). Early in the debate the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) asked about relevance when a Conservative was speaking. I have no doubt that a great deal of it was irrelevant. I am now trying to deal with a good deal of what was said. I find it hard to understand how the Conservatives can say these things and then, when I deal with them, I touch sensitive nerves and they cry out "Order".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make myself perfectly clear. I have no objection whatsoever to the minister objecting as strongly as he wishes to anything said by any member on this side of the House. My objection stems from the fact the minister seems to think there is something improper in 11 members on this side of the House speaking in succession. I point out to him that the prairie area of Canada is heavily represented in this House by opposition members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It is indeed, Mr. Speaker, although I am happy to say less so than before, and I hope less so in the future. It is not extraordinary when 11 Conservatives speak in a row. It is when 11 speak in a row and have nothing to say. That is extraordinary to everybody but a Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: I want to deal with some of the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He is the man who manufactured a few facts for the purpose of the debate, which were then used by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) as though they were facts.
It is a most extraordinary thing. I referred to figures for cash receipts in Saskatchewan, comparing the first three quarters of 1974 with 1973. I gave the actual figures and the percentage increase. A few minutes later I was asked

November 19, 1974
Grain
why I had not given the actual figures, which I had done. Those figures showed an increase.
I did not do that to indicate that the measure we were about to put through the House was unnecessary. I thought it would be obvious to anyone that, when a bill stands in my name, it is proposed for passage by me. I indicated it was necessary, notwithstanding that the cash position of the farmers on the prairies is somewhat better than it has been for a long time. I would have thought any member who purports to have come from the prairies, and knows anything about the situation, would know that is a fact.
Those of us from the prairies need not run away from that, even though we may want to emphasize that, despite the fact that today we in the prairies may be getting more for our grain than we would really need to get if we had not a deficit from days gone by, the fact is we have that deficit and it has to me made up sometime. It is being made up very rapidly.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain came out with a fantastic statement which is recorded at page 1410 of Hansard. He said that all the Saskatchewan farmer received for the full calendar year, for 1973, after expenses and interest, was approximately $2,200 per family. He said this is the type of living condition the minister calls "rolling in dough". Of course I did not call anything rolling in dough. I simply referred to the facts.
What are the facts with regard to income? I do not know where the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain got his figures. I ask the hon. member for Moose Jaw not to accept the $2,200 figure simply because it was used by that hon. member. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain must not have been talking to farmers. If he had been, he would know they made a little more than $2,200 per average farmer in 1973.
Statistics Canada figures show that in Saskatchewan in 1973 the net income of farm operators from their farming operations was $993 million. If there were the same number of farmers then as in 1971, that works out to just about $13,000 per farmer for net farm income from farming operations in Saskatchewan.
Statistics Canada further forecast what 1974 is likely to be-it is simply a forecast, but the first three quarters' figures tend to bear it out. It indicates that the net farm income in Saskatchewan for 1974 may well turn out to be $1,801 million. If worked out with the number of farmers in operation in 1971, that comes to $23,404 net farm income per farming operator. That is contrasted to the $2,200 figure of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. It shows what I mean when I say I do not think he has been near a farm in the last couple of years or he would know farmers are doing better than that.
I wish that in the course of a debate like this, improving one measure in a small way, it would not be necessary to have members from the prairies doing several things. It is not necessary to say 11 times over "Let's get on with other legislation which may be more important." Also, they need not once again go over their pessimism about the future of agriculture. If those people had the power, there would be reason to be pessimistic.

We will continue to ensure that farming is a good way of life for more and more farmers in the prairie region and, I hope, throughout this country. That is what this government is about, and that is what our optimism is about. I wish members opposite would share this optimism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
 * *

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government bills (Senate):
November 4-The Minister of National Revenue-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill S-4, to amend the Customs Act.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is the desire of the House to make progress on a couple of bills on the order paper this evening. The first is the one that has just been called. I believe it is the desire of all hon. members, and this might be ascertained by asking if there is unanimous consent, that this bill be considered in committee of the whole rather than referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that it can be disposed of this evening.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a general understanding that that shall be done. We certainly have no objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is part of the agreement. The agreement also includes that we will give it third reading tonight as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that the motion be for reference to committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill S-4, to amend the Customs Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think we should put on record an explanation of why the House has moved to hold the bill in committee of the whole rather than send it out to a standing committee. If we look at the purpose of the bill, it is merely to extend
November 19, 1974

Canadian customs jurisdiction to the outer limits of the territorial sea of Canada.
It was some years ago that the territorial sea was defined after many, shall I say, abortive efforts and a great deal of promise. We did have a sort of halfway house in regard to our fishing limits. First of all we had a three mile limit, which was then extend to nine miles, a zone where foreign fishermen could come in but our fishermen could not go out. We now have a 12 mile zone and can send customs officers out to the 12 mile limit, and we are determining what shall be the territorial sea of Canada so these officers will be able to operate in what are essentially Canadian waters.
This is a tidying up bill. There is nothing very consequential about it. We are not going to make lengthy speeches or anything like that, so that the shirt tails of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) get into a knot and he becomes overly excited. If there had been consultations, a good deal of the spleen that he vented this evening might have been turned toward some of the scheduling that went on, since Bill C-14 was supposed to be coming up for debate tonight. It so happens that the minister and members of the committee who should have been here to consider Bill C-14 were hauled off to a committee meeting to consider Bill C-9, and were thus removed from the House.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not yield the floor.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) served for nine months as Speaker of the House and wishes to boss the House as a sergeant major, I rise on a point of privilege.
If Bill C-14 had been called yesterday or this afternoon, and if hon. members of the Official Opposition had not made systematic obstruction to the bill sponsored by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), I should have been willing to debate Bill C-14. I know it as well as the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I never knew that the hon. member's thin skin was a question of privilege. Certainly he knows that the minister was not here, and the hon. members who wanted to discuss the bill were not available. Therefore we have now arrived at this point. As a matter of fact, the hon. member was not here himself a little earlier so we could not have dealt with the bill in any event. He has just come into the House.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I was here at 8.15 p.m. and I knew very well, thanks to the information received, that hon. members of the Official Opposition would speak one after the other until at least nine o'clock.
Customs Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, if I may I will return to dealing with customs jurisdiction in the territorial sea. I hope that housekeeping amendments of this nature will not necessarily be kept this long. There is a rather interesting subclause that I think could lead innocent parties astray. Now, apparently, the making of signals is becoming an offence. Perhaps hon. members of this House are going to have to watch their hands, and be very careful if they stand up at the wrong time. Perhaps they will be making signals which might be deemed an offence under the rules of the House. In any event, I am quite pleased that we are able to bring this legislation forward and can deal with it in detail in committee, and then take third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Morin in the chair.
B. Keith Penner: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill S-4, an act to amend the Customs Act.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3.


John Angus MacLean: Madam Chairman, I have one question to ask by way of clarification. I am wondering whether this bill will have any effect on the privilege ships have to use material and sell it on board ship in areas where normally they were customs free. I suppose Atlantic passenger ships would have to refrain from this custom until they were outside Canadian waters.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Chairman, may I make one brief comment about the bill, really in reference to what was said by the hon. member for Edmonton West. It was my pleasure while Secretary of State for External Affairs to see the territorial waters extended to 12 miles, and I join with the hon. member in congratulating the government for finally having caught up with the housekeeping.
In reply to the question I have just been asked, it is my understanding that legally ships would have to refrain from engaging in these activities until they had passed beyond the territorial waters of Canada.


Mr. Crouse:: Madam Chairman, may I ask the House leader a question about this bill. It is my understanding that the delay in bringing the bill forward was somewhat necessitated by the phasing out operations of various countries which were fishing in zones which formerly were open to them. I am speaking of the phasing out of fishing operations which had to be concluded with the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark and Portugal. I believe this work was carried out commencing in 1964, at which time the nine mile fishing zone was established contiguous to the three mile territorial sea.
Then in 1970 the territorial sea was extended to 12 miles, which leads us, as I understand it, to this legislation. Is this correct, and in the interval have any negotiations been carried on and an agreement reached with, for example, Spain? Have any negotiations been carried on with the United States and France, or do these countries still

November 19, 1974
Customs Act
have certain treaty rights that would exclude them from the terms of this legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Chairman, I do not really think this bill can be related to the question just asked. The purpose of the bill is to give to Canadian customs jurisdiction in areas in which it did not have jurisdiction until 1964 when the territorial seas were extended to 12 miles. It has nothing to do with treaty rights or fishing zones. It is entirely related to the matter of enabling our customs inspectors to go out to 12 miles rather than three miles, which used to be the width of our territorial seas.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On Clause 4-Smuggling liquors and narcotics.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Chairman, this particular clause is related to one of the most colourful passages in Canadian literature dealing with the smuggling of wines, spiritous and fermented malt liquors into Canadian waters. A great number of romantic stories have been written about activities off the Atlantic coast, and some members suggest off the Pacific coast as well. I have been informed by good authority that many of these stories contain a great deal of truth. In any event we are not changing the nature of the offence or anything like that, we are merely changing the clause so that it no longer refers to the three miles but rather to the 12 miles.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I hope I am not roaming too far afield when I ask the minister if he could shed a little bit of light on how the Department of National Revenue intends to enforce not only this bill, but other similar acts which have been amended? Perhaps he could indicate whether the government intends to aid the Department of National Defence in terms of dollars and cents to acquire a specific seagoing capability in order to assist in the enforcement of this legislation up to the 12-mile limit.
With this amendment, and other pending amendments to other legislation, we might in the foreseeable future, at least during the lead time to construct a fleet with a seaborne capability, require additional ships to meet the requirements of this and other contemplated acts. We may be placing ourselves in the position of having to police activities out to the 12-mile limit. Can the minister make a comment or two in that regard?
Are we going to provide one of the branches of government that has a military capability with the type of seagoing fleet necessary to meet the requirements of this and other measures, or are we going to continue along as we are with no capability of enforcement? Could the minister make a comment in that general area?


James Armstrong Richardson: Madam Chairman, I question whether this amendment to the Customs Act has any direct bearing on the operations of the Department of National Defence. I can say to the hon. member that when called upon by the Department of National Revenue we do go to its support. We have, at different times, been involved in the policing of infractions to the customs regulations, but this is not part of our established duty. That is only the case when
[Mr. Crouse.)
we are called upon by another department to offer assistance.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Chairman, we are talking about an area that involves our territorial seas, our territorial fishing zones, the Gulf of St. Lawrence and our inland waters which include our freshwater lakes and other major rivers. This involves a number of areas into which we would not want to send men in 14-foot motor boats.
What long range plans does the government have in respect of policing this measure in particular and, in a more general way, other acts? We have had an extension of the authority of the Canadian armed forces under various peace officers acts, and I regret that as I do not think our armed forces people should be involved in police work. Be that as it may, this involves an area described as inland waters. What specific plans does the government have to meet the lead time requirements in respect of that type of fleet?
We cannot send our DDH 280 ships out after small boats. It would be a little difficult to get our sophisticated war ships out after these other vessels that might be engaged in illicit smuggling. We are talking about a five-year lead time, and at this point we have no capacity to police our waters effectively. Does any department of government have any contingency plan, or anything on the drawing board, that would lead us to expect the adequate enforcement of these regulations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Chairman, of course the Department of National Revenue will have to increase its capacity to police the territorial seas in order to make sure our customs regulations are observed. This is probably one of the reasons why the bill has taken a little time to come before the House. Preparations had to be made to discharge the responsibilities involved. I should point out that this bill has nothing to do with fisheries zones, but has only to do with an amendment to the act to substitute 12 miles for "three miles" wherever that appears.
The government does recognize the necessity for having to spend some money in policing this larger area of territorial sea and in making preparations for that purpose. As my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has said, however, it is not the purpose of his department to prepare for that contingency. He has other responsibilities from time to time. The Department of National Defence may be called upon to help, but that is not the purpose of national defence policy.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I think the point raised by my colleague has still not been answered by the President of the Privy Council. We have now been told it will not be the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence or his department to enforce this legislation. We have also been told by the President of the Privy Council that steps will be taken, but he has not been explicit, nor has he indicated what steps will be taken and exactly whose responsibility it will be to provide a suitable ship to go out in the North Atlantic, a distance of 12 miles, in order to examine a ship which may be contravening these regulations in respect of Canada's territorial sea.
November 19, 1974

I speak as one who comes from Nova Scotia and from a port where we are perhaps not too proud of some of our history, because at one time we in Nova Scotia were rather famous for our rum running activities. As one of my colleagues mentioned, we still are at election time. The ships that were engaged in this illicit trade took on cargo at St. Pierre Miquelon and then discharged it off the coast of the United States. There is still some of this illicit trade going on, and there are rumours from time to time that some illicit cargoes are still landed along the coasts of Atlantic Canada. This bill, as I read it, really is an attempt to deal with this situation. It states:
The offence of smuggling wines, spirituous and fermented malt liquors and narcotics shall be deemed to be completely committed when any vessel, decked or undecked, containing any goods not reported pursuant to section 11, arrives in Canadian waters.
Canadian waters will be 12 miles off the coast of Canada. This distance off the coast of Newfoundland in the North Atlantic, or off the coast of Sydney, or even Halifax can be, from my own experience, very dangerous even today. I have been on board on my own ships in these areas during storm periods. One certainly requires an adequate ship which should be, in my estimation, no less than 100 feet if the captain and the crew of the ship containing the protection officers required are to be assured of a safe passage and a safe return. This is not something I feel we can pass over lightly and slough off, as the minister attempts to do this evening by saying it will be looked after, Madam Chairman.
We are simply asking what steps have been taken, prior to bringing in this legislation, to make sure that we will be able to enforce the laws we are preparing? I think this is a very important point, and I should like a more definitive answer from the minister before we pass this bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Madam Chairman, in the first place it is necessary to amend the legislation so that the customs officials can operate within the limit of 12 miles. In our previous legislation which became outdated, the offence was not committed until a ship came within three miles. So, we have to amend the law to bring it into conformity with the present situation. As I said, this bill is being brought in now, some years after the law was amended, because we must be prepared in order to be able to enforce this legislation within reasonable limitations. This does not mean that even if a ship comes within the 12-mile limit that it will be considered to be smuggling liquor and will be apprehended and searched. Not at all.
The purpose is to stop smuggling and to give it all our attention, but not necessarily so that we will stop every ship coming within our sight and say that the Customs Act is amended to cover an area within 12 miles of Canada, and we want to know whether it has cargo on board which is being smuggled. Surely the hon. member is not suggesting that. I assure the hon. member that we would not be bringing in this bill if we were not prepared to bring it into effect.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the minister if he would elaborate on just what are the preparations. Would the Customs and Excise people have the authority to commandeer a National Defence vessel in certain situations? What
Environmental Contaminants Acts
are the preparations? I think that is what hon. members want to know.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


ARMY BENEVOLENT FUND ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-17, to amend the Army Benevolent Fund Act, as reported from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the bill being presented is largely the same as that introduced on March 4, 1974 by the Hon. Jack Davis. The changes in the present version have been made only to clarify the meaning of some sections, and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) will be explaining these changes in greater detail when we examine the bill in committee.

November 19, 1974
Environmental Contaminants Acts
The passage of this legislation will mark a pivotal point-


Mr. Fraser:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if, under the circumstances, it is appropriate for the parliamentary secretary to introduce this bill by saying that in most respects it is similar to the bill which was introduced last April, Bill C-3. The House is about to enter into a debate in principle on this bill, in spite of the fact that certain matters were raised in the debate in April, 1974, which clearly called for a second look at certain aspects of the bill.
My point is that under those circumstances I, and I think other hon. members in my party, believe it to be completely inappropriate for the parliamentary secretary to advise the House that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) will not deign to open this debate but will only speak when the bill goes to committee, at a time when there is no absolute guarantee that that is where the bill will go until these matters are fully discussed.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting into the meat of the explanation which I was going to make in connection with the bill. The Minister of the Environment is attending meetings in Victoria, and at this point it is perhaps a little premature for the hon. member to be making these remarks. As I go on with my remarks the hon. member will see that there have been some changes in the bill. The purpose of my remarks is to make sure that hon. members have some idea of what the bill is all about at this stage of the discussion. If the House is willing, I have seven minutes left in which to speak on behalf of the minister. If it is the wish of the House, I am quite willing to forgo my remarks and have the bill referred to committee where we can study it in detail.


John Allen Fraser: May I ask the parliamentary secretary another question? Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask him if what he is saying to the House is what I suspect, namely, that the Minister of the Environment will not speak on this bill during second reading? That is an extraordinary situation. Is that the position he is taking?


Len Marchand: This is not
extraordinary at all. Parliamentary secretaries, even more so since Mr. Speaker made his recent ruling-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: -have some functions to perform in the House. One of the functions that is clearly given to us is the right to introduce bills. I am introducing this bill on behalf of my minister. I cannot finish my remarks by ten o'clock and, by the rules of the House, I cannot wind up the debate. But surely, after the House proceeds with the bill, the minister may see fit at some stage to make some remarks. But at this stage of the proceedings I wish to proceed with the remarks I have.


John Allen Fraser: May I ask the parliamentary secretary another question?


Len Marchand: Madam Speaker, rather than accept another question, the only deal I am

willing to make is to have the bill given second reading and reference to committee. Otherwise I would like to complete my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: The passage of this legislation will mark a pivotal point in the history of this country's response to the challenge of environmental degradation. It is the latest and one of the most important signals that we are passing now from the era of tactical responses to pressing problems, to an era of long range strategy or, to put it another way, we are moving from cure to prevention.
Necessarily our first priority has been damage repair- the rollback of pollution, emergency action to save endangered species, and so forth. These measures have moved forward with vigorous momentum. But we have also been phasing in measures to prevent the damage before it occurs. In the environmental field as in the health or industrial safety field, or in any other organized activity, prevention is always the more efficient and economic way to do things. We must deal first with the very core of the problem. On this, industry and the environmental experts can agree.
Before going into detail, let me say this: it is not being introduced as a replacement for existing laws, federal or provincial. We are talking about a law that will close loopholes, one that will give new effectiveness to other federal and provincial legislation. It will increase the effectiveness of such diverse legislation as the Fisheries Act of Canada, the Arctic Waters Pollution Act, and the proposed act to ratify the international convention on ocean dumping. One of the two key goals of Bill C-25 is to answer questions about chemical substances which are, or might become', contaminants of the environment. When passed, this law will give the federal government new power to gather precise, hard data about substances which may pose a threat to human health and the environment. Where the need presents itself, we want to be able to demand data about existing substances, and about substances that are still in the proposal stage.
Information about the way such substances are used and in what quantity, about their chemical, biological and toxicological properties, is all information on which we will want more data. We will know more about the persistence of these substances in the environment and about the rate and degree of dispersion in ecosystems. We will have a clearer picture of quantities in use. We will know more about concentrations in the food chain, and we will be in a better position to determine conditions of release and control measures.
We need this intelligence urgently. We need, for instance, to understand more about the impact on the environment of phenols and freons. We need to know more about the quantity of heavy metals being released into the environment, either deliberately or unknowingly. Polychlorinated biphenyls, the PCB's, are another worldwide question mark.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Explain.
November 19, 1974


Len Marchand: I can give you a lecture on organic chemistry if you like, but this is not the time now.
Although we have no specific law, we have been able to deal with a certain number of these problems through co-operative efforts with the industries involved.
With this new legislation on the books, we can do a much more comprehensive job. Legislation already on the books has been aimed at abatement of direct contamination of either air or water, and has operated by controlling effluents from sources such as factory sewers and smokestacks. However, we have need of legislation that will enable us to deal with the reality that each year hundreds of new chemicals are introduced to the market place, and many may eventually appear in the environment. Although most are probably fairly harmless in the quantities, concentrations and conditions under which they presently enter the environment, there are and will be exceptions. Some need to be looked at much more searchingly. What this act does is to enable us to measure the risk in its totality.
Bill C-25 will give us an excellent new sensory system. We hope it will be an efficient tool. It will require that companies, at their own expense, perform tests and come up with information on the substances to be listed. Following evaluation of the data, the ministers of the environment and health, after consulting with the provincial governments involved and with other federal departments, would make the appropriate recommendations regarding manufacture, distribution, use and disposal of deleterious chemical substances.
The bill will be the perfect instrument for filling all gaps. Without going into fine detail let me say that it is firm but flexible, adapted to the delicate job of preserving the environment.
There is built-in protection against the pursuit of phantoms-of panic button pressing. This characteristic is an essential feature of sound environmental thinking.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded at this time. Therefore the question is: "That this House do now adjourn."


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker,
before we go into the adjournment debate, as I look over at the hon. parliamentary secretary it does not appear that he would need very much time to finish his remarks. If he would wish it I am sure we would be prepared to allow him to finish.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Len Marchand: Thank you,
Madam Speaker. I shall not abuse the time of the House,
Environmental Contaminants Acts and shall just take three or four minutes to complete my remarks.
In the proposed Environmental Contaminants Act there are provisions for consultation. It calls for mandatory establishment of a board of review to hear objections to measures taken. This does not mean that we must wait the findings of the board before we can act. Emergency controls can be imposed where it seems warranted.
This government, from the beginning of its mandate, has been committed to a balanced view or concept of a healthy environment. The government's policies have been based on an assumption that the physical and economic aspects of the good life cannot be compartmentalized. There is no point in substituting poverty for pollution, particularly when it is entirely within our capacity to attenuate both. An unpolluted, resource-abundant environment, as the setting for meeting human need, is being sought. The vigour and innovativeness of our scientific and industrial sectors are among our most vital resources.
The bill has evolved in close consultation between government and industry. We know the industry agrees with us that this legislation is an idea whose time has come. Many sectors of industry have participated in the design of the legislation itself.
It is our view that it is much better to prevent environmental damage than to go around cleaning it up after it has occurred. We must not see economic and environmental imperatives as being in conflict.
Filtering out or treating pollutants that should not have been in the works to begin with-that is inefficiency. Cleaning up pollution after it has poured into air and water-that is inefficiency too, and very expensive. Trying to revive a valued endangered species when it reaches the very edge of extinction may be a vital task. But how much less painful, and less costly it would be if the problem had been seen from further up the road.
Cleanup does not come as cheap as prevention. We know that the imposition of abatement measures can be economically painful, that it can disrupt established industrial practices. We know that remedies, applied in an unco-ordinated way, can actually complicate the problem. Actions taken to control water pollution may conceivably generate air pollution. Or water pollution controls may metamorphose into a problem of sludge disposal.
Other nations are moving in the same direction-from the cure phase to the preventive. Japan, Sweden and the United Kingdom now have similar legislation, and the United States Congress is in the conference stage with its Toxic Substances Act. With the passage of the Environmental Contaminants Act Canada will have some of the most advanced legislation of its type in the world.
I wish to thank hon. members for their consideration in allowing me to finish my remarks, Madam Speaker.
1478

November 19, 1974
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, in the short time available to me during the adjournment debate I wish to raise a matter which is of very grave concern to many Canadians.
Since the Canadian abstention from the vote relating to the Palestine Liberation Organization, legitimate concern has been expressed in this country as to whether there has been any serious change or alteration in the Canadian policy, which has always been that Israel has the right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries.
To clarify this situation to some degree I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) on November 12, as recorded on page 1223 of Hansard, whether Canada intended to take part in the debate in the United Nations or the Middle East and, if so, what would the Canadian position be? The minister replied:
I believe that if and when Canada participates in the debate this will give the Canadian spokesman an opportunity to restate Canada's position in respect of the existence of Israel, and its right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries, as the foundation stone of our Canadian policy.
That, of course, is the Canadian position and we welcome the minister's statement. Nevertheless, the stated aims of the PLO give rise to a particular concern. The articles of the covenant of the Palestine Liberation Organization say as follows:
... Palestine with its boundaries that existed at the time of the British mandate is an integral regional unit.
... The Palestinian Arab people possesses the legal right to its homeland, and when the liberation of its homeland is completed it will exercise self-determination solely according to its own will and choice.
As most people know, Madam Speaker, at the time of the British mandate Palestine comprised the complete state of Israel within its present boundaries.
On June 8, 1974, the PLO made a statement. May I read the translated version, which says in part:
The PLO is fighting by every means, and primarily by the armed struggle, to free the Palestinian land and establish a national, independent and fighting government over every part of the soil of Palestine to be freed.
Clearly, the aim of the PLO is to create a new state of Palestine which will extinguish the present, existing state of Israel.
On November 14 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he had decided whether the Canadian delegation would take part in the debate at the United Nations. He answered, as recorded at page 1314 of Hansard:
... I think it is certain there will be a statement by a Canadian representative before the close of the debate. I am not sure when that statement will be made, but it will be made.

That, I think, could be taken as a commitment, in the context of the question and that answer, that Canada indeed would take part in the debate on the Middle East, and that a representative would be making a statement. I point out also that the Secretary of State for External Affairs also indicated that matters I had raised would probably be dealt with then.
When we come to November 18, we face an extraordinary situation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), answering the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), said, as recorded on page 1400 of Hansard:
... no official position on whether we would speak has as yet been made...
I rose on a question of privilege and pointed out to the Prime Minister that his statement was completely inconsistent with the statement made a few days earlier by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister graced me with a reply and said, as recorded at page 1401 of Hansard:
It appears that it had been the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to have a statement made on behalf of the Canadian delegation, but it was not certain whether he would make it himself or have someone make it on his behalf. If the latter is to be the case, the minister proposes to make his statement in the House around the same time. These were the plans which were laid but they were not absolutely decided upon and it would depend on the nature of the statement itself. The intention was as the minister indicated, but I am not saying there will be no change.
I suggest that the government is involved in an extraordinary state of affairs at a time when the whole world is watching the Middle East.
My question tonight is simply this: Is Canada going to take part in that debate before the United Nations and make it clear to the whole world what Canada's policy has been, and is now, with respect to the continued right of the state of Israel to exist within secure and recognized boundaries which, as I have pointed out, is the antithesis of the aims of the PLO? That is the question I very much want answered tonight, and answered without any ambiguity.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I wish to confirm the answers given to the hon. member on November 12 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). I have stated in this House on behalf of the minister, and the minister stated previously, Canada's policy with regard to the existence of Israel. That has not changed.
I wish to confirm to the hon. member that there will be Canadian participation in the United Nations debate at some point this week. The Canadian spokesman will restate Canada's position in respect of the existence of Israel and its right to exist within secure and recognized boundaries, as the foundation stone of Canadian policy.


AIR CANADA-PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF BASE AT WINNIPEG-DATE OF COMPLETION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on Novem-

ber 6 was based on a statement made by him during the election campaign in Winnipeg on May 23. The Prime Minister said that Air Canada would build a new maintenance hangar at Winnipeg, valued between $12 million and $15 million, to service its own aircraft as well as those of the Defence Department and some regional airlines. He said this would be begun immediately. It is almost six months since that time.
Questions repeatedly have been asked in this chamber of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) as to when the promised program would begin. To date, there has been no answer.
The question of an overhaul base at Winnipeg for Air Canada has concerned the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba for many years. Looking through the record, I find that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in 1948, 26 years ago, asked the then Minister of Trade about rumours that Trans-Canada Airlines, as it was then called, was planning to move facilities of all types from Winnipeg, which was its headquarters, to Montreal. He was assured by the then Minister of Trade, the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, and the then president of the company that these things would not take place. Over the years, department after department was moved to Montreal.
It is not my intention to go over that whole story tonight. The point is that promises were made by the late Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson that the base would be continued. During the recent election campaign the Prime Minister stopped in Winnipeg on May 23, and made some very specific promises. He promised that a new maintenance hangar would be started in Winnipeg immediately. He stated that Winnipeg would get defence department overhaul work even before the overhaul base was completed. He said a decision had been made by the federal cabinet the previous week.
The Prime Minister further stated this would mean more than 300 additional jobs in Winnipeg aerospace industry, bringing employment in aircraft overhaul work to a minimum of 800 initially. On that occasion the Prime Minister was flanked by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the Liberal member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).
He said that Air Canada would buy back the hangars sold to Canadian Aviation Electronics in September, 1969, when it closed its maintenance facilities and moved them to Montreal. He said further that Air Canada would immediately start to do major overhaul work on defence department Boeing 707 aircraft at the Winnipeg hangars, and would conduct a vigorous search for other overhaul work that could be performed there.
The Prime Minister emphasized that construction of the new facilities in Winnipeg would not take jobs away from Montreal, a fear that had been expressed in this parliament and in Montreal by various people. The Prime Minister siad; "We're making sure that both places will grow".
These are the promises that the Prime Minister made. I hope the Prime Minister meant what he said and that the overhaul base in Winnipeg will be re-established, will be expanded, and also there will be 800 jobs at Winnipeg. He
Adjournment Debate
also said that this would be done without jeopardizing the work now done in Montreal.
I am realistic enough to accept the fact that what has been done cannot be undone. But the fact is that the Montreal base, simply by virtue of the building on a new airport at Mirabel, will have to be expanded. There is no reason why there will not be more than enough work, from Air Canada and the defence department, to take care of all the people now working at Montreal and all those people whom the Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence promised would find work at Winnipeg. I remind the House that the promise was that the work would be begun immediately.
As I said a few moments ago, it is almost six months since the Prime Minister made that promise. Air Canada officials have said as recently as a week or ten days ago that they have no plans of this kind before 1979. Air Canada is a Crown corporation, and I am assuming it must be responsive to the wishes of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues.
What I am asking tonight is that the government stop equivocating and trying to hide behind some kind of screen, for reasons I cannot understand. I ask the government to indicate tonight, not to me-what I think of the government is not very important-but to the people of Winnipeg when it will implement the pledges made by the Prime Minister when he visited Winnipeg during the height of the election campaign and made the statement he did on May 23, 1974.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Madam Speaker, in answer to the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in his speech of May 23 did make commitments in relation to the Air Canada Winnipeg aircraft overhaul base. I had no knowledge until the hon. member just spoke that this base has had such a long political history.
The Prime Minister did state that Air Canada would construct a new hangar capable of handling all types of aircraft in the Air Canada fleet. He also said that, in co-operation with the government and people of Manitoba, the Canadian government intended to help expand employment at Winnipeg. The Prime Minister stated as well that the hoped for growth of employment in Winnipeg, as the result of the construction of that hangar, would not take place at the expense of employment at the Dorval overhaul base. Employment could be expected to grow at both points.
We do not have the exact date when the base will be completed and operating, but it will certainly be moved forward substantially from the original plan of 1979 as far as Air Canada is concerned. I point out that recent newspaper reports suggesting that Air Canada intends to delay the new Winnipeg hangar until 1979 are inaccurate.
A vice-president (maintenance) of Air Canada wrote a letter dated November 5 to the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press correcting the inaccuracies of that paper's November 2 article. In that letter Air Canada stated that the date of 1976, referred to in the newspaper's headline, applied to
28543-25%

November 19, 1974
Adjournment Debate
the establishment of a line maintenance hangar at Mirabel, and not at Winnipeg as the article seemed to indicate. The hangar will be needed at Mirabel, as the hon. member can appreciate, to handle the new aircraft there when the airport is opened. As for the Winnipeg line maintenance hangar, it has been planned by Air Canada for the future. The date has been moved back, but the date of construction is now being reviewed and will be announced very shortly.


NATIONAL CAPITAL-ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO STUDY FULLERTON REPORT-SUGGESTED CONSULTATION ON TERMS OF REFERENCE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, on November 5 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) certain questions in respect of the structure of the national capital as proposed in the Fullerton report, and basically how the final decision would be taken. I asked whether that decision, following the consideration of a report by a special joint committee proposed for the study, would be based merely on a statement or statute by the government of Canada, which in effect could be an imposition of a particular form of government in an area, or whether on the other hand it would be based on agreements which I believe would have to be obtained from the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario and possibly, because there might be a constitutional amendment involved in respect of the designation of the capital of Canada as the city of Ottawa, other provinces. At that time the minister said the decision would be taken by the committee.
I think the matter must go beyond that. Surely the government would not see fit to operate in this very important sphere without at least the consensus I have mentioned. The importance of the question, not just to residents of the national capital, but as well to the people of Canada, can be drawn from the fact that the proposals set forth in the Fullerton report cover the power to tax, to borrow, to plan land use, the question of the administration of justice in any proposed national capital, representation, as well as the whole matter of education, which is a provincial field involving at least two provinces, and the matter of language and its applicability in the institutions of the area and in the educational system.
The matter goes even further than that. If the committee is to deal with the question of the national capital, where it would have to get into the whole matter of decentralization of the institutions of government, the government being the largest single employer, is it to be the thrust of federal government planning in this area to concentrate in the downtown core of Ottawa and perhaps Hull, or is it to be part of the policy of the government of the day to decentralize the institutions of government, bearing in mind the municipalities on the Ontario side outside the city of Ottawa which are capable of receiving government buildings, plants, laboratories and other facilities? This would all have a bearing on the assessments and would assist those municipalities.
All these things are of great concern. It is because of that concern and because this report may influence the decision, and may be implemented at least in part, that we ought to have an assurance now, not just for the people of this area, but for the people of Canada, that there will be no imposition upon the people in the area of any form of government without their consent on the one hand and without the consent of the provinces involved on the other.
Since I asked my question the Minister of State for Urban Affairs answered a question posed by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
As I read his answer to that question it seems that there would be no attempt to impose, that there would have to be a will to accept any form of government which might be recommended, and that will could be extended to include the will of the people in the area as well as the governments of the provinces concerned. I should like the assurance of the minister, or his parliamentary secretary, with regard to that point, which is the main point in the question I asked.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to the Fullerton report. I welcome the opportunity to say that I read it to the end, as well as Volume II which includes various appendices and special studies.
I would say I have a great deal of respect for the study. Mr. Douglas Fullerton is highly reputed. His report shows much insight and a full knowledge of the area, where he has been living for a number of years and of which he is fully cognizant. He also has a very good knowledge of various studies undertaken on bilingualism in the area, especially that by Mr. Weld which in my opinion is extremely comprehensive and shows that the area should reflect our dream for this country. I would tell the hon. member that even a fast reading of the Fullerton report indicates the only point on which there appears to be a consensus is that no single agency can model or shape the future of the area, without active support from and agreement with the other agencies concerned. I might say that the main function of the parliamentary committee shortly to be created will be to deal with the development of the capital city over the last 18 years, that is since its predecessor committee last met. The new committee's terms of reference would be to advise the federal government on various aspects of the problem, to determine how best to serve the interests of all Canadians, as well as those of residents in the area itself. To that end, nothing of course will prevent the committee from making its views known to other levels of government. Clearly, such a committee's terms of reference must include much more than the evaluating of Mr. Fullerton's propositions, that deal only with structures for government. The committee must look at the area's future, in the light of the propositions by the National Capital Commission on planning and the views of both regional agencies dealing with urban affairs in an area covering 90 per cent of the Region, an area outside direct federal jurisdiction and NCC planning.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.

Wednesday, November 20, 1974