1975-05-05

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 24 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
29561-1*
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 5, 1975


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a very important motion.
As during the past two years, six federal-provincial conferences were held on social welfare especially the guaranteed minimum income, as those conferences up to now have cost several thousand dollars to the Canadian taxpayers and as under the circumstances, it deals with a prime issue, I move seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House consider in the shortest possible time the Social Credit proposals aimed at establishing a guaranteed annual income paid universally to all Canadian people to enable them to enjoy some financial and material security.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which is self-explanatory. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
With reference to the appointment of ambassadors on the basis of politics and cabinet service instead of the promotion of Department of External Affairs personnel on the basis of experience, and in view of the necessity that this practice should cease, the House requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to confirm or otherwise whether the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier) has been appointed ambassador to Paris, the announcement presently scheduled to be made later this week by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion being proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: We shall miss you, Gerard!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Acting Prime Minister. The Solicitor General having said quite frankly in the House on Friday, I think it was, that he could not be associated in any way with an execution- with capital punishment-may I ask, without in any way criticizing the hon. gentleman for holding the views he does, whether, in order to protect the integrity of the exercise of the Royal prerogative on the basis of mercy and not on the ground of the repugnancy of the law, the Solicitor General has dissociated himself from any pending cabinet decision regarding the Vaillancourt or any similar case?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: The
Vaillancourt case or any other such case has not yet come before cabinet, so the question is inapplicable.


SUGGESTION SOLICITOR GENERAL SHOULD NOT CONTINUE IN THAT PORTFOLIO IN VIEW OF HIS STATEMENT ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: further question to the Acting Prime Minister. The Solicitor General having presented to parliament the legislation which governs the situation at the present time, and having voted for the measure after an unsuccessful attempt to have it amended, is it the position of the government that it is proper for the Solicitor General to continue in his portfolio in view of this frank statement that he cannot go along with the law as it now stands-the law which it is his responsibility to administer?

May 5, 1975
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on questions like this it is the Cabinet and not any single minister that makes the decision. I know I speak for all my colleagues when I say that when the Vaillancourt case does come before the Cabinet it will be discussed on its merits, and I am sure every member of the Cabinet will take his or her responsibility.


POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION ABOLISHING DEATH PENALTY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of other comments made I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government within the next year to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code which will involve the complete abolition of the death penalty?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, parliament must take action before the end of 1977. The government has not yet taken any decision as to when to introduce legislation or the form of that legislation.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, considering the fact that it has been learned the government has now ordered an audit of the capital equipment owned by the federal government at Microsystems International, will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce assure the House that the report of this audit will be made available to members of the House as soon as it is completed?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will give that representation very careful consideration.


MICROSYSTEMS-SUGGESTION SOME CAPITAL EQUIPMENT MISSING-POSSIBILITY PRODUCT HAD A GOOD MARKET-NEED FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inform the House whether he has received any preliminary reports on this audit that is taking place and, more specifically, has he been informed that a substantial amount of the capital equipment, originally financed by the federal government to a substantial extent, is in fact missing? Has he received any information to this effect and, if so, will he inform the House what further investigations the government is making into this matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have received no information that machinery is missing.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister smiles. I should like to suggest that this is not a laughing matter when millions of dollars of public investment is at stake. I hope the minister will have a serious look at the situation in light of these reports that a substantial amount of equipment is missing. Secondly, I would refer to market reports of professional trade journals and reports of other companies in the industry to the effect that the semiconductors produced by Microsystems do have a good potential market, contrary to what spokesmen for Bell Northern have said. This is distinctly the opposite side of the coin to that provided the government by spokesmen for Bell Northern as the reason for shutting down operations. In light of these reports, and the reports regarding the missing capital equipment from those facilities, will the minister take steps to bring about an inquiry into this situation under the Inquiries Act?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think an inquiry under the Inquiries Act is merited. I have indicated that we are discussing with Bell Northern the settlement of an outstanding loan with us, and I can assure the hon. member that we will be pursuing those negotiations.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.
Considering that the special legislation which the Canadian Parliament adopted a while ago to force longshoremen at certain ports on the St. Lawrence River back to work has apparently not been complied with, can the minister advise the House of the steps he will take to protect those who have stored grain in terminals at these ports, so that they may obtain delivery without fear of pitting one group of workers against another, which would be highly detrimental to Canada?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that since the passage of the legislation in question no impediments have been placed in the way of the movement of grain, which has considerably alleviated the situation. So far as adherence to the legislation is concerned, we are still urging adherence and are taking appropriate legal action which is open to us under the law. As I understand the terms of the injunction hearing, the hearing will be held perhaps on Thursday.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since Canadian workers are apparently complying with orders originating outside Canada, would not the minister propose an alternate formula which would permit Canadian workers from now on to receive orders from within Canada?


John Carr Munro: Well, Mr. Speaker, that always has been a sensitive point so far as I am concerned. In this particular case longshoremen in other parts of the country are respecting the law and unloading the ships, so that in terms of this particular dispute, outside of the ports in question, the law is being respected.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works further to his statement of May 2 on dredging guidelines and their adequacy. Can the hon. gentleman assure the House that all dredging performed in Canadian harbours is covered by the guidelines on dredging he announced on Friday.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, the guidelines cover all dredging done by federal agencies.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have a brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since at least two of the indictments levelled against dredging companies involve dredging performed in harbours not under the National Harbours Board Act, can the minister inform the House what steps the government is taking to include such work in these guidelines and could he advise whether he has been consulting with the commissions and municipalities who have representatives on such commissions so that the apparent deficiencies in the guidelines can be remedied.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what is meant by apparent deficiencies in the guidelines, but we will be offering the same kind of services to other public bodies by way of advice and counsel that we are ourselves following.


DREDGING-APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES TO HARBOURS OPERATED BY COMMISSIONS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. gentleman simply tell us whether he has been in effect addressing himself to the problems implicit in the fact that so many of the major harbours in this country are operated by commissions, like the Hamilton Harbour for example, and what has he done to make sure that these guidelines are applied under these circumstances?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be well aware that jurisdiction over the Hamilton Harbour does not fall under the Parliament of Canada nor under the control of the federal government.


An hon. Member:: That is the point.
Oral Questions


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: What the Hamilton Harbour commissioners decide is in their best interests is for them to decide and is not something to be dictated by the federal government.


DREDGING-POSSIBILITY TENDERS WERE CALLED FROM COMPANIES UNDER INDICTMENT PRIOR TO ANNOUNCEMENT OF GUIDELINES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise the House whether the government called for tenders from those dredging companies presently being charged prior to the minister's announcement to this House on Friday of the safeguards he will be applying in respect of this matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there is quite a chronological range of arrangements with some of the companies currently under charge. The Department of Public Works has contracts running from last year which were entered into a year ago and subsequently, fairly early in the year, there were calls for tender made and there will be some more. So, it runs all the way from existing contracts to future calls for tender.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Will the safeguards, if they are to mean anything at all, apply to the contracts already let this year?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. This matter raises questions as to the integrity of government pronouncements, something which is of great seriousness to the joint committee studying the green paper on immigration. In light of reports that a basic immigration policy has already been tentatively approved by the cabinet, reports based on interviews with senior immigration officials, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the public discussions will be more than simply public relations exercises on something the federal government finds distasteful to enact?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can give a positive answer to that question. The cabinet has not discussed future immigration policy. We are awaiting the report of the Joint Committee on Immigration Policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: You left out two commas.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Can the Acting Prime Minister then state, in light of the answer he has just given to the House, in what light are the Prime Minister's statements at the Common-

May 5, 1975
Oral Questions
wealth conference regarding immigration viewed, since the Acting Prime Minister states that no decisions have been made and no discussions have taken place in respect of the immigration policy that will be needed?


Mitchell William Sharp: One of the principles that underlies our legislation now, and that we have no intention of changing, is the principle of non-discrimination. I hope it has universal approval in this House.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: It is complete discrimination, that's what it is.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, a question which I have often asked him and which now is more timely than ever. A few days ago he indicated that he would investigate the state of negotiations between Cuba and Canada regarding a regular direct scheduled air service. Is he now in a position to indicate progress on this very important and widely favoured transportation link?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have communicated with the government of Cuba and they have agreed to meet the Canadian delegation. I think the date on which the negotiations will start is May 26, and I hope they will end with a good agreement.



FINANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, but he is not in his seat at the moment.


An hon. Member:: He is now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know the minister will be sorry to hear that in his absence we have come no closer to reaching a consensus with respect to voluntary guidelines. In fact, the prognosis indicates that inflation will be worse and so will unemployment, and that there will be no growth, something that is on everybody's mind-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is where I come to my question. Can the minister advise us of the date of the budget for the edification of the people of Canada?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I want to thank the hon. member for so warmly welcoming me back to the House and tell him that the answer is no.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps I can say that I am glad to see the minister back in Canada so he can get on with the job which he was elected to do. I wonder if the minister could confirm whether in fact there are two documents in existence, one, I believe, entitled "Proposals for the First Year of Consensus" and the other "Machinery for Administering a Voluntary Restraint Program" and whether these documents have been submitted to both labour and management. In this regard, would the minister now undertake to make a statement to the House in order that the country will know just what is going on and what the minister has in mind?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, all documents in circulation are still working papers only. The various details have not been decided upon either by the government or in discussion with any sector of the economy. They are still open for discussion. So I think it would still be pre-mature for me to comment on the details.
As for the general principles underlying the process, my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Sarnia, tabled those in the House of Commons simultaneously with my delivering those remarks to the first minister at the recent federal-provincial conference.



INFLATION-POSSIBILITY OF GUIDELINES ON INCOME BEING PRESENTED TO LABOUR

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the support of labour of voluntary restraint will depend on an assurance of comprehensive restraint, has the government prepared precise guidelines on all forms of income, including fees and dividends, and all prices, including metals and shelter? Will these guidelines be given before the meeting on Wednesday?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. gentleman's quasi seatmate, it would still be premature for me to speak about those details.



INFLATION-RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS CONCERNING LOW INCOME WORKERS

John Allen Fraser: On April 24 the Acting Minister of Finance said that the government was working on responses to a number of specific questions from the Canadian Labour Congress regarding low income workers and other important matters, such as employment growth and job security. Have those questions yet been answered, and if not, will the CLC receive some answers before the Wednesday meeting?


John Napier Turner: There have been very thorough discussions with the CLC on a technical level, and if, as and when the consensus is arrived at, details will be given fully in the House.
May 5, 1975


John Allen Fraser: Is the minister advising us that those questions have not yet been answered or communicated to the CLC?


John Napier Turner: It is not a matter of question and response. It is a matter of discussion. Those matters are among the subjects which have been discussed.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It arises because of further press reporting about the removal of the press secretary of the Chinese embassy. Over the weekend it has been stated that he was an espionage courier. I am referring to a UPI dispatch copied in the Toronto Star in which it states that he took weekend trips to Washington to pick up secrets and military information, then returned to Ottawa and transmitted them to mainland China. In view of these further statements, is the Acting Prime Minister prepared to elucidate the reasons for this envoy ejected from Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, the reason was that he was carrying on activities incompatible with his position as a diplomat. That is what he has said, and I have nothing further to add.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the pall of silence placed over this incident because we might annoy communist China if details were to be publicly revealed, will the information regarding this matter be made available to opposition members who are of the Privy Council, so that, while unrevealable by them, it will nonetheless give an assurance which up to the present time certainly has not been given? There is something in connection with this matter which reminds me of Shakespeare when he said that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" which is being covered up.


Mitchell William Sharp: There are occasions when it might be useful to follow this procedure. I can assure the right hon. gentleman that we have nothing to hide which would in any way reflect upon the integrity of the Government of Canada. I will convey the suggestion he has made to my colleague when he returns.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question and put one or two supple-
Oral Questions
mentaries to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of answers the minister gave on April 24 to my questions concerning the cutback in funding to native organizations taking part in the Berger Commission inquiry. In view of the undertaking of the minister to look again at the level of financial support, and in view of the representations which have been made, is the minister now in a position to assure the House that the funds provided to native groups in the Northwest Territories will be increased to a level which will permit their effective participation in the upcoming community hearings?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member, I have looked again at the situation and have had discussions with Mr. Justice Berger. The commission counsel will be here in the next two or three days to look at the situation. We want to see if we can earmark some of the funds going into his budget to assist some of the native people in having the environmentalists appear as their witnesses.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, will the minister elaborate on his reference last week to the possibility of funding being provided through the Berger commission budget? Also, is the minister now in a position to inform the House whether funds will be made available to the northern assessment group?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot elaborate very much until we have this meeting with the counsel to Mr. Justice Berger's commission. The thought was that the funds would flow though this body to provide the native people with funds so that if they wished to have representatives of the northern assessment group appear as witnesses before the commission, they could do so.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment.
In reply to questions recently put to her, the minister stated she was extremely pleased with the fact that a bill is now being studied by American authorities with a view to financing the construction of a pipeline providing an alternate site for the delivery of crude from Alaska. Can the minister now tell us what progress has been made on that bill and whether the Canadian government was consulted on the choice of alternate sites?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member any information on the fate of that bill now before the state legislature of Washington. I know it was introduced, but am not aware of what the legislators of that state will do with it. As for consultations that may have been held between the
5452

May 5, 1975
Oral Questions
Canadian government and the authorities who introduced the bill, they were not formal; however the American authorities are well aware of the Canadian point of view on the possibility of increasing supertanker traffic in the Juan de Fuca Strait, and that we have insisted for a long time that another port should be chosen for oil delivery.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Since the Washington State Oceanographic Commission has considered some locations for the delivery of crude oil from Alaska, but only those in the Juan de Fuca Strait, and has until now made no recommendation in that regard, how can the minister believe that the study of alternative locations may prevent environmental damage in the Juan de Fuca Strait and on the coast of British Columbia?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the oceanographic institute, as the hon. member said, studied several possible locations for oil delivery ports in western Canada. The studies were not limited to the ports which are located in the Juan de Fuca Strait. I know for certain that other places on the coast have been considered, but due to the topography and especially to the streams that are found on that coastline, the establishment of superports for oil tankers in that area would present huge problems. The proposed location of Port Angeles has the advantage of being closer to the entrance to the Juan de Fuca Strait.



FINANCE


Miss Flora MacDonald. (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. While the minister was away, his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, expressed concern over the recent rapid increase in mortgage rates and resolved to speak to the minister about it upon his return. Can the minister tell the House whether this important conversation has taken place, and can he clarify for the House the government interpretation as to why short term interest rates in general, and mortgage rates in particular, are being allowed to rise at a time when the minister is attempting to stimulate the economy?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to talk with my esteemed colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I hope to shortly. With regard to mortgage rates, hopefully that might reflect some upturn in the market and pressure on it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Does the minister endorse the Bank of Canada s policy of raising interest rates in order to stabilize the decline of the Canadian dollar?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the assumption on which the question is based. Therefore, I am not going to comment on it.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact the government owns 20 or more dredging rigs, will it consider the formation of a crown corporation to compete with the private sector of the dredging industry to give the government a monitoring position and, in effect, establish a reserve bid system?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, possession and operation of dredging equipment by the Department of Public Works does not, in effect, establish the kind of experienced performance that the hon. member is seeking. I do not think that converting this to a Crown corporation would improve the situation at the present time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Bring back Hal Banks to run it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with the lead off question on capital punishment. Will the government consider a national referendum on the abolition or retention of capital punishment prior to 1977 or prior to the next federal election?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The government has no such intention.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Surely the people of Canada should be allowed a little bit of input on this very important question before the next federal election.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at every general election, the people of this country have some input. The last time they elected a majority of Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 5, 1975



SOCIAL SECURITY

[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question.
Considering the objections from Quebec on the basic proposal of the minister for the establishment of a guaranteed income supplement plan for all Canadians, has the minister thought of asking or suggesting to his provincial colleagues that the ideal way of settling this financial problem would be to use the resources of the Bank of Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.



INFLATION-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF QUESTIONS BY AND RESPONSES TO LABOUR CONCERNING PROGRAM FOR CONSENSUS ON RESTRAINT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask the minister whether he has been fully briefed since his return on what took place in connection with the consensus program while he was away. Can he assure the House that he has been fully informed of any questions that organized labour may have about this program? Also, can he tell the House that the government has answered all the questions raised by the CLC? I put these questions in view of the important meeting which I understand is to be held next Wednesday at which CLC and organized labour will make fairly fundamental decisions with regard to this program.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the changes that have taken place in the situation in South Viet Nam, has the government suspended bilateral aid to the area and is it continuing to make available emergency assistance and food aid, using the International Red Cross, UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as channels?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian government has suspended bilateral aid programs to Viet Nam and Cambodia, but is continuing with its humanitarian assistance programs to the region through multilateral agencies.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the further fact it now appears that the authorities representing the PRG are in effective control of the area formally known as South Viet Nam, in order to facilitate direct and urgent discussions with that government in respect of compassionate and humanitarian assistance, will the government give consideration to the question of recognition of the regime?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, according to reliable reports, the new authorities would have made contradictory statements about their intentions of recognizing other governments, and until such a situation has been cleared up it would seem premature on the part of the government to make a decision on its own as to the recognition of the new authorities.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, the ministers themselves met with the executive of the CLC on two or three occasions. Following the tabling of a statement in the House by my parliamentary secretary, we set in force technical groups, one meeting with the Canadian Labour Congress and organized labour, one meeting with various segments of the business community as I described to the House before and the third, the technical group, meeting with the representatives of the provinces. Through those technical discussions with labour, I understand that various avenues were explored on a number of subjects. There is nothing definitive at this stage, however, and I await the reaction of the labour movement to the discussions as they have proceeded so far before deciding whether to move into the final stage of the discussions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance that the minister attaches to this program and in view of the importance of the government mounting some framework within which to fight inflation and permit expansion of the economy, could the minister not answer my question very simply by giving an assurance that he has been fully briefed and that the leaders of organized labour have to his knowledge been given all the answers, all the information, and all the assurances they require before they consider this question on Wednesday evening?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I have been fully briefed since my return from the Middle East. To the best of my knowledge, all the subjects which the leaders of organized labour have wished to canvass in terms of government latitude have been given consideration. There is nothing firm at this time, however. I understand that the Canadian Labour Congress executive will canvass the subject in more detail with leaders of their constituent unions on Wednesday. It is because of the importance that I attach to this exercise that I feel this is as far as I can go with the hon. gentleman today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister for specific information or details. My final supplemen-
29561-2V1

May 5, 1975
Oral Questions
tary to the minister is whether, in view of the importance of the program, he has sought an invitation from leaders of organized labour in Canada to appear personally at their meetings in order to use his good offices and great eloquence to help persuade them to adopt this program and also to answer any questions they may put. Is the minister prepared to involve himself personally in this enterprise?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that at this stage representatives of labour wish to have discussion among themselves. At a later stage if they were to issue an invitation I would be available and do my best to sell the program.



SUGGESTED USE OF OLYMPIC FUNDS TO AID ATHLETES

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because a number of Canada's athletes who are training for the 1976 Olympics are on welfare, unemployment insurance and almost all have gone into debt as a result of their training-in fact there are cases of malnutrition, some lack heating due to unpaid bills, some teams have disbanded, others are in cramped quarters and so on-I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether he is prepared to take the necessary steps to have funds raised under government and commercial Olympic programs directed immediately toward direct grant aids for our athletes. I emphasize the word "direct", Mr. Speaker.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first, if the hon. member is aware of athletes who have serious nutrition problems and are on social welfare, I would be happy to have a list of them and examine their cases specifically.
Second, action has been taken in that field, jointly with the Plan of 1976 Games, in order to increase assistance to athletes.
Third, my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, has given instructions that manpower centres be made available particularly to athletes to help them find a job in particular situations.
Finally, this afternoon, I will meet the athletes' representatives to discuss the whole matter.



SUGGESTION RADIO AND TELEVISION COMMERCIALS CAUSING PUBLIC TO BELIEVE ALL OLYMPIC FUNDS TO GO TO ATHLETES-REQUEST FOR ALTERATION

Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the minister is finally willing to accept the invitation of myself and my colleague the hon. member for Fraser Valley West to meet with athletes. It has taken him about three weeks to agree to that.

My supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Because of the fact that athletes who qualify for federal grants receive a mere $50 a month maximum and there are statements of anger and militancy and that dropping out is becoming widespread and in view of the fact that existing radio and TV commercials are misleading in that Canadians are led to believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, will he please put it directly?


Otto John Jelinek: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because of the fact that radio and television commercials are misleading and lead us to believe that all funds raised go to the aid of athletes, could the minister assure this House that these commercials, particularly commercials under the federal jurisdiction, will be altered so that they do not mislead the Canadian public further?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as to the first part of the hon. member's assertion, I want to stress the fact that I indicated very clearly I was prepared to meet the athletes any time and as soon as they are available. The suitable time for the athletes was today and I arranged to be available to meet them. As to the second part of the hon. member's question, I think he knows the answer.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, mine is a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the government's earlier position that inflation was largely caused by international factors, could the minister indicate whether that it is still the government's position and, if so, what steps is he taking to deal with those international factors?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it was the position of the government in 1973 and 1974 that the primary forces of inflation were imbalance of supply, and demand both worldwide in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And the weather.


John Napier Turner: This provoked a sharp rise in commodity prices and was compounded, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has reminded me, by the weather which produced disastrous harvests in some parts of the world and tripled the price of grain from $2 to $6 a bushel. Conditions were compounded as well by the quadrupling of oil prices in 1973-74. As I have said to the House on several occasions, in the November budget and in response to the motion from the NDP commenting on economic policy, the primary forces at the moment are cost-push thrusts in the economy.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question. Am I to take it from the minister's long and tortuous answer that the government has changed its position and now feels that
May 5, 1975

the factors contributing to inflation are primarily ones which arise domestically?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is stating it a little too starkly, but I wanted to take the time of the House to assure myself that he understood the government's position in 1973-74.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister report to the House on the unjust penal sentences apparently issued at recent courts martial in the Atlantic Command to members of our naval forces for petty offences such as removing two cartons of cigarettes from a naval dockyard? Mr. Speaker, I said "removing" not "stealing". These sentences have amounted to as long as one year in penitentiary.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: I think the sentences are in order having regard to the crimes committed, but they are, of course, subject to appeal.



PUBLISHING


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. About a week ago the hon. gentleman made a speech to United States publishers advocating that there be a higher degree of Canadian content in foreign magazines if they were to be welcome in Canada. Would the minister clarify that statement? Is he suggesting a policy which would inhibit the free flow of foreign magazines into this country.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: No,


Mr. Speaker;: I made a specific point of that in my speech in West Virginia. If the hon. member wishes further clarification I shall be at the Standing Committee on Broadcasting on Friday morning.



ELECTION EXPENSES


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as President of the Privy Council. Does the gov-
Oral Questions
ernment intend to introduce this session any further amendments to legislation concerning election expenses?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would be desirable if legislation of this sort could be introduced during the present session. I have had the advantage of recommendations from an all-party committee which has been considering the Election Expenses Act; proposals have been put before me which are now being translated into the form of amendments to the act. I would hope that if any members of the House of Commons, or any of the associations or other bodies in the country which are interested have suggestions to make, those suggestions would be forwarded now in order that they may be incorporated into the draft which I look forward to placing before the House before the end of the session.



FINANCE


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In welcoming him back, may I ask him to make a full statement to the House shortly on his findings as to the situation in the Middle East. As the International Monetary Fund has reported that the world's industrialized nations have regained most of the monetary reserves they had lost since the fourfold increase in the price of oil, has there been any recent improvement in the balance of payments position of the less well developed nations, excluding the major oil exporters, and what has happened to the IMF special fund?


John Napier Turner: There has been some success among the industrialized nations in cushioning themselves against their deficit position in their balance of payments. The IMF facility is in place. The so-called solidarity fund stands at $25 billion. Because the oil exporting countries, particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia, are finding that they are able to absorb more of this money by way of imports and the industrialization of their own economies, they are accumulating surplus at a less rapid rate. The problem on the third world, however, remains just as great as it was.



GOVERNMENT POLICY ON MEASURES TO CLOSE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR NATIONS

Douglas Roche: Is it the
intention of the government to link up the work the minister has just completed in the Middle East in the recycling of petro-dollars, to link up the proposal made this week by the Secretary of State for External Affairs for revenue-sharing at the Law of the Sea Conference, to link up the statements of the Prime Minister on the new international economic order which he made at the Commonwealth conference, to link all these into a new, comprehensive policy on international development which will put Canada in the forefront of the developed nations, recognizing that it is international structural changes, not

May 5, 1975
Oral Questions
just foreign aid, which will close the widening gap between rich and poor in the world?


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have both been directing their attention to commodity pricing and the realignment of world trade. Within the International Monetary Fund itself, and the World Bank, its sister institution, we have been concerning ourselves with subsidy accounts at low interest rates to the third world, with third window financing through the World Bank, and so on. Whether these endeavours should be linked in one comprehensive policy is another matter. But we are moving in the same direction.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Defence? On April 15, some three weeks ago, the minister issued a statement indicating that the program for replacement of the Argus was proceeding according to plan; the contract definition stage had been completed and recommendations were to be made to cabinet. On May 1, the minister completely reversed his position and stated: "We may still find the answer in either the Boeing or the Lockheed proposal; we may, but we want to make certain that we widen the search." It appears the minister has turned an orderly replacement program into an utter shambles. Can he tell the House whether he still intends to have the acquisition contract for the Argus replacement signed before August 2?


James Armstrong Richardson: We are continuing to examine the bids and proposals put forward by Boeing and by Lockheed, but as I indicated to the standing committee we intend to consider other proposals as well.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The decision to pay between $10 and $11 million to two United States firms for contract definition purposes can only be rationalized if the government has in fact firmly decided to buy one or the other of the two planes. If a decision has still to be made, does the minister not agree that the $10 or $11 million may have been totally wasted?


James Armstrong Richardson: No, Mr. Speaker. I would say that when we are spending several hundreds of millions of dollars, that kind of expenditure which could help us to do the right thing, constitutes money well spent.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: My question is for the
Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has told us he has had an opportunity to become well-briefed on the Canadian economy since his return, may I ask him to tell us how much impact on domestic inflation the precipitous devaluation of the Canadian dollar is having at the present time?


John Napier Turner: I could not pinpoint it exactly.


James McPhail Gillies: Could one consider that since it has failed to control domestic inflation the policy of the Canadian government at present is to compensate by letting the dollar float down, regardless of what level it might reach and regardless of the effect on other countries of the world?



BROADCASTING


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: A question for the Minister of Communications, Mr. Speaker, arising out of a statement by Mr. Juneau as head of the CRTC that broadcasters who do not make a so-called reasonable contribution to their communities would have trouble at licence renewal time. May I ask whether the government endorses this policy and has it laid down guidelines which the CRTC might use when defining "reasonable contribution"?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am not informed of this statement made by the chairman of the CRTC, but if the hon. member wants to refer to the Broadcasting Act, he will realize that the CRTC was specifically created to establish the kind of standards that the hon. member does not seem to like.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in both official languages-Mr. Isabelle.
[.Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 5, 1975

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), and preparatory to a statement that I will be making under the next item, I should like to lay on the table copies, in both official languages, of the report of the National Energy Board on the export pricing of natural gas, dated March, 1975.


TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling, in both official languages, copies of the interim report by the Textile and Clothing Board respecting men's suits imported from the Republic of Korea.


STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT'S DECISION REGARDING PRICING OF NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House of the government's decision regarding the pricing of natural gas exports. Acting on the advice of the National Energy Board, and in keeping with our policy of phasing natural gas prices to their commodity value in relation to competing fuels, the border price of export gas, with a few exceptions, will be set at $1.60 per thousand cubic feet on November I of this year. We will phase towards that level by establishing a price of $1.40 per thousand cubic feet on August 1. The exceptions I mentioned refer to one licence where the commodity value in that market area, in the board's opinion, will be reached at $1.30 per thousand cubic feet; for a short-term shipment under special prices from Pan-Alberta; and for small quantities of winter peaking gas which are traditionally sold at higher prices.
The National Energy Board had recommended a border price of $1.60. The government has decided on a phasing period to this level to help ease the impact in the export markets, especially those which are totally dependent on Canadian gas.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House of course, welcome the statement of the minister to clarify some of the uncertainties that have been prevalent in this field for some time. I know the minister is aware of the fact that under the act establishing the National Energy Board in 1959, it was the policy of the Government of Canada at that time-a policy that has
Natural Gas Pricing
never really been specifically changed-that all our exports of natural materials and resources should be sold at a price on foreign markets certainly equivalent to the price on the domestic market, and that under the 105 per cent rule the products would be sold for 5 per cent higher than related commodities in the market to which they were going. We generally support that proposition which was brought in by the Conservative government at that time.
Since 1959, the National Energy Board has intervened in the pricing of exports in a way that has been favourable to many of the people who are buying our natural resources. Indeed, the announcement by the minister today merely means that we are extending once again to our neighbour-we do not, of course, oppose this-the opportunity to acquire our resources at attractive prices.
We support the proposition of staging. We think this is the proper approach and we appreciate the fact that the minister realizes, in this age of inflation and unemployment, that staging is a very important consideration. But we believe it is time the commodity value approach was followed in the pricing of many of our resources. The really critical question facing all Canadians and facing this government in the sale and the pricing of our resources is the fundamental question of assurance of supply, of being certain that we will have sufficient supply to meet our own needs and indeed to meet the needs of other countries to the extent that our own production is surplus to our own needs.
The question that the minister does not direct himself to in this statement, nor very directly in the press release that accompanied the statement, is how are the producers of natural gas going to be rewarded by these price changes? We have argued before, and we still contend, that the fundamental problem as far as resources in this country are concerned develops from the budgetary position taken by the government in the last budget some time ago. We hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) will use all his strength and effort in the debate that goes forth on a new budget to make certain that adjustments are made in the tax system so that we have a policy that will encourage an increase in supply, which is the fundamental matter of concern to all Canadians as far as pricing and exports are concerned.
We also believe that the government must constantly bear in mind the fact that the producing provinces are making available a resource that is not renewable. We do not know what the reserves really are, but we hope that at some future time, certainly in the not too distant future, the government will move ahead and provide a quid pro quo to the producing provinces for making these resources available around the world at less than the world price.
On balance, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this statement. We believe that the introduction of certainty into this area is very important. We think that phasing is important, but we want to re-emphasize that until something is done in a budgetary way to make sure that supply will be increased, that the tax situation is altered so that producers can effectively operate, we will never come to a realistic solution of the problem of the production and sale of natural resources in this country.

May 5, 1975
Natural Gas Pricing


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, for the past ten years Canada has been exporting more than half of its oil and gas supplies despite the fact that our new discoveries were not sufficient to replace these rapidly depleting resources. Even more serious is the fact that we have been selling these commodities at a price which was ridiculously low. The government took steps last year to deal with the oil situation by setting an export price, and it is now in the process of phasing out our exports of oil.
With respect to natural gas, we have been moving at a very slow pace indeed. On January 1, the minister announced the price of $1 per thousand cubic feet. Now the National Energy Board has recommended a figure of $1.60 per thousand cubic feet. The minister has apparently acceded to the request of the American delegation which visited this city a week or two ago and has decided to phase in this price by moving to $1.40 on August 1 and then to $1.60 on November 1.
Personally, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the National Energy Board. I see no reason for phasing in the increase, but if the minister feels he can establish better relations by doing so, then I will not raise any strenuous objection. I think, however, it should be pointed out to those who feel that we Canadians are seeking to exploit our American neighbours with regard to this very crucial energy supply by raising the price at this time, that they should keep in mind two things. First, that even $1.60 per thousand cubic feet is less than the price at which some United States gas is being sold in the United States. I am informed that some of the Texas gas is being sold at a price as high as $2 per thousand cubic feet. It should also be remembered that our gas reserves are running out very rapidly and that the replacement of those reserves will mean frontier supplies will be needed, which will cost a great deal more than the price we are securing for this gas we are now exporting.
I am glad the government has finally acted on this matter. I have felt for a long time that both the government and the National Energy Board have not acted expeditiously both with respect to the price at which we were selling natural gas and the amount that we were exporting. For years we have sold Canadian gas to the United States at a price lower in some instances than we were charging Canadian consumers. I hope the next thing the government will do will be to consider whether we can continue to send large quantities of gas to the United States in view our domestic situation. I recognize the difficulty of cutting down exports of gas, but under the National Energy Board Act the board has power to amend, alter or rescind any of the gas contracts. I think this is a situation to which the government ought to be giving some consideration.
However, I am glad the minister has acted and that we are now going to have a price that is certainly more relative to the cost of other fuels in the United States. It will also mean that the price at which we are selling gas to the United States will at least bear a fair relationship to the price we are charging Canadian consumers.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have just been through the very important statement to the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources dealing with the price of natural gas.
I think the new policy as stated by the minister is in keeping with the National Energy Board's report, which mainly aims at bringing prices level with the price of crude oil on major Canadian market as well as increasing export prices.
It is perfectly normal, when we export a commodity to the United States or elsewhere, that prices should be at least the same as prices to Canadian consumers. And I think the minister's statement is a step in that direction.
At first sight, an increase in the prices looks acceptable. However, we shall have to be careful that it does not entail an excessive increase in the cost of some Canadian commodities, which manufacturers need in their production processes. We shall have to be very careful in that respect too.
Constitutionally, natural resources come under the jurisdiction of provinces. Revenues should therefore benefit provinces. In a confederated land like ours, when the central government assumes its responsibilities, especially with respect to exports, which fall under its jurisdiction, if we can take advantage of our natural gas exports to the United States, I hope Canada as a whole will benefit from those exports, because we shall obviously derive some benefit. Provinces which are not as richly endowed in that respect will have to be granted some sort of compensation through the equalization payment system.
I feel we have an obligation to make sure producers benefit from that, as the minister stated, so that there be an incentive to increase production and research efforts, first to cover our needs and also to meet our export commitments. The minister on the other hand will have to make sure there is no company profiteering at the expense of Canadian consumers.
The minister anticipates this new price policy will bring extra revenues in the order of $583 million. That is a significant amount. I hope these expected extra revenues will help the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). It appears he is experiencing great difficulty in the final preparation of his budget to be tabled this month.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The statement of the minister was extremely brief and it would perhaps have taken extreme discipline to limit opposition spokesmen to anything like the same length of time. However, opposition statements were a good deal longer than the minister's statement, understandably so in the circumstances. That fact, coupled with the fact that quite frankly there is no substantial disagreement with the basic principle of the statement, leads me to the opinion that I ought to put a rather strong limitation on the questioning. I would, therefore, propose to recognize two members of the Official Opposition, one member of the New Democratic Party and one member of the Creditiste Party for questions.
May 5, 1975


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with a statement on page 6 of the minister's press release. I will quote it so the House will hear it. It reads:
In the case of Alberta, the government has decided that the proceeds resulting from higher prices should be distributed to producers in Alberta on a basis which is mutually acceptable to the Alberta and federal governments.
Is this mutual agreement in harmony with the existing federal budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a little difficulty relating that question to what is proposed here. I should explain to the hon. gentleman that as a result of this price increase, some producers in Alberta will receive a very large increment because they have sold their gas for export, while those who have sold their gas into the domestic market will not receive as large an increment, at least at this time.
On that basis, we have discussed with the province of Alberta at least a system of prorationing or equalization among Alberta producers so the same percentage benefit would go back to all producers of gas within that province as though they had all sold their gas on a prorated basis into export markets. That is what is contemplated and that is what was discussed with provincial officials about a week and a half ago. I will be meeting with the Alberta minister again this week to further discuss the matter.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether this deal with the Alberta government concerning these proceeds going back to the producers, even on a quota system, was in conformity with the federal budget of last November. I did not get an answer to that question, so I will ask a second question in relation to the same thing but based on a quotation from page 5 of this press release as follows:
An exception in the flow-back of proceeds to producers will again be made in the case of British Columbia where additional revenues will go in the first instance to the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation with the expectation that the BCPC will take the necessary steps needed to stimulate the production of gas in that province.
My question, once again, is the same. Is this expectation based on ignoring the budget, at the federal level, of last November?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I find that question obscure. Of course, the hon. member knows that the tax law stands as it is right now, and in no sense does the redistribution of the increase going back to these particular provinces in any way conflict with the budget. It goes back to the producers in Alberta and into their general revenues, and is subject to the provisions of the tax law and may be subject to taxation. In the case of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, in essence the arrangement worked out with the province on the deemed value of the gas as of January, 1975, will apply there as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, while we always accept your judgment on matters of questions, I should point out that the minister's statement was only half a page in length, but his press release is six pages long and gives a great deal of informa-
Natural Gas Pricing
tion which really ought to be dealt with, or at least we ought to be able to get some further information on it.
In the minister's press release he points out that the increase in the export price of natural gas will result in additional revenue of roughly $583 million per year, and the minister expresses the hope in the release that this will encourage the development of additional sources of supply and stimulate production. I recognize that higher prices will bring in some shallow pools that normally would not be economically viable, but is the minister planning any type of monitoring to ensure that the higher revenue which is derived from this new price will be used for exploration by the companies concerned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are in a position to monitor that now, though not on a day to day or week to week basis. Over any period of time it can be readily determined from the exploration effort going forward, in the province of Alberta and in the foothills particularly, whether the anticipated amount of work is being carried out. As to whether this increase is finding its way back into exploration, or if individual companies are diverting the cash to other purposes, the ability to monitor does exist now, although in somewhat longer time-frames than on a day to day or week to week basis.
As I indicated at the federal-provincial conference, if we find that, despite all their protestations to the contrary, the private sector is diverting these funds out of Canada or not applying them to bring on further supplies, then an appropriate conclusion will have to be brought forward in terms of the budget.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I welcome that statement by the minister, Mr. Speaker. May I ask one additional, short question? Having now made the announcement with reference to the export price of natural gas, how soon does the minister expect to conclude his discussions with the producing provinces in order to be able to make an announcement in respect of the domestic price of natural gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I cannot be sure of that, Mr. Speaker. I will be seeing my Alberta counterpart and the minister of federal and intergovernmental affairs here in Ottawa later this week, and we may have some better indication then as to their viewpoint. After that it will be important, on the question of natural gas, to discuss this question with the governments of the consuming provinces, in this case Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Those discussions would have to be pursued, and I think only after time has elapsed would it be possible to have contact with some of them. I have already met with Saskatchewan. On that basis, I believe we could arrive at what would seem to be a fair price. I would hope we might have agreement at that time.


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether he is now aware of the national gas potential in the province of Quebec, and if so, whether he expects a possible self-sufficiency in this area?

May 5, 1975
Natural Gas Pricing


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say I do not believe there is at this point any real possibility of natural gas self-sufficiency in Quebec. There is no doubt a potential. Geological areas point to a potential for natural gas production in Quebec. Drillings are now being performed by a few companies, including Soquip, but I believe I am right in saying there is no self-sufficiency prospects at this time in Quebec. Of course we are hopeful that drillings especially on the continental shelf, will bring such a possibility. But this involves almost ten years of work.


Eudore Allard: Can the minister tell the House, since there was recently a natural gas price increase in Alberta, whether this will have any implications for the consumers using natural gas for heating, cooking and what not, and whether also this will have any impact on fuel oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in my statement today I referred only to the price of national gas exported to the United States. There has been no decision yet about the price of domestic gas. I can however emphasize there will be talks with Alberta and other governments, including that of Quebec, on a possible increase in the domestic price. But there has been no decision yet.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the statement of the minister, which indicates that the price of exported gas will be brought into line with prices within the United States. I think there are areas in the United States where gas is supplied at prices which are still higher than our prices. I accept, also-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ought to remind the hon. member at the outset that it was never the intention that this period would be used for commenting on a minister's statement. It is a period for questioning, and if the hon. member has a question he should put it to the minister.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this action is related to increasing supplies, is the minister giving serious consideration to reducing demand and eliminating the kind of advertising, and so on, that is being conducted by the gas companies, certainly in my area, which would have the effect of increasing the use of gas when there is a shortage of supply?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We do not, at the federal level, have direct jurisdiction over the retail marketing of natural gas. Our discussions with the provincial governments under the conservation program have dealt with the question of persuading provincial utilities to reduce, if possible, the demand for natural gas, including a change in the advertising message.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, in arriving at the established prices the government did not accept in full the recommendation of the National Energy Board. Can we infer from that, that in the discussions on prices there was consultation with the producing provinces concerning what should be the domestic price in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not directly, Mr. Speaker. The decision with regard to our phasing in of the export price was, of course, related to our concern that the impact

be cushioned, so far as we felt was reasonably possible, on the export customer. There really is no conclusion that can be drawn at this point about the prospective level of domestic price increases. One thing can be said, however. In terms of revenue generated in the industry and in the provinces, we feel there is an element of compensation here which might provide them with a basis for expecting less than the export price increase from the domestic consumer.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is on that point. Of the $583 million increased revenue per year to be generated by these sales, will the minister tell us what proportion will go to the federal government, what proportion will go to the provincial government, and what proportion will be left for the suppliers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must confess I have not done that detailed calculation, but I think the National Energy Board will be before the committee tomorrow. The hon. gentleman might like to put that question to the board, and perhaps he will get a more definitive estimate of the relative share.


BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1975   APPOINTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT OF BANKING AND RELATED OFFICIALS-ESTABLISHMENT OF BANKRUPTCY TRUST ACCOUNT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-60, intituled "An Act respecting bankruptcy and insolvency".


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 335, 549, 1,216, 1,800, 1,828, 1,913, 1,999, 2,006, 2,015, 2,026, 2,027, 2,029, 2,134, 2,152, 2,194, 2,208, 2,214, 2,241, 2,280, 2,281, 2,282 and 2,302.
If questions No. 1,746 and 2,011 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: On June 30, 1974, how many full-time temporary employees were working for the Post Office Department and how many of these had
May 5, 1975

been employed for a period exceeding (a) six months (b) twelve months?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: June 30, 1974, Full-time Temporary Employees: Approximately, 3,569; (a) Six months, 287; (b) Twelve months, 190.
Note: We are interpreting full-time temporary employees as being employees hired on a day by day basis, or for specific term who work a normal 714 to 8 hour shift.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many (a) $5 (b) $10 Olympic coins are involved in each of the seven series?
2.	What was the date the last coin was minted in the first series?
3.	What was the date the first coin was minted in the second series?
4.	Does the government propose a surcharge on any of the coins to be minted in any of the new series?
5.	Does the government plan to introduce new packaging for coins in the new series and, if so, for what reason?
6.	Does the government propose to reduce the silver content in the coins of future series and, if so, by how much?
7.	Can the government estimate how much loss of revenue has been experienced to date due to the increased prices of silver in coins already minted?
8.	(a) How many people in the Post Office Department (i) were employed in the coin programme before Parliamentary authorization (ii) are currently employed directly or indirectly in the Olympic coin programme (b) what are the salaries of these individuals (c) how much funding has been permitted for entertainment and expenses for these employees?
9.	How many employees currently in the Minister's Department (a) presently earn in excess of $25,000 annually (b) earned in excess of $25,000 one year ago?
10.	(a) What was the total value of coins sold as of October 1 (b) what was the total cost of producing coins sold as of October 1?
11.	What payments were made to COJO as of October 1 from coin sales?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of the Postmaster General and Finance as follows: 1. The exact number of coins in each series has not been decided, but will be approximately one seventh of the total number of coins to be minted for the seven series. The actual number to be minted will be adjusted according to market demand.
2.	Minting of Series 1 has not been terminated.
3.	June 11, 1974.
4.	There have been and will continue to be premiums on coins in each of the seven series.
5.	There are no plans for new packaging at this time.
6.	No.
7.	The increase in the price of silver does not cause loss of revenue from coins already minted.
8.	(a) (i) Several people in the Post Office Department were involved in advising the Postmaster General and the government prior to and during passage through parliament of the bill. The Olympic Coin Program was established and staffed after the passage of the Olympic (1976) Act. (ii) Indirectly, it may be said that the entire adminis-
Order Paper Questions
trative resources of the Post Office Department are used as required by the program in the interests of economic and efficient administration. The Olympic Coin Program employs directly sixty-six persons, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
9.	(a) 112. (b) 105.
10.	(a) and (b) This information was given in the second report to parliament which was tabled on December 2, 1974.
11.	None.


Mr. Reynolds: How many policemen, including municipal, provincial and RCMP, were killed in each year 1955 to 1974 inclusive?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and Statistics Canada as follows:
Accidentally killed or murdered on duty Year	RCMP Municipal and Provincial
1955	3 Information not available
1956	2	"1957	1	"1958	10	"1959	1	"1960	1	"1961	2	21962	4	81963	5	None1964	4	11965	1	11966	3	21967	3	21968	1	51969	2	51970	4	11971	4	21972	1	31973	None	51974	4


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) How many employees are there in the Department of Fisheries in Canada (b) how many headquarters are there and in what provinces are they located (c) how many employees are there in each province working directly for the Department of Fisheries (d) by province, how many man years are worked?
2.	By province, how many employees work directly for the Department of the Environment?
3.	(a) For the years 1965 and 1970, how many employees were there in the Department of Fisheries in Canada (b) how many headquarters were there and in what provinces were they located (c) how many employees were there in each province working directly for the Department of Fisheries (d) by province, how many man years were worked?

May 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
4.	For the years 1965 and 1970 and by province, how many employees	ronment, therefore the information will relate to the Fishworked directly for the Department of the Environment?	eries arKj Marine Service, (a) 3,752; (b) The National5.	(a) What is the budget of the Department of the Environment (b)	Headquarters are located in the National Capital Area,what is the budget of the Department of Fisheries and is it part of the	there are Regional Offices for the Fisheries and Marineoverall Department of the Environment budget?	Service Jn gt John.Sj NfkL; Halifax, N.S.; Quebec, P.Q.;Mr. Len Marchartd (Parliamentary Secretary to Min-	Burlington, Ont.; Winnipeg, Man.; Vancouver and Victoria,ister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries): 1.	' '
Fisheries activities fall under the Department of the Envi- (c) and (d):
As of January 31, 1975 Newfoundland	496	employees utilizing	41.34	man-years per monthPrince Edward Island	49	W it	4.08	" "Nova Scotia	1025	it it	85.43	tt ttNew Brunswick	236	it it	19.67	tt aQuebec	84	if it	7.00	Ontario	673	it it	56.09	Manitoba	218	it a	18.17	Saskatchewan	8	tt a	0.67	it nAlberta	2	0.17	British Columbia	931	tt it	77.60	North West Territories	25	ti a	2.08	u ttYukon	5	U it	0.42	tt aTotal	3752	312.72	2.	Including the Fisheries and Marine Service: Newfoundland, 680; Prince Edward Island, 53; Nova Scotia, 1,261; New Brunswick, 470; Quebec, 1,736; Ontario, 3,183; Manitoba, 525; Saskatchewan, 131; Alberta, 556; British Columbia, 1,648; North West Territories, 111; Yukon, 39; Total, 10,393.3.	(a) There was no Department of Fisheries in 1970 as it had become part of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. The answers are: 1965: Department of Fisheries, 2,353*; 1970: Department of Fisheries and Forestry (Fisheries Service only, 2,458*.
(Fisheries Service only), St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Quebec, Province of Quebec; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Vancouver, British Columbia, (c) and (d) The department does not have this information.
4.	The Department of the Environment only came into existence in 1971.
5.	(a) $381,128,122. (b) The budget for the Fisheries and Marine Service is $194,758,445 and it is part of the budget of the Department of the Environment.


[Stage Direction]
*These figures include the staff of the Fisheries Research Board.
(b) The headquarters for both Departments for 1965 and 1970 were in the National Capital Area. There were Regional Offices as follows; 1965: Department of Fisheries: St. John's, Newfoundland; Halifax, Nova Scotia; Quebec, Province of Quebec; Winnipeg, Manitoba; Vancouver, British Columbia. 1970: Department of Fisheries and Forestry
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the profit for each of the CN hotels for the years 1973 and 1974?
2.	What is the (a) net book value (b) rate of investment (c) constructed net book value of each such hotel?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
i. Profit	2. (a)	2.(b) 1974 Return on Constructed	2.(e)	1. Profit	2. (a) 2.(b) 1973 Return on Constructed	2.(c)before	Average	Investment	Constructed	before	Average	Investment	ConstructedInterest on	Net Book	at Annual	Net Book	Interest on	Net Book	at Annual	Net BookHotel	Investment	Value	Rate of	Value	Investment	Value	Rate of	Value$	$	per cent	%	$	$	per cent	$Hotel Bessborough	-	-	-	-	(161,897)	3,746,129	-	1,762,719Hotel Beaus6jour	(96,588)	1,239,435	-	1,239,435	(388,491)	1,135,006	-	1,135,006Chateau Laurier	589,968	11,836,387	11.3	5,232,337	377,737	12,005,205	7.0	5,401,155Hotel Fort Garry	(160,218)	5,489,410	-	2,747,060	(157,460)	5,602,967	-	2,860,617Jasper Park Lodge	400,482	9,617,673	5.4	7,427,318	245,257	9,161,969	3.5	6,971,614Hotel Macdonald	11,536	8,882,540	.2	6,418,373	(63,835)	8,856,249	-	6,392,082Hotel Newfoundland	334,973	1,882,680	22.7	1,476,815	196,523	1,941,261	12.8	1,535,396Hotel Nova Scotian	(277,120)	6,553,951	-	5,015,849	178,267	6,491,146	3.6	4,953,044Hotel Vancouver The Queen Elizabeth	591,307	15,007,297	5.4	10,891,810	825,375	14,883,497	7.7	10,768,010and P.V.M. Restaurants 	2,981,370	20,960,911	14.2	20,960,911	2,943,275	21,416,112	13.7	21,416,112
May 5, 1975


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the full page advertisement appearing recently in various publications entitled "From 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and on weekends, the lights are turned off in this government building" (a) in how many publications did this appear (b) what was the total cost involved (c) what was the name of the advertising agency and the total advertising agency commission (d) were tenders or competitive presentations called for from various advertising agencies, and (i) if so, from whom (ii) if not, for what reason?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) The full page advertisement entitled "From 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and on weekends, the lights are turned off in this government building" has appeared in 102 daily newspapers across Canada as well as the Financial Times and the Financial Post, (b) The total cost of the advertisement is $96,767.07. (c) Vickers and Benson Limited. Since the advertisement was prepared largely within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, it was not handled by an advertising agency in the usual manner. The agency will not get a commission but a fee based on work done and overhead, (d) No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) Proposals from competitive advertising agencies are assessed on the basis of which presentation exhibits a feel for content and creativity that will obtain maximum results. In this case, content and creativity was prepared largely within the department's Information Branch. Therefore, in normal advertising terms there was no basis for proposals and a Canadian agency considered well structured to handle placement of a national program was selected.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Would the Minister of Supply and Services explain the application of the transfer mechanism under the Surplus Crown Assets Act?
2.	How are the various departments made aware of surpluses available?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. On receipt of a request from a department to transfer surplus material between departments, such transfers, if in the opinion of the minister are justifiable, he may, with specific or general authority from the Governor-in-Council, reference Section 5(d) of the Surplus Crown Assets Act, approve the transfer of surplus crown assets from one government department to another subject to such terms and conditions as he may consider desirable.
2.	Through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, notifications of surplus assets are forwarded to departments who have registered with the corporation their interest in various classes and kinds of surplus material.
Order Paper Questions SUPPLY AND SERVICES-WAREHOUSING


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the average rate of stock turnover within the Department of Supply and Services' warehouses?
2.	Is there a policy within the warehouses whereby stock is handled on a rotating basis, i.e. first in, last out basis?
3.	What effort is made to standardize products used for the same nature and purpose?
4.	What is the standard classification system in use?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. For fiscal year 1973-74 average rate of stock turnover was three.
2.	Yes, our policy is first in-first out.
3.	By specification and allotment of catalogue number.
4.	The Canadian Government Catalogue System which is based on the NATO and US Federal Supply Classification Systems.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Does the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation directly receive funds for surplus assets purchased or transferred from one department to another?
2.	Are such invoices charged to the relevant departmental appropriations to ensure that no department secures more resources than Parliament intended?
3.	How is this done?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. In the case of a purchase the corporation receives a cheque from the department. In the case of a transfer the minister may authorize the transfer without renumeration or at a financial settlement and in such case a cheque is received by the corporation.
2 and 3. All cheques from departments are made payable to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, therefore, they would be charged back to their departmental appropriation.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Before CFB Foymount was offered for sale on the open market, were tenders requested from the Province of Ontario or the local municipality?
2.	What was the response of the respective parties?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. The Corporation, under its priority procedures, offered to the Province of Ontario and the County of Rendrew, the Canadian Forces Base Foymount.

May 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
2. These two government bodies indicated no interest in acquiring the Base and concurred in the Corporation offering it for competitive tender.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did CADC officials refuse to allow access to the CFB Foymount facility by the Perlex International Chemicals Ltd. auditing team?
2.	Was the refusal in keeping with CADC regulations?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. At no time did any official of CADC refuse access of representatives of Perlex International to visit the Canadian Forces Base Foymount.
2. In accordance with the Corporation's invitation to bid, prospective bidders are requested and instructed to inspect all material offered for sale prior to submitting an official bid.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Prior to the sale of CFB Foymount, did the Company 260303 Holdings Ltd. experience any agreements of sale with CADC and, if so, what were such transactions?
2.	Did the Company comply efficiently to former contracts awarded to the extent that there can be no complaint with their interaction with CADC?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. Yes. The sale of Canadian Forces Base Clinton, Ontario.
2. Yes.


Mr. Herbert: 1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 957, was the amount contributed by the government for the promotion of bilingualism in
education in the year 1973-74, a total of $39,149,854 in the Province of Quebec and $22,740,455 in the Province of Ontario?
2.	What were the estimated totals for the years 1974-75 and 1975-76?
3.	What amount was contributed by the government for the promotion of bilingualism in education in the year 1973-74 in (a) the Province of Quebec for those whose first language is English (b) the Province of Ontario for those whose first language is French?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
Quebec: $39,486,575; Ontario: $22,240,455.
2.	1974-75: Quebec: $49,726,242; Ontario: $26,639,073; 197576: Quebec: $54,694,866; Ontario: $30,302,980.
3.	(a) $589,191* (b) $621,497*
*These amounts relate to bursaries, fellowships and language training centres and apply to either official language as a second language.


Mr. Herbert: Did the Canadian Film Development Corporation refuse financial assistance for the film of the 1974 Canada-Russia series "Hockey vs Xokken" and, if so, for what reason?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: No, but in 1973 it turned down a similar request from Arthur Harnett Enterprises Ltd., Communications Consultants, Toronto, on the grounds that the proposed film was not a feature film (i.e, having a running time of not less than 75 minutes intended for use in a motion picture theatre). The proposed changes in the CFDC's Act would permit such films to be financed.


Mr. Fortin: What are the (a) names (b) salary scales (c) responsibilities, of all persons who have acted as executive assistants, special assistants, personal secretaries, legal advisers or counsellors to the Minister of Transport, since the beginning of the 28th Parliament to date?


Jean Marchand: The
answer is as follows:
Name	Title	Dates	Maximum SalaryN. Begin	Special Assistant	03/09/74 to date	$ 21,000L. M. Dion	Special Assistant	14/05/73-23/01/74	17,500L. M. Dion	Executive Assistant	24/01/74-31/03/74	20,00001/04/74 to date	25,000J. M. Fairchild	Special Assistant	09/05/73-31/03/74	17,500A. Giroux	01/04/74 to date	21,000Special Assistant	27/11/72-31/03/74	17,500M. I. Racette	01/04/74 to date	21,000Private Secretary	01/08/74 to date	14,500G. B. Black	Special Assistant	04/01/73-1)1/12/73	17,500F. Cote	Special Assistant	11/03/74-31/03/74	17,500M. A. Doyle	01/04/74-17/08/74	21,000Special Assistant	15/02/73-01/06/74	17,500M. C. C. Carriere	Executive Assistant	27/11/72-31/03/73	20,000J. M. Favreau	Executive Assistant	16/04/73-04/02/74	20,000
Responsibilities
All duties pertinant to duties of a special assistant All duties pertinant to duties of a special assistant All duties pertinant to duties of a executive assistant
All duties pertinant to duties of a special assistant
All duties pertinant to duties of a special assistant
All duties pertinant to duties of a private secretary All duties pertinant to duties of a special assistant All duties pertinant to duties of a special assistant
All duties pertinant to duties of a special assistant All duties pertinant to duties of a executive assistant All duties pertinant to duties of a executive assistant

May 5, 1975


Mr. Macquarrie: 
Jean Marchand: 1. It is
the intention of the Ministry of Transport to provide interim renovations, within the next few months, to the existing terminal building in Charlottetown to facilitate Air Canada and EPA operations and provide additional public space equating to 75 more people. This relates to 528 square feet for baggage space, 1,024 square feet in public area and 465 square feet in washrooms.
2.	In the past ten years there have been three extensions to the terminal building, in 1969, 1970, and 1973. The cost involved was approximately $224,000. About 6,000 square feet of additional space was provided.
3.	It is hoped to commence design of a new terminal building and associated facilities in the summer of 1975; this being contingent on funds availability which have not yet been identified pending completion of detailed plans which are due shortly. The main runway will be recapped in 1976-77 and a new cross-wind runway is to be constructed in 1978-79.
4.	A meeting has taken place April 15 between Regional Construction Branch and the Department of Public Works to initiate land acquisition proceedings for future development in Charlottetown.
5.	The three extensions referred to in answer No. 2 were constructed to meet a greater demand for service in 1969. As a result of this demand terminal increased in size from approximately 2,200 square feet to approximately 8,200 square feet.
6.	The initiation of Air Canada's Charlottetown-Ottawa-Toronto service will result in an increase in annual passengers. The redistribution of passengers throughout the day due to a revision in flight scheduling should actually reduce congestion at peak times.
7.	DC-9 and B737 type aircraft can operate at Charlottetown with no constraints. B727 and DC-8 type aircraft can operate on the basis of relatively severe weight restrictions.
Order Paper Questions
8.	The existing navigational aids at Charlottetown meet all requirements for the design period. Associated with the airside development is a new air traffic control tower to be constructed in 1978-79.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Did CBC hire a USA consulting firm called McKinsey and Co. Inc. and, if so (a) for what reason (b) at what cost?
2.	(a) For what reason did CBC turn to a US company (b) was there no capable Canadian company?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows; 1. CBC hired the consulting firm of McKinsey and Company, Inc., of Toronto, (a) To develop a blueprint for the CBC to improve the management of its human resources, (b) It has not been customary to require the CBC to divulge such details of its internal management and administration.
2. (a) and (b) CBC considers McKinsey and Company, Inc. to be the best qualified for the job.


Mr. Reynolds: How much money was donated by the government during 1974 to the
(a)	National Ballet School (b) National Theatre School (c) Canadian Music Center and, in each case, what are the names of the officers and directors?


James Hugh Faulkner: Although not an agent of Her Majesty, the Canada Council has provided the following information; The available figures are for the fiscal year 1974-75. (a) $330,000, of which $10,000 were awarded for the administration of the Council's Peter Dwyer scholarships. Chairman of the Board of Directors: Tom Abel; Director and Principal: Betty Oliphant; (b) $590,000, of which $10,000 were awarded for the administration of the Council's Peter Dwyer scholarships. President of the Board of Directors: Andre Galipeault; Director General: Donald MacSween; (c) $128,000; President: Keith Bissell; Executive secretary: Keith MacMillan (Toronto Office); Assistant executive secretary: Louise Laplante (Montreal Office).


Mr. Lachance: In 1974, were there appeals made to the Public Service Appeal Board concerning competitions and, if so (a) how many (b) what percentage of such appeals were (i) upheld (ii) rejected?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: In 1974-Total number of appeals concerning promotions, 4,072; Number upheld, 1,307, (32.1 per cent); Number rejected, 2,141, (52.6 per cent); Number withdrawn by appellant, 624, (15.3 per cent); Breakdown: Total number of appeals concerning competitions, 2,936; Number upheld, 854, (29.1 per cent); Number rejected, 1,638, (55.8 per cent); Number withdrawn, 444, (15.1 per cent); Total number of

May 5, 1975
Order Paper Questions
appeals against appointments without competition 457; Number upheld, 272, (59.5 per cent); Number rejected, 136, (29.8 per cent); Number withdrawn, 49, (10.7 per cent); Total number of appeals against appointments resulting from inventory searches, 679; Number upheld, 181, (26.7 per cent); Number rejected, 367, (54 per cent); Number withdrawn, 131, (19.3 per cent).


APPEALS TO FEDERAL COURT CONCERNING PUBLIC SERVICE COMPETITIONS, 1974
Mr. Lachance: In 1974, were appeals made to the Federal Court concerning Public Service competitions and, if so (a) how many (b) how many were accepted?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: In 1974, 11 appeals were made. None were accepted.


APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPETITIONS, 1974
Mr. Lachance: In 1974, were appeals made to the Supreme Court of Canada where a point of law regarding a Public Service competition was concerned and, if so (a) how many (b) how many were accepted?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: In 1974, None.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What are the names of the (a) government officials (b) businessmen comprising the trade mission to Morocco and Tunisia scheduled to leave Canada on April 14?
2.	What are the names of the firms or organizations represented by such businessmen?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2.
The names of the government officials and businessmen who formed the trade mission to Morocco and Tunisia are as follows: Government officials-Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. C. T. Charland, Assistant Deputy Minister, Export Development, (Mission Leader); Mr. J. V. L. Lefebvre, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Products Branch; Mr. J. Lang, Pacific, Asia and Africa Bureau, (Mission Secretary); Mr. A. N. Lever, Office of Export Programs and Services, (Mission Co-ordinator); Mrs. A. Barrett, (Support Staff); Export Development Corporation, Mr. J. Daigneault, Manager, Regional Finance, Africa and the Middle East, Ottawa, Ontario; Industry representatives, Mr. H. A. Fougere, Associate, Canadian Plant and Process Engineering Ltd., Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia; Mr. H. K. Matthews, VicePresident and General Manager, Business Development, Lorain International Limited, Calgary, Alberta; Mr. J. G. Larocque, Co-ordinator, International Marketing, Canadian Industries Ltd., Montreal, P. Q.; Mr. T. G. Tait, VicePresident, Interimco Limited, Ottawa, Ontario; Mr. Jean

A. Thierry, Vice-President, Tecsult International Limitee, Montreal, P. Q.; Mr. J. G. Blanchette, Stelco Technical Services Limitee, Hamilton, Ontario; Mr. Jacques Laflamme, Vice-President, Engineering, Elinca Communications Limitee, Ottawa, Ontario; Mr. E. E. McCullough, Director, Defence Sales, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., Downsview, Ontario.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What has been the entire total cost of all aspects of the government language school in Hull, Quebec from its inception up to the latest month for which figures are available including (a) acquisition costs
(b)	maintenance costs (c) salaries?

2.	(a) How many students have attended this school during this time to study (i) English (ii) French (b) what has been the average cost per student in attendance?
3.	(a) How many students have successfully graduated in (i) English (ii) French (b) what is the percentage of failures?
4.	What is the 1975-76 budget for this school including construction, renovation, maintenance, and salaries and how many students is it estimated will attend during this year?
Return tabled.



PROCUREMENT OF ITEMS USED BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Are there any offices outside Canada that have the responsibility of procuring items to be used exclusively by the Department of National Defence?
2.	What is their working relationship with the Department of Supply and Services?
3.	What responsibilities do they have?
4.	Where are such offices located?
Return tabled.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, again I must bring to the attention of the House that my questions on CIDA, which have been on the order paper since February, were to be answered one or two at a time. What has the government to hide? Surely the government has a complete file on this matter. I should like to know what the criteria are in respect of some of these questions. There must be a reason for the government's not answering at least one or two questions a week.
May 5, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Friday I had indicated that I felt this particular bill, though styled a bill respecting western grain stabilization, is of a nature that is pertinent not only to the interests of western farmers but, indeed, to the country as a whole.
In the course of the speech which I started then and which I am now continuing, I indicated that the agricultural industry in this country is basic to the prosperity of the country, and that the good fortune or bad fortune, as the case may be, which affects one part of Canada-in this case we are discussing western Canada-has a direct bearing on the rest of the country.
I suggest that the prosperity of this industry has an effect not only in the internal sense but also on our position as a producer of food in the world. I do not think any Canadian, regardless of the part of the country she or he may come from, does not feel it is important to Canada that there be a strong, aggressive grain growing industry in which the participants have a reasonable expectation of reasonable return to them; and that those who enjoy the fruits of the labour of the grain farmer, whether they be consumers in the usual sense of the word or in the agricultural sense-namely, those who use the produce in other parts of the country-can be assured of a constant supply at a reasonable price.
But, more important than that, over the long term and as we look ahead to the place of our country globally, we have to consider that we have certain obligations with respect to the production of grain. These obligations in some cases are legal in nature in that they involve agreements and contractual arrangements with other nations, but as well we have a moral obligation to the world, as a producer of food, not only to maintain the productive machinery of farmers in this case in western Canada but generally across the whole of Canada.
We have a duty, as well, to maintain a viable operation and a functional and meaningful transportation system to enable those products to get to market and, as I have said, we have a duty to fulfil those moral obligations. I have mentioned, also-and I think it is worth mentioning again-that I am somewhat concerned that we tend to look at problems of this nature on a regional basis and to think that the only persons who should rise in this place and in other places to speak on, let us say, western grain stabilization should be western farmers or representatives of
Western Grain Stabilization
western farmers. I think the issue is much broader than that, and the House of Commons should not give impetus to any argument that deals with regionalization in Canada.
I think this bill is important to every one of us, whether we live in Ontario, in Quebec, in western Canada or in the Atlantic provinces. There are three basic questions that the western producer and the eastern consumer of the produce of the western farmer will ask about this bill. They will ask, first of all, what this bill means to each of them depending on their interests; how it will operate, and what will be its benefits to our country and particularly to the western producer. They will ask what its benefits will be to the eastern producer in terms of supply of grain at a reasonable cost, and what it will mean in terms of the ability of the western producer to meet the new limits that have been established under the farm credit legislation, which can put a tremendous burden of debt on the western farmer because those new limits on a per unit basis run to some $150,000.
These are important matters to be raised not just here in the House of Commons but across the country, and not just to be discussed with large farm organizations, important as they may be, but most of all to be discussed directly with and to be understood by the individual farmer, in this case the grain farmer, who will be the primary beneficiary of this legislation; also, indirectly others who use his produce and rely on it to produce on their own. I say this because the individual farmer, not necessarily the farm organization, is the person in the firing-line of agriculture in Canada today: it is to him that this bill should be directed, and it is toward him that any missionary work that is to be done with respect to the bill should be undertaken.
I do not know what has happened to agriculture in this country. It is now split, in terms of its jurisdiction. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is responsible for one aspect of agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is responsible for another aspect. If there is anything that indicates the difficulties that face Canadian farmers, it is this split jurisdiction. Another such indication of difficulty is the history of this bill as well as the debates and discussions that took place with respect to Bill C-50 and Bill C-19 before the committee of this House. I do not think the eastern grain producer has benefited much from the legislation that this House dealt with a little while ago, and unless there is a real explanation given to him with respect to this bill, its complexity and how it is to function-and it is a very complex bill-I am afraid that the same kind of thing will happen with respect to the western farmer.
So there is a very strong duty and a heavy onus on the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the Wheat Board, not only to rise in the House or appear before the committee to explain the principles of this bill and its very complex formulas but also to do the missionary work that is necessary to explain the principles of the bill.
As I review the bill, I find that it reminds me very much of the Income Tax Act with which we dealt some time ago. Its very complex and difficult sections are drafted in language that even a lawyer would have some difficulty in understanding. Let me refer you, Madam Speaker, to

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
clause 6 of the bill. It deals with new procedures under the formula proposed. I would like you to listen, Madam Speaker, and ask yourself how anybody in the business of producing grain who is not at the same time a lawyer, an accountant or an economist, could possibly understand the bill as it is presently worded. Clause 6 reads as follows:
(1) Subject to subsections 5(6) and (7), every person who
(a)	is eligible to participate under this Act,
(b)	has not elected under subsection 5
(1) to cease to participate and is not deemed, pursuant to subsection 8(4), to have made an election under subsection 5(2), and
(c)	becomes an actual producer after this Act comes into force, either
for the first time or subsequent to a period in which he is not an
actual producer,
becomes a full participant for the year in which he becomes an actual producer and continues to be a full participant until the end of the year in which he ceases to be an actual producer or ceases to be eligible.
There is nothing wrong with the Queen's English; it is a relatively intelligible language. Surely in the course of drafting this bill there could have been found a formula to make persons who would find themselves new, actual producers look at the statute and suddenly realize that they were new, actual producers. It is a complicated statute, and I have given one example. There is another example, if we turn to page 6 and look at clause 7, which deals with persons deemed to be participants-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. At this time hon. members are supposed to discuss the general principle of the bill and not particular clauses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker; Your Honour just anticipated the end of the discussion. Surely one of the fundamental principles of every piece of legislation-the western grain stabilization bill being included-is that it must be understood and comprehended by those involved. With the greatest respect to the minister, this bill is so difficult that its principle will be difficult for a grain farmer to understand, even one equipped as I have mentioned.


Mr. Goodale:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) sitting back there: if he wants to make a speech in the course of this debate, he can do so.


Ralph Goodale: I already have.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member will have another opportunity to make a speech very shortly and I look forward to hearing him. I only hope he will stand up so that we can see him.
This bill seems to reward good fortune on the one hand, and on the other hand it seems to penalize misfortune or bad luck which may occur because of conditions in the agricultural industry over which the farmer has no control. It does not seem to me that the proper way to approach the question of stabilization is to propound in a statute a formula or succession of formulas which reward

good fortune. I hope that when this matter goes to committee there will be detailed examination of those principles set forth in the formula so that this kind of thing can be rooted out of the bill.
Another problem with respect to this bill is the matter of understanding and comprehension. It is vital when discussing a bill of such importance that we not merely discuss it here or merely discuss it in the usual way in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but that the minister undertakes the missionary work which ought to be done, that the bill be taken out of this House and sent to committee, and that the committee hears witnesses, not just those who are able to come to Ottawa to be heard but that the committee takes this case to the people involved. I mentioned earlier that not just farm organizations should be heard, as important as they are, but the committee should go into areas where individual farmers at public meetings can engage in public discussion with respect to this bill.
The government ought to be given the opportunity to do this, and I think every member of the House would agree that the committee ought to travel, when it is established, and that the message ought to be explained. It may take some time, more than it usually takes to consider a bill of this nature, but public hearings and meetings where we meet individual producers in the marketplace are important. As I said at the outset, there are three questions which must be answered before this bill is approved in principle. There are three matters which must be discussed completely so that the government has the benefit of the input which can be had from people in the marketplace, so that those who are dependent upon the produce of the western grain farmer will be heard, including the eastern farmer who produces another kind of produce, to name only one group.
These questions are pretty clear. What does the bill mean to both groups in Canada? What does it mean to consumers? What does it mean in terms of our production as part of the bread basket of the world? How will this bill operate? How will the advisory committees be established? What are their functions? How will they reach the individual farmer? What machinery will be established and how will it be funded? What is the operational nature of the bill to be? Most important in the consideration of this bill, what will be the benefit to western Canadian agriculture? At what price will that benefit be sought? What benefit will the rest of Canada receive? What effect will the bill have on our position as a world producer of food? These are questions which must be answered, and I assume there is no member in this House, regardless of where he or she comes from, who does not want this matter examined fully.
On the foregoing basis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That Bill C-41 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, my remarks will be addressed to the amendment and not to the bill itself. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has put forward an amendment that deserves the serious consideration of all
May 5, 1975

members of the House because of the peculiar nature of the matter discussed in this bill.
This bill bears on the age-old dream of all farmers who know that they are in an occupation subject to many ups and downs. Some of those ups and downs are due to weather. Governments have tried to help farmers meet that type of up and down with crop insurance legislation. In the three provinces mainly affected by this bill, that is, the prairie provinces, I would assume that two-thirds of the farmers pay into the crop insurance program in order to try to protect themselves against the vagaries of weather. The farmer, therefore, has a good attitude toward paying for his own protection against variables in his income.
The minister responsible for the Wheat Board introduced Bill C-41 in order to try to carry this insurance principle a little further. This time it is insurance against the ups and downs of income. As he said in introducing the bill, sometimes farmer cannot meet the obligations contracted in the previous expenditure year because of lack of sales volume or a general lowering of world prices.
To return to the amendment, Madam Speaker, it asks this House not to decide now on the principles in this bill but to refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I think members of that committee, both from the government and the opposition, who have already spoken are in agreement that before we make up our minds on those principles as well as the subject of the matter of the bill, we want to hear from the farmers. It could rightfully be said, as the minister has already said, that the bill has been delayed month after month so he could consult the farmers. I will take his word for it-that he has consulted the farm organizations. I have seen the farm organizations' briefs and it is clear that they are just as dubious about this legislation as I am and as are many members who have spoken on the bill. There is, therefore, a good argument that on the basis of understanding the gobbledygook in this legislation it would be well to go back to the farmers to see if they understand it and want it.
Like many hon. members from the west, I have been discussing this legislation with farmers. They know that for many years I have advocated that in addition to insurance against crop damage from weather we should have some form of income stabilization. In Bill C-41, the minister has repeated the same colossal error that he committed in the infamous LIFT program-Lower Inventory For Tomorrow. He consulted every farm organization on that bill, and every farm organization of substance on the prairies-farm unions, wheat pools, the Federation of Agriculture-recommended to him in writing that he should go forward with it. Evidence of this can be found in Hansard of that time. The member who represented Swift Current-Maple Creek from 1968 to 1972 asked the minister, in the House, who recommended the program and at that time the minister put on record the names of all who had written.
These farm organizations recommended, in effect that the farmer be paid money out of the national treasury for re-summerfallowing and not producing wheat or going in
Western Grain Stabilization
for grass. The minister announced the policy on February 14, 1970, and embarked upon a series of meetings throughout western Canada. He told farmers that the government wanted them to get out of wheat production because there was no market for it.
I followed the minister around in those days. I was not a member of parliament at the time. I told farmers not to listen to that nitwit: that is a kindly word used in western Canada to describe a person who knows a great deal but who really knows nothing about this subject, Madam Speaker. I told them that there was no surplus, had not been a surplus and would not be a surplus. At farm meetings, with 500 or 600 people present, I asked how many wanted the LIFT program, and at every meeting over 90 per cent indicated that they did not want it.
Farmers either had to accept the LIFT program or lose their right to sell grain so I asked how many were going into it because they had to. Eighty-five per cent of the people I surveyed indicated that they had to do what the government told them in order to get their $6 an acre to re-summer fallow. This LIFT program turned out to be the most colossal mistake ever made by a government in the history of agriculture in Canada.
Those of us who knew the world situation, who knew the increasing demands for food around the world, who knew the complete error of the statistics provided by Statistics Canada and the statistics supplied to the United States government, knew that the Statistics were wrong. But the minister of the day, the same man who holds the portfolio at present, and the government of the day, the same government that sits there now, accepted the erroneous figures because they came from a computer using a formula. Farmers were taken out of production by force even though news was coming in from all over the world that people needed our grain. The LIFT program was an immoral act, Madam Speaker, and I warn the government not to repeat that mistake.
When you consult farmers, you talk to them and not to farm organizations. They can funnel the advice up from the farmers, of course, but the only way that members of parliament can be absolutely sure of the facts is to come face to face with the grain farmers of Weyburn, the grain farmers of Alberta, the grain farmers of Brandon and ask whether they like the program. I should like to see the Standing Committee on Agriculture go into the cattle feeding areas, into my constituency, northwestern Saskatchewan, to talk to the men who feed the grain to cattle, to see what they think about being cut out of this bill. I do not want to see repeated the infamous error that was made in the 1970 LIFT program.
I do not know what it will take to convince the government that we are trying to arrive at a conclusion to benefit farmers in all parts of the country. The LIFT program is a classic example of how ignorant of farm matters the government has been in the last 25 years. This government must know that. Now, that does not mean that this was the only time that parliament was ignorant. In this House, in 1932, when the crop was failing and the price was low, this parliament was moved to compassion. The prime minister of the day, Mr. Bennett, was so impressed with the tales of the wind and the drought that he asked parliament in all conscience to vote five cents a bushel subsidy

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
to all the wheat producers in western Canada. Members of all parties supported that because they thought it was the Christian thing to do.
The price of wheat was about 34 cents on world markets and about 20 cents on the farm. This was to be a 20 per cent subsidy to the grain farmers of the west. Well, any farmer could tell you that if there was a drought and he got nothing, five cents times nothing is still nothing. The then prime minister had to stand in his place and say to the House, "I'm sorry; I made a terrible blunder." I guess it is a case of the truth of the Old Testament again: To him that hath shall be given, and to him that hath not shall be taken away. To make this truth evident, there were a few farmers in the northern area where the rains had come; they got a good deal.
On the basis of past mistakes in this House where, with the very best intentions, governments have boobed and boobed colossally, as was the case with the LIFT program in spite of all the warnings, I hope we will not again make that mistake. I hope we can achieve what everyone wants by putting this subject matter before the committee and letting those of us on the committee hear first-hand from as many areas in the west that the committee can handle. We want to hear directly from the producers what they think of the principles of this bill.
When we go back to the main motion I shall be prepared to make a speech on principles. I have had this subject in mind for 35 years. I have tried at various times to figure out ways of doing it, and I am prepared to put those views forward. However, I want to continue the discussion on the amendment. I think the first point is clear: let us consult the farmers on the principle and not make the mistake of the LIFT program or the Bennett mistake of 1932.
The second point is, I want to hear from the farmers on the question of the principle that is in this stabilization bill and was in the stabilization bill of 1970. What horrified me about the minister's first effort to bring stabilization of income was that under his 1970 bill the farmers put in their money. There was a form of getting it out by formula. However, the minister made it brutally clear that you could only get your money out if you did what you were told to do. In essence, under a separate bill it said that under his supply management theories, the civil servants here in Ottawa would take over the guidance of the agricultural industry in all parts of Canada, whether the farmers were growing flowers or wheat, raising cattle or chickens-


Mr. Lang:: That's nonsense.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -and
put them into a bill which would give power to direct. In a separate or connected bill, the stabilization bill of 1970, the minister who sits in his place now made it very clear that the money would be paid to those farmers who made the right decision.


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is nonsense, and you know it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Those were the words of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. He was prepared to back up with muscle the doctrine that a group of civil servants in Ottawa knew better than the farmers what to breed and how much to grow. He was prepared to back that direction and power in the Agricultural Products Marketing Act with a stabilization act which said: You do not get your own money back unless you do what you are told under the national marketing act.


Daniel Aiken Lang: That's nonsense.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I hear the minister mumbling, "That's nonsense". I am putting on the record what the minister put on the record when that bill was before us in 1970-and the farmers know it.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Give me the reference.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: You will
get the reference. I can quote the minister's statements. I am simply saying that if I am on the committee, I want to ask the farmers where they stand on this question of being directed and on this bill that is supposed to stabilize their incomes if it is used as a force to direct their farming activities. That is the type of question on principle that 1 want to ask. The next point I want to raise-


Daniel Aiken Lang: Madam Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to accept a question.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member, who has been worrying about this subject for 35 years but did not do anything about it when he had the chance, can point to anywhere in this bill or the predecessor bill which says that farmers have to plant anything other than what they want to plant. I ask him to point to any clause in either of these bills.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to provide the minister with his own statement in which he stated that under the stabilization bill of 1970, the farmers would get if they made the right decision-


Daniel Aiken Lang: The right marketing decision.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: right; I am prepared to accept that. I am simply saying, on this question of the stabilization bill, that I want to ask the farmers whether they will accept this concept of government direction. If this discretion is given to this minister, are they willing to accept it? I want to hear the farmers tell me face to face whether they will accept the minister's judgment and discretion, in view of his past record.
The next point I want to raise in support of the amendment is one that was raised by several members on the bill itself. I refer to the question of bureaucracy. We have had a long, harrowing experience in western Canada through the actions of several agencies of the government, one of which we have recently debated in the House, the PFAA,
May 5, 1975

where a government bureaucracy was set up and utilized as an arm of the political party that governed this country. We tried to clean that up in the years 1957 to 1963. I have said in this House that I think it stayed cleaned up until recently. Last year we got evidence of monkey-shining going on in connection with the grass and summer fallow program under LIFT where they utilized the machinery of PFAA. That evidence was turned over the Auditor General's department and was eventually sent over to the fraud squad of the RCMP. It is now under investigation.
This bill proposes another bureaucratic group collecting all the information from the Canadian Wheat Board about the farmer's production and inventory. This means inspecting the farm. I wonder what the farmer's reaction will be to this? Accepting the fact that all parties want some stabilization of incomes, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty it means keeping records of grain produced and in storage for inspection by a new bureaucracy. The farmer recognizes that because he is buying insurance, his inventory is subject to inspection. But surely once is enough. I should like to hear farmers tell me face to face what they think about having their granaries inspected first by officials of the provincial government and then again by officials of the federal government.


Daniel Aiken Lang: There won't be any.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
minister is now aware of the type of question farmers will be asking him and his people in the committee.


Daniel Aiken Lang: The farmers will presumably understand the bill better than you do.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I hope they do, because I certainly do not understand it. Only a lawyer could understand that claptrap.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I will send a summarized version across to you.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If that is the argument the minister proposes to use, quick action will have to be taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I know I have touched a tender spot with these pertinent points. I turn, now, to the heart of the matter. I remind the minister that the farmers are called upon to put their own money into this scheme for the maintenance of farm income; and this being so, they are entitled to feel confident that the arrangements will be handled in accordance with a formula, and not by politicians.
It took years for farmers to accept the sound principle of crop insurance, but eventually they did so because they knew it was administered in accordance with a formula. I doubt, today, whether the farmers of western Canada have the required confidence in the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. They remember the LIFT program; they remember that he used the full power of his many words and his convoluted way of explaining things to tell the farmers they had to go out of production. A large percentage of them did so; they lost their shirts and their incomes because of the advice he gave them.
Western Grain Stabilization
They remember that before the election of 1974 he told them he was considering a whole series of proposals in connection with the handling of feed grain, one of which involved putting grain under the Grain Exchange. The farm people of western Canada said, "The minister in charge of the Wheat Board says he is going to put grain under the Grain Exchange." The minister said, "Oh, no; we are just looking at the matter and considering the alternatives which are open." Then a month after election day on July 8, we got it. If you put this proposal to a referendum across the prairies, you would get the support of more than 80 per cent of the farmers against the minister's action on that occasion.


An hon. Member:: That's not bad.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: However, not content with getting the farm economy into this-


An hon. Member:: Did you say 80 per cent?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I meant 80 per cent of the farmers would not agree to the program of putting grain under the Grain Exchange. At the present time, it is under the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: Still not bad.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I do not
believe the farmers have confidence in the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. They remember the LIFT program; they recall the business of feed grain. Then, out of the blue, a year ago the minister began talking out loud and saying the Crowsnest pass rates should be reconsidered and that something should be given to the farmers in lieu of those low rates. This was spread all over the prairies. Suddenly the prairie fires started to burn, and two weeks ago the Prime Minister had to repudiate the minister in charge of the Wheat Board; he sent a long telegram to the Premier of Saskatchewan saying the hon. gentleman did not speak for the government when he suggested the Crowsnest pass rates should be re-examined; he was only expressing a personal view. If the minister wants me to substantiate that statement, I can do so. So approximately two weeks ago the Prime Minister of Canada said the minister in charge of the Wheat Board did not speak for the government; that he was expressing just his personal murmurings.


Daniel Aiken Lang: He quoted me as saying that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: He repudiated the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The minister is very good at going around and around the mulberry bush, but it proves my point: the people of the west have no confidence in his honesty.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member's remarks are more concerned with the bill than with the amendment. I wonder if he will explain how his remarks refer to the amendment.

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member did mention when he was speaking on the bill and when he was speaking on the amendment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I believe I have made my point. The subject matter of the bill should be referred to the committee, where a timetable can be set out enabling us to meet the farmers and have lots of opportunity to ask them what they think of these various matters-both the principle of the bill and the terms of the bill itself. The minister appears to have no doubt he can convince them that these provisions are clear and understandable. For my part, I do not think the minister is the right person to carry this bill to the farmers.
Those of us who would like to see the principle of stabilization of income put into effect realize that the confidence of farmers is needed before they are willing to put their money into any fund. We all know that the farmer is to put in 2 per cent, and that the government is to put in 4 per cent up to a certain maximum sum. But anyone who understands monetary and fiscal events of this country also knows that the government gets its money back, due to the multiplier effect.
So here is the farmer putting his money in. He does not wish to be overridden by a vast bureaucracy. If we read the speeches made during the course of this debate by members representing farm areas, one theme comes through clearly: they wonder why the bill was not brought in by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). After all, the Minister of Agriculture has been saying in a series of speeches over the past year or so that agriculture cannot be broken down; that it must be looked upon as a package. Here in the House is a minister whose primary portfolio has nothing to do with agriculture: he only holds the appointment as minister in charge of the Wheat Board because he comes from the west; westerners would be concerned if the board went out of the hands of a western minister. Here is a minister who is not content with reporting what the Wheat Board has done or omitted to do: he monkeys around with transportation due to the vacuum in the Department of Transportation at the present time; he monkeys around with all things concerning agriculture, such as the incomes of farmers, which are properly a matter for the Department of Agriculture. I would think he should support the suggestion coming from this side of the House that the bill be transferred to the Minister of Agriculture and his department, where it should have been in the first place.
Secondly, by transferring it to the Department of Agriculture we will take away that nagging suspicion that old-time farmers in the west have that the Liberal Party is going back to its old habit of attacking the Canadian Wheat Board. Those of us who know the long history of the Canadian Wheat Board remember the Wheat Board was set up in 1934 and 1935 and was attacked on a broad front between then and 1939. During that time four bills were introduced into this House designed to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. What saved the west from the governments' getting rid of the Wheat Board was the war. The government realized it was a device to control prices.

Since the war we have had this whole varied record of the minister interfering with the Wheat Board. Mention has been made of the barley case, the LIFT program, and selling wheat below the cost of production, something that has been mentioned on several occasions previously in the House. Thus, there is this old suspicion in western Canada that you cannot trust the Liberals when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board. If we could get the Wheat Board to look after the job it is supposed to do, which is to sell grain, instead of trying to run farming operations, as it tried to do partially under the LIFT program and as it is trying to do partially under this program, then the farmers would be a lot happier.
The final reason I would advance for arguing that this bill should go to committee before we decide on the principle is this. One of the major principles in the bill is that it is dealing with an industry. If the incomes of those in this industry in western Canada-the three prairies provinces, parts of B.C. and Ontario-drop, then under the formula those who participate in this plan will receive payment. We have had nearly 35 years experience of large-scale programs. The one example that is most strongly in our minds is PFAA. Under that program there had to be a crop failure in a big area before any farmer was compensated. In an area where some people had good crops but others had crop failures, the latter did not get any money because they were not in an area big enough to get paid. So every so often we had to reform these PFAA areas, or blocks as they called them, and set up smaller blocks. This gave great political power to those who made the decisions to do this. Thus, the farmers are very leery of any kind of government program which, firstly, tries to help improve their income and, secondly, tries to fiddle around by placing them within regional blocks.
Therefore, I ask the farmers these fundamental questions. Would they prefer to have this wide Canadian Wheat Board area as a basis for income adjustment? Would they prefer to have regions or blocks? Or thirdly, would they prefer some basis of individualims whereby they simply pay for individual protection and, based on their own success or failure, they receive payment if their income goes down? This is similar to insuring against loss due to weather, for example, under the crop insurance scheme. You could buy insurance to insure yourself against a drop in income. I suggest that these questions should not be decided by the House but should preferably be decided by the farmers who have to put up the money.
For the reasons I have given, I think the farmers should be asked these questions directly. At this stage I cannot accept the view of the minister. Neither can I accept the briefs of farm groups. I can sense their uncertainty and I am uncertain myself. Before we decide on questions like compulsion or voluntary entry, whole blocks or the individual approach, the question of the bureaucracy involved and the confidence that the farmers have in this minister and Minister of Agriculture, we should let the farmers decide.
I should like to see the bill sent to committee, not only on the question of its principle but on the question of its subject matter. Then we will be able to find out from the farmers who will be putting up money to make the scheme work. We should not ask this House to decide something
May 5, 1975

that affects somebody else's business if we have the machinery, as we have, to determine their point of view.


William Gordon Ritchie: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-41 and the amendment thereto. As the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and others have said, this is a very important bill. It is an attempt to find out in which way the industry should go. This is an industry that is very heavily controlled by government, almost from the seeding stage of the crop until the final product is on the high seas, and this is one further government control that is going to be exercised by government which often has different views from the producers. Therefore, I think the bill should be studied very carefully so that its effect can be determined.
In recent years, as a result of technological advances we have been able to change our lifestyle, but this rather mundane problem of growing grain to feed the world's population has not been put into its proper perspective. Recent events have shown that a substantial proportion of the world's population was fairly close to starvation. While the immediacy of this situation has passed, it is almost certain that widespread famine in the world will occur.
Growing wheat or producing food is not an occupation that one might call job-satisfying or "doing your own thing". There seems to be a steady drift off the land, with manpower being replaced by large tractors, at least in the grain industry. At a time of very high unemployment in many parts of the economy, it is virtually impossible to hire competent agricultural workers in anything like adequate numbers. Although there has been an increase in the price of food products at the farm level, this is still not enough to maintain the present base of agricultural workers. Furthermore, there has been a steady feeling arising in the world that Canada, because of our large export possibilities in terms of grain, should somehow become a sort of international food factory that will dole out food to all of the world's needy, keeping them from starvation. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is quoted as saying the following:
Grain producers have the whole world in their hands. It is the moral responsibility of every country in the world to grow more grain. Not very many countries are as able as Canada to accept this challenge. So I want to see our producers plant more acres of each grain crop. This is urgent.
If that is what the Minister of Agriculture has in mind, the government has not really pointed the way. It may well be that this bill should be in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture rather than those of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. There have been repeated demands that Canadian external food programs be increased substantially. It is interesting to note that most of the people who talk so grandly about feeding the world's hungry are themselves not connected with the agricultural industry. They assume that by merely turning a screw or two, western Canada will suddenly be able to produce large amounts of grain to feed the world. They are not being very realistic, because our capacity to produce greater quantities of grain seems to be strictly limited.
Western Grain Stabilization
We in this country take great pains to complain about the export and using up of our non-renewable resources, and grandly assume that agricultural products represent a perennial renewable resource, always available when required. We have heard in western Canada and in other agricultural areas of the country the suggestion that we are exporting much of our agricultural fertility, particularly in the form of nitrogen. This nitrogen is being exported in the form of fertilizer to produce food. The natural alternative to fertilizer is in effect crop rotation, but this will also reduce the ability to produce grain for export.
This bill is presumably designed to fill out the hills and the valleys in respect of the quantity and the price of grain for export. Much has been written about Canadian agriculture, but in fact the grain industry is the only part of our agricultura industry that has significant export earnings. This industry is carried on far inland and is subject to the actions of many small groups who are involved in the transportation and handling of the grain from the farm to its destination across the ocean. Without grain, Canada would not have been much of a nation for the first part of this century, and it seems significant that grain provides the largest earnings of any industry in our export markets beyond the North American continent. This bill is significant if it will help to increase these exports.
Increasingly it seems to me that the western grain industry and the prairies are a part of the continental area of North America, and what happens in the United States is of much more concern to us than most Canadian nationalists would like us to believe. In fact, United States agriculturalists, along with Mr. Butz' programs, are advocating the removal of government restrictions that would prevent the free movement of agricultural products. In this bill we are erecting an additional form of government intervention in respect of the agricultural industry.
Then there are those who suggest that food can be used like oil as a means of bringing law and order into the world. I suggest that this is not possible. We are seeing the effects of this. When the price of oil rises too high, the world economy merely contracts. Similarly, in respect of food there will always be fluctuations in respect of production in the world. I think it is a truism to suggest that the world can only feed the population it has in its worst crop year. As the fluctuations in food production are substantial, this will act eventually as a brake on world population. It seems to me that for most of the time now and in the future, food production will be generally in a surplus position. This bill will presumably act as some sort of stabilizing force.
The grain industry in western Canada must guard against being used as a means of give-aways to support some sort of Canadian nationalism. The appointment of the new Deputy Minister of Agriculture with a strong connection to CIDA would seem to imply that Canadian grain may be used as a means of furthering our aims. Should we move in that direction to any great degree, it will almost certainly be detrimental to the farmers of western Canada who will grow most of the food that will be used for food aid programs. There will be a tendency to

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
give food at the least possible cost to the national treasury should various groups feel that we should be altruistic, giving away large quantities of food. At the same time, the taxpayer will try to prevent that tremendous give-away of the taxpayers' money.
With the Canadian Wheat Board able to handle wheat and barley and exercise control in respect of flax and rapeseed, it is unfortunate, but true, that government agencies will be able to conceal how much grain is sold by government agencies and at what price. Indeed, the Wheat Board has to a large extent lost the ability of knowing to whom, and at what price, the product is being sold around the world. Perhaps the circumstances surrounding the recent plebiscite respecting the advisory group to the Wheat Board will have some benefit is this area.
This bill in itself does nothing to solve the main problems facing the grain industry today. It will not in any way help the grain transportation system or the grain handling system. We have witnessed in our transportation system, since the last election, the great vulnerability in respect of the grain industry to work stoppages by a relatively few people involved in small unions and key transportation positions in the movement of grain. It would be nice to think that the movement of grain will continue without interruption after the rash of strikes we have experienced.
Parliament has put the grain handlers in Vancouver back to work and has legislated in respect of the longshoremen's strike. The problems in Vancouver could have been foreseen and handled in a better and easier way. Even at the present time the longshoremen in Montreal are not returning to work, and the export movement of western grain, while not being stopped completely is being slowed down substantially. At the moment there are only three or four berths available for ships at the St. Lawrence ports which are working, while eight or ten berths in Montreal are standing vacant, resulting in ten or twelve ships waiting in the Gulf. Almost certainly, the port of Montreal will gradually lose its ability to export grain and in time other avenues must be opened for that export segment of our Canadian grain industry. This bill in itself will not help the situation and in fact will probably hinder it. The obvious answer is to open other channels for export, perhaps through Portland, Oregon, or perhaps by expansion of the facilities at Churchill. Only by extending the avenues of export as widely as possible can the western producer of grain be assured of alternative export channels.
Turning again to transportation problems, this bill does nothing about branch line abandonment, and there is a great debate taking place in this regard. I might say that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has the whole rural country upset because of an assumption that half the railway lines are to be phased out next year. I think this has caused unnecessary consternation on the part of many people in the prairies. There is a possibility that many branch lines on the prairies will be phased out. This will result in the necessity of trucking more grain over longer distances. Experience on the great plains of the United States would seem to indicate that the economical trucking of grain for much longer distances than we have been used to is both practical and feasible.

This bill will be administered to a large extent by the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board has the records of the individual farmers, and it is on this basis that presumably payment will be made. By and large, the Wheat Board has been a faithful servant of the producers, even though at times it has been heavily influenced by political decisions of the government. In my opinion, the Wheat Board has been giving false clues as to the grain outlook for the coming year. While the price of wheat at Chicago hovered around the $3.50 mark, the Wheat Board consistently held the price at $5 from January to April. Presumably, the Chicago price reflects the thinking of traders as to what the price should be, and while this may not be necessarily right it seems to be a good barometer.
While the Wheat Board held the price at $5 there was protest that as grain stocks around the world were low, the price of wheat should be higher. Only the other day was the price dropped by 54 cents to $4.46 by the Wheat Board so that we might compete with the United States in respect of the sale of wheat to Japan. The price of wheat quoted by the Wheat Board has great influence on the plans of farmers for the coming year. No doubt the Wheat Board was not able to offer much grain between January and April, so they left the rate high in order to discourage anyone from asking for a quotation. I believe such actions of the Wheat Board are a disservice to the farmer who attempts to plan his production for the coming year.
Turning to the bill and the manner in which it will help the grain industry, there are many unanswered questions. It seems desirable that there should be some form of support for the grain industry, but the manner in which this should be applied brings out the great complexity of such a program. This bill is no exception. The complexity, essentially, is caused by the nature and structure of the industry. There are approximately 175,000 permit holders and we would hope that number would remain the same or increase. An enormous number of individuals are involved. Some of these are large operators who have up to thousands or acres, while many others are much smaller.
Again, the situation is complicated by the fact that the five principal grains involved are grown in different quantities in different regions of the prairies. For instance, in my riding of Dauphin, flax and rapeseed would make up a substantial portion of the individual sales of farmers, much more relatively than would be the case in southern Saskatchewan. The mechanism that would trigger off the payment to producers is to be almost wholly dependent on production and sale of wheat. If the wheat crop should be poor or the sales low, then a pay-out would be made. I believe to a large extent the bill will be most beneficial to the wheat farmers of the prairies, the largest proportion of whom are in Saskatchewan.
The failure of the bill to provide for a regional pay-out seems to be a very great weakness. Without having a regional feature, the bill will not very effectively serve the needs of the province of Manitoba. An analysis of the amounts of money involved would show that the bill will not be very expensive so far as the federal treasury is concerned. Inflation will almost certainly continue, so the pay-out will always remain less onerous than it would be had the calculations been made in constant dollars.
May 5, 1975

In most years there will be no pay-out, so the 2 per cent collected from the producers will go to the bank to be used by the government in financing its spending. The federal government will not have to put any money in the bank; it will merely deposit IOUs. Even in the years of pay-out, the government will still be collecting its 2 per cent. I doubt, unless there should be a very severe depression in the industry even worse than in 1968-69, that there will be any call on the federal treasury. Indeed, I am quite sure the federal government will not have to put any money at all into the fund. Again, when pay-outs are made they will be made on a blanket basis. If a crop failure should trigger the pay-out at a time when farmers who sell, for instance, rapeseed or flax are able to sell at good prices when wheat prices are reduced, the government will recover much of the pay-out in income tax and in fact the pay-out will largely be a bookkeeping item.
It seems to me that the legislation makes no allowance for regional pay-outs, and because of the variables in respect of production and sale of the five main grains and oilseeds involved there will be limited ability to help the whole industry. The whole grain industry is now being sheltered so much by governments and government bodies that it is in danger of losing its perspective. I think it is significant that the attempt to place rapeseed and flax under the Wheat Board was defeated by the growers. Individual farmers are largely being placed in a position where the only decision open to them is the number of acres of various crops they will seed. The sales the Wheat Board makes and the prices it sets, when they are made public, are so general that the producer is not able to gain any perspective in respect of the market situation.
The necessity to have quotas is also a deterrent to efficient maximization with regard to the production of grain. There does not seem to be any way around the quota situation. I do not see how the bill is helpful along these lines. One provision in the bill I would strongly support is that which provides that the individual producer should have a voluntary choice. I think a substantial number of producers will find that they wish to operate outside this support program. If some producers should choose to operate outside this support program, they certainly should have that opportunity. I also believe that some farmers who are new entrants to the industry will perhaps not wish to participate.
It is obvious that no support program is superior to good management. This bill is so complex that highly competent people in some cases have difficulty understanding the effect the bill might have. It seems likely that no one can reasonably forecast how the bill will function, when put into operation, with regard to many of its aspects. Having this in mind, I believe the bill deserves very careful study in committee both in respect of its possible ramifications and in order to ascertain whether or not it can be improved.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I should like to recite some of the reasons I feel that prior to proceeding with this bill in the normal fashion, the grain farmers of western Canada who are specifically involved in the bill should be provided with an opportunity to receive answers to obvious questions. I have a list of at least 21 questions I should like to raise in the course of my
Western Grain Stabilization
remarks, to-I hope-illustrate the need for the committee to travel, and to illustrate that until now many questions have not been answered by the minister, regardless of the time that has elapsed, and to illustrate that even though the bill has been reintroduced in a revised form there perhaps is still room for improvement.
I think that when the minister reflects upon what happened with regard to the previous bill he will realize that the farmers are not gullible. When he offered them $100 million in exchange for a release from obligations under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. They turned that offer down. Farmers cannot be bought with a bribe of that sort, and they are capable of understanding and of providing suggestions for improvement that even the minister will agree are beneficial. The first and foremost reason the committee must travel is that farmers in western Canada do not trust the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). They know of his involvement in other areas that affect their lives, and they are always leery, no matter how good an idea might be, that at the back of it there might be something about which they have not been told.
The Minister of Justice, as everyone would agree, works hard and is involved in every aspect of agriculture that might affect the western farmer. Yet one wonders why he has that reputation. It is not because of the type of speech that I or other hon. members usually make, nor is it because of the comments that radio commentators usually make; but it is said that after the minister is through with western farmers, they stand to lose at every turn. When the original western stabilization bill was first proposed, the offer of $100 million, which at that moment seemed to be an exciting offer, was turned down. Since then we have managed to save $130 million for the western farmer through the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.
Let us look at the controversy over the Crowsnest pass agreement and at the comment the minister made on his travels across the country. He made his statement, having formulated a plan, and then told the farmers that he was just testing the waters, that it was his own personal idea. Then there was an exchange between the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). Western Canadian farmers want to know why the possibility of doing away with the agreement is even being discussed, and why the minister has taken upon himself the mission of informing western Canadians that this might come about. They are leery because they know how involved and how obstinate this minister can be when it comes to bending from a fixed position.
Even though the Prime Minister has sent a telegram to the Premier of Saskatchewan stating that provided that is what western farmers want, there will be no tampering with the Crowsnest pass agreement. Western farmers feel that there is equivocation there and there is no real assurance that the agreement will not be tampered with. When the minister is involved, these people are deadly afraid of the results. When the minister goes out and tells them that the government will not remove the rail lines, while in actual fact all the plans are in place-according to a speech he made four or five years ago-to have the terminals set up in certain locations and all systems are "go"
5476

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
except for the formal ratification and approval of parliament, it is small wonder that these people are leery and suspicious of the minister.
They wonder why the minister is involved in this program. The question comes to their mind: why is this minister responsible for introducing a western grain stabilization program; why are grain commodities not under the Minister of Agriculture? Perhaps it is too complicated a matter and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) does not understand agriculture, so the Minister of Justice, an intellectual and professor of law who understands agriculture better, will deal with that aspect of the industry. Be that as it may, it was the decision of the Prime Minister to put him in charge of that aspect of agriculture.
But having put him in charge of the Wheat Board, one wonders what other responsibilities the minister has for farmers' incomes. This could easily be handled by the Minister of Agriculture. All that has to be done is that the Minister of Justice step down. But no, this man is ambitious, and such men are dangerous. To quote Shakespeare: "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look". When one realizes he is a minister of transport, Minister of Justice and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as a roving ambassador, people wonder why. They would not be so leery if everything were in their favour. But in the end it always amounts to one thing, that the western farmer finally gets it in the end.


An hon. Member:: Which end?


Stanley James Korchinski: This is what they are concerned about. What I have tried to indicate is that western farmers do not trust the minister. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in the Western Producer, entitled, "Not fully sold on income plan". It reads:
The federal government has not completely "sold" farmer organizations on its income stabilization plan.
One realizes that despite several years of participation, involvement and discussions that have been going on, these farm organizations are leery, never mind the individual farmer. Farm organizations have collectively decided to be careful of the consequences whenever the Minister of Justice makes a move because there is bound to be something of which they should be suspicious. I think that what I have said will illustrate to the House and to the minister why we should not even proceed with the principle of the bill at this time. First, these questions must be answered. I understand that we must break now for private members' hour, but when I resume my comments tonight I will list the 20 questions that I have prepared for this occasion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Government action to restructure relations with developing countries; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Manpower-Opportunities for Youth Program-Proposed control of grants on a constituency basis; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)-Post Office-Alleged lack of authority for sale of non-postal items-Government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Herbert:: Madam Speaker, I regret the necessity of having to rise again today on the same point that I have raised before. I thought the matter was well covered last Friday. However, reference to page 43 of the order paper will indicate an error in that it shows that the first five items were passed by unanimous consent, whereas on page 5438 of Hansard it is clearly indicated that these motions were allowed to stand at the request of the government.
I do not wish to see the procedure followed every time whereby all these motions have to be listed, and if the government is again going to request that the motions preceding the one which is to be debated today are to remain on the order paper, I do not want to have them read out. I had to rise today because the reprint of the order paper does not come about until Friday, and unless I rose today they could again be printed as if there had been unanimous consent, and certainly on my part there is no unanimity to let these items remain on the order paper if hon. members do not wish to proceed with them.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: As the hon. member has stated, there are several errors on today's order paper. At page 43 under notices of motions Nos. 2, 15, 19 and 20 it is indicated that these items were allowed to stand "by unanimous consent." The notation in each case should have read "at the request of the government." The changes will be made at the first opportunity.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, there has been discussion through the usual channels and I believe there will be consent to take the motion standing in the
May 5, 1975

name of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), notice of motion No. 28.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that, at the request of the government, items Nos. 2, 15, 19 and 20 be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes on owner-occupied homes and rental payments of accommodation by tenants to be deductible from federal personal income tax up to a maximum allowable of $300 each year.
He said: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Haidasz: I am glad that there is so much support-


An hon. Member:: On this side, not on that side.


Stanley Haidasz: -at least in certain parts of this House, for the motion I wish to present this afternoon. I am reintroducing this motion in this session and in this way I hope once again to bring to the attention of the federal government and to impress upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the urgent need to alleviate the heavy and intolerable burden on the Canadian taxpayer, who is not only heavily taxed but in many cases is a victim of double taxation. The motion today, calling for at least the amount of $300 as a deductible expense from federal personal taxable income for municipal taxpayers of owner-occupied homes, and for tenants renting accommodation in rooming houses and apartment buildings, as some hon. members have said is not asking for much; it is a very reasonable request.
We all know how fundamental the provision of shelter is for basic existence, and we are also aware of the difficulty today of supplying adequate housing and providing the many services expected and demanded by people in our affluent society, especially in urban and industrialized regions. No level of government acting alone can hope to be successful in meeting all these needs and demands. That is why all levels of government must be involved in this venture and co-operate more than they have to this date. As the federal government's involvement in municipal affairs is very limited by the provisions of the BNA Act, provincial governments are mostly responsible for education, municipal land use, local economic planning and other services.
Unfortunately, not all provincial governments have as yet developed satisfactory policies and programs to ease the financial burden of municipalities. As a result, municipal governments have to tax property owners to raise money for the provision of more and more services which are becoming costlier by the year. What is unjust about
Residential Taxes
this property tax is that many services provided by municipalities-education, for example-bear little relationship to the value of one's property holdings. Furthermore, a property tax in isolation cannot meet the principle of ability to pay and there is no precise relationship between property ownership and the ability to pay. An elderly couple, for example, has no great capacity to pay taxes by virtue of owning property. Therefore, property taxes are considered regressive, inflexible, inequitable and bear heavily upon those who can least afford them.
Furthermore, the person paying municipal property taxes is a victim of double taxation. Several countries, including the United States, prevent this kind of injustice by allowing property taxes, mortgage interest payments and other expenses as items deductible from personal income tax. On the other hand, Canadian taxation laws allow businessmen to deduct real estate taxes and operating expenses from income tax. In our present economic crisis, I believe it is urgent that the federal government, and especially the Minister of Finance, bring in policies to reduce unemployment, control cost of living expenses and cut taxes.


Walter David Baker: I hope they listen to you.


Stanley Haidasz: Thank you. Any measures encouraging the construction and purchases of homes and apartments will increase jobs and provide a healthy stimulus to the economy. Almost daily we read in the newspapers announcements and predictions that mill rates, hydroelectric rates, water rates and heating costs will be rising this year almost to intolerable levels. These developments are tragic, especially to people on low incomes as well as to senior citizens on fixed retirement incomes. Renters of accommodation in rooming houses and apartment buildings will also face higher rents because of increased taxes and operating costs. These problems have frequently been brought to the attention of various levels of government and recently by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities. Members of this federation expressed great dissatisfaction with the senior levels of government for not giving municipalities sufficient assistance.
The rumblings of discontent are growing louder each day in all sectors of Canadian society faced with the rising costs of keeping a home, and heavy taxation. That is why it is imperative that the Minister of Finance give this matter serious attention in his next budget. The federal government has already recognized basic tax relief for marital status, dependants, donations to charity, moving expenses and job related expenses, and it is high time that it recognized the need to grant Canadians a basic tax deduction for shelter.
I believe that the support and acceptance of my motion this afternoon will help ease the heavy load of taxation which is now a crushing burden on many Canadians. I make this motion as a matter of urgent importance, in a spirit of co-operation and with the serious intention of trying to help solve the problem of property taxes, which is an inequitable, inflexible and regressive form of taxation burdening municipal taxpayers.
295 61-3)4

May 5, 1975
Residential Taxes


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support this private member's motion to allow residential taxes and rental payments to be deductible from income taxes, put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). This measure is long overdue and it is one that I have personally advocated for some time. I strongly support the principle that a proportion of municipal property taxes should be deductible from federal income taxes and that comparable tax relief should be extended to tenants.
The Canadian family's dream of owning a single family dwelling is fading faster than ever. Housing costs have soared in the past few years at rates that were thought inconceivable a few years earlier. The cost of borrowing money is prohibitive. Whether the housing crisis is one of shortage or price is of little consequence to the average Canadian taxpayer who must be making at least $17,000 annually to even obtain a mortgage before he is able to consider purchasing a home; otherwise, he is forced to live in an apartment or row housing.
Approximately 70 per cent of Canadians want to own a single family dwelling on a decent sized lot. Today, in Canadian cities, less than 5 per cent of the population can afford to buy a home and many of these must pay up to half their income in mortgage payments. When one knows of such situations it is very easy to understand why this motion should be accepted. Another reason apart from helping prospective and recent home buyers is the astronomical municipal tax rate in many cities. The people in Winnipeg are a classic example of this. Since unicity was forced on them, the municipal rates have risen in unprecedented jumps. These people are in urgent need of some tax relief.
There are more reasons for this motion being accepted. Every Canadian should, as a right, be able to obtain and live in suitable, reasonable-cost housing with the amenities of landscape. Within the natural constraints of geography and necessary economic and social limitations, the aim of government policy should be to generate sufficient housing stock of various forms so that all Canadians may exercise their freedom of choice as to the style and tenure of housing in which they live.
Canada's extremely high inflation rate of the last half decade has been a main instigator of the present price crisis. The government continues to blame inflation on other countries, but in the housing sector that just will not wash because in most houses presently being built there is nothing imported other than the thermostat control. This excuse is even less plausible than in the other sectors of the economy. The government owes some relief to the people hard hit by these price rises.
The motion before us would not only help alleviate the plight of new home buyers but present home owners as well, people who are being taxed to death by all levels of government. I cannot express too strongly, Madam Speaker, the necessity for this motion to be accepted by the House so that the government is steered into taking some definitive action toward clearing up this very serious situation.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the arguments advanced by my colleague the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) who introduced this motion, and also the hon. member opposite who just spoke. The motion is something of an old chesnut. It usually takes the form of allowing deductions for interest payments on mortgages- that is not included in this motion-or tax payments to municipalities, usually with the aim of encouraging home ownership. There are two objections that have traditionally been raised against this kind of motion. One, that it discriminates in favour of the higher income groups, so my colleague has put a ceiling of $300 on the claim. The second objection is that it does not do much for those who rent, so he has allowed an equivalent, offsetting deduction for tenants.
I have the greatest respect for my hon. colleague, Madam Speaker, but it is my contention that by introducing these qualifications he has failed to ask himself the basic question. What is he trying to do by the motion? In my opinion, the motion fails to achieve the basic purpose that he has in mind. Two basic principles were put forward by the two previous speakers. One was that it will encourage home ownership-I want to come back to that- by making the deduction available to every taxpayer who qualifies, regardless whether they rent or own a home. I fail to see that it gives any incentive whatsoever to home ownership. It considers tenants and owners on the same basis for tax deduction purposes.
When we talk about tax relief, let us look at the principle behind it and ask if this is the best means of giving such relief. It is my contention that there are more fair and more equitable means of doing so and I think they should be considered in priority to the motion before us.
Let us return to the first proposition, that it will encourage home ownership. The Department of Finance has indicated that something like $1,800 million would be lost to the treasury if such motions were implemented for the current tax year. If such a sum of money were to be lost to the government in revenues, there would inevitably have to be adjustments in taxes in other sectors.
Let us ask ourselves the basic question: what do we hope to achieve by the measure? The argument is that it will encourage home ownership. Let us consider that in relation to the present tax laws, taking taxpayer A and taxpayer B for comparison. Taxpayer A puts $40,000 into stocks and bonds and trust income; taxpayer B puts $40,000 into a home and leaves it there. Taxpayer A has to report the income on his investments of, say, 10 per cent per year and so has to include $4,000 per year in his taxable income. The owner of the home, taxpayer B, does not have to compute the economic rent of living in the home in his income. Our tax laws do not call for that, although the tax laws of some other countries such as the United Kingdom, do.
The second advantage that the owner of a house has under our present tax laws is freedom from capital gains tax on disposal of his principal place of residence, and that is a substantial advantage. The owner of investments does not have such an advantage when disposing of them, but is subject to the full capital gains tax. It is my contention that if the federal government wanted to go into the
May 5, 1975

business of encouraging home ownership, the most productive, the most forthright, the most satisfactory means of doing so are those posltive measures considered in recent budgets. I am thinking, for example, of the CMHC budget going up over $1 billion in the current year, the Assisted Home Ownership Program which is now restricted to new construction, thus encouraging construction of new homes, and the $500 grant toward the purchase of a new house.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is a great deal!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Hon. members opposite can make derogatory remarks about those measures, but it is up to them to propose alternatives. I am thinking, also, of the measures the Minister of Finance introduced to encourage savings through the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. This is a positive feature, putting savings, in the form of a tax deduction, in the hands of those who need to buy a home. Hon. members opposite can be skeptical. I am not prepared to say that this is the best of all worlds, but these measures will do more to encourage home ownership than the resolution before us, in my opinion.
The budget for 1973 introduced a principle which I think will achieve a great deal. In that budget, new grants on account of municipal taxes imposed for local school purposes were subject to an equalization system. The measures cost about $190 million in the current fiscal year. When I hear hon. members talk about the burden of property taxes, I can agree with them, but they must admit that those taxes vary from one province to another. In the province of Alberta the problem is not as serious as in Manitoba or Ontario. The measure before us would make all provinces alike; it is not selective.
You cannot just talk about those provinces where the incidence of property tax is higher, argue for a general measure across the board and hope to achieve the same results. I heard hon. members on the other side talk about how regressive property taxes were for people with lower incomes, and older people.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was on your side.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hai-dasz) said it.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: All right; I am glad I have persuaded hon. members. You have to look at what is happening under the present budget. Under the budget proposals at the end of last year, a married wage earner with two children under 16 would pay no federal income tax in 1975 on income up to $5,871. He would need to have an income in excess of $7,414 to get the maximum benefit of $300. There are a lot of people in this country who, unfortunately, are not going to qualify for that benefit.
Let us look at the position with regard to a senior citizen. Let us look at the various exemptions available to an older couple, both over 65 and retired. There is the interest and dividend deduction, the pension deduction and the tax cut. It has been calculated they could receive up to $8,258 in income in 1975 before becoming liable for federal tax. The hon. member's motion would not give one
Residential Taxes
penny of relief to an older couple with income under $8,258 in such circumstances. You can talk about regressive taxes all you want, but I suggest this motion would be most regressive for senior citizens living on retirement incomes. Only a very small proportion of people who are retired have incomes in such brackets that they would qualify for any relief whatsoever under the hon. member's motion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thanks to this government.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am proud the government has introduced that degree of exemption under our income tax law. The motion fails to give the best priority in terms of tax reduction. If the objective is tax reduction, increase the basic exemption. Let us give across the board deductions, because they help people in lower brackets even more than an increased exemption. Let us consider the priorities that are available. Let us put more money into subsidized housing. Let us give the provinces more money for land assembly. Let us put our money into positive measures to encourage home construction and a reduction in home costs.
The hon. member did not refer to the impact of his resolution on those living under subsidized programs such as rent to income. I predict that the provincial authorities would quickly adjust charges to compensate for any possible gain which would accrue to these people as a result of such a resolution being adopted. For those living under plans in the province of Ontario such as Home Ownership Made Easy, I raise the question whether it is really a fair and equitable proposal to add the tax deduction on top of the other subsidies made available to those fortunate enough to qualify under such programs.
It is my belief that this measure would not do anything to encourage new construction of houses. It would not do anything compared to other measures that could be considered by way of the fairest, most equitable and appropriate forms of tax relief.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) indicate once again the lack of comprehension increasingly apparent on that side of the House concerning the magnitude of the housing crisis confronting this country. I have been most interested in the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). I hope that the members of his own party have been equally attentive, particularly the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
Obviously, the hon. member for Parkdale is concerned with the high cost of shelter in this country, and well he might be. The cost of new housing is well beyond the capability of all but a very minute per cent of the Canadian public. The cost of existing housing for the majority of Canadians is eating up far more than the 25 per cent of total income considered appropriate by the Canadian Council on Social Development and by CMHC in their guidelines for AHOP eligibility. It cannot be reiterated too often that the residential construction industry is in a critical situation. Housing starts have fallen by 50 per cent from a year ago, down to some 160,000 projected annually. Mortgage rates are zooming toward new highs, currently

May 5, 1975
Residential Taxes
at 11 per cent and estimated to continue rising. Mortgage funds, particularly with the trust companies, have all but dried up.
Lenders have stopped lending. Builders have stopped building. Buyers have stopped buying. Meanwhile, the formation of new household units continues at an annual rate of 230,000. Therefore, we have looming before us a desperate situation in the housing field. Family units are increasing, housing starts are dropping. The shortage of accommodation becomes ever more critical. What social problems and unrest that presages! The proposal we have before us, while laudable, will do little to alleviate this situation. The deduction of property taxes or rental payments to a maximum of $300 for income tax purposes will do little to stimulate the badly sagging residential construction industry. Such measures will have little effect on the desperate housing shortage. They will, of course, have no bearing at all on the high cost of land or the high cost of money, two of the principal factors in the present crisis.
The government seems intent on allowing interest rates in general and mortgage rates in particular to rise, and this at a time when its stated intention is to stimulate the economy. The Bank of Canada is following this very formula at the present time. Obviously, rising interest rates will have the effect of dampening, not stimulating, the economy. These contradictory objectives are typical of the confused fiscal policies now being put forward by this government, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of housing. Will the government not see its way clear to giving the taxpayer some relief by allowing at least a proportion of the current high interest mortgage costs as a deduction for income tax purposes? That at least would serve to bring interests rates down.
During the election campaign last year, my leader put forward a proposal to bring down interest rates by controlling inflation, but persons who have taken on mortgages at these excessive rates will continue to suffer for some years to come. In order to alleviate at least in part the harsh impact of these high interest rates on home owners, we propose to permit taxpayers to deduct interest in excess of 8 per cent on a first mortgage on their principal residence. This was the approximate rate in effect when Mr. Trudeau first began to mismanage the economy.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member is not allowed to refer to any member by name; she must refer to the constituency or to the office.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am
sure hon. members will know to whom I refer.


An hon. Member:: That is not the point. It is against the rules.


Mrs. Appolloni:: He has a name. He is the Prime Minister.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the government not see its way clear to set up-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: If hon. members wish to participate in the debate on this motion they will be allowed to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Notice in what direction the Speaker is looking.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Will the government not see its way clear to setting up the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation which was designed to provide a secondary mortgage market, one which would undoubtedly help attract mortgage investment into residential mortgages, particularly when the existence of such a market is obviously of such importance to the AHOP program? I find it incomprehensible that this corporation should have languished on the statute books for over a year and a half, particularly when the minister's predecessor gave the House to understand that its enactment would cure all the ills of the mortgage market. Will the government not see its way clear to lessen its recent heavy demands on the less-than-healthy Canadian capital markets, and moderate federal government borrowing so that more money may be freed for mortgage investment?
These are several steps which the government could implement immediately to alleviate the mounting housing crisis, a crisis which is reverberating through every sector of the economy. The government must recognize the magnitude and the extent of the housing emergency which now confronts us. The proposal before us, while a modest step in the right direction, is not the answer to the great burden which hundreds of thousands of Canadians are struggling to shoulder in the housing sector.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Madam Speaker, it might be appropriate for us to return to the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I recognize that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has a number of things she would like to tell the House and the country at large.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Housing
is a crucial one.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Housing, as the hon. lady points out, is indeed a crucial subject. She appeared to begin her remarks by applauding the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). In the end she submerged it beneath a great deal of verbiage about her own views on the housing industry. She scarcely referred at all to the hon. member's submission. I suppose it would be open to any of us who wished to proceed upon similar lines to do so. I suppose I could even read a magazine article from Weekend.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I have been sitting here, waiting patiently for the hon. member to say something about the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). I hope that sooner or later-preferably sooner-he will address himself to the
May 5, 1975

motion so that we may have some idea of what he thinks about it.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Madam Speaker, I have barely cleared my throat.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The hon. member is suggesting to the House that I have been belabouring a variety of issues. Wait until I get to the motion. I was simply beginning my speech by admonishing the previous speaker for taking up so much time with her own pet theories on the housing industry and spending so little time on the principle raised by the hon. member for Parkdale. Of course, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) raises-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't spoil our
Weekend Magazine.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I can assure hon. members that, notwithstanding earlier comments, I shall not read anything from Weekend Magazine, whether a certain hon. member is now gripping the country or not. I know the hon. member opposite feels very strongly about housing. I know she has many ideas she would like to express on the subject. But I believe it is important to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Parkdale.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Essentially, this is a taxation matter, not essentially one to stimulate the housing market. It is on this ground that the suggestion lacks merit. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has set out in perceptive detail the difficulties which would flow from the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Park-dale. The broad nature of the taxing proposal is such that it would bring no benefit whatever to those in the lower income brackets, while benefitting to an appreciable extent those in the higher income brackets about whom the hon. lady is probably less concerned.
The fact is that a tax-free investment such as a home can represent, in the hands of a person in the higher income tax brackets enjoying a maximum of a $300 deduction from his or her income tax, would be an appreciable advantage as compared to, say, a pensioner living in a home he owns and having no taxable income and not enjoying a similar benefit.
The cost of the program is estimated as being in the area of $1.8 billion a year. We would either have to find this money elsewhere out of the taxpayers' pockets or reduce programs in other directions, possibly in directions which are already stimulating the housing market. So, on the taxation principle that we do not provide a taxpayer with a deduction in respect of personal expenses, the measure would fall on this point alone.
As to a person living in rental accommodation, there are a variety of provincial schemes which endeavour to provide low rental accommodation for people with moderate incomes. These programs would be distorted if a further reduction for rental were permitted on whatever tax these people might have to pay. So the various objectives do not, in my judgment, go to the question of attempting to
Residential Taxes
resolve the problem created by the heavy burden of taxation being felt by everyone due to the large amount of governing being done in this country.
With regard to the fact that there is no provision for integrating taxation to the level I should like to see, I suggest it would be far better to have a system under the Income Tax Act to take better note of mortgage interest and municipal taxes, embodying them at the income tax level so that people could have their taxes reduced by having their exemption raised. By this method the government could raise personal exemptions to benefit those who were not in the high income tax brackets.
I think it is really with respect to the nature of the solution offered by the hon. member for Parkdale that the only criticism lies, not in his objective. It is directed to the inequity of the benefit, to the fact that only those in the higher income tax brackets would benefit. I know there are a variety of stimulative measures that the government has already taken in previous budgets in an endeavour to keep the housing industry at a high level of activity, and particularly in these days to increase housing starts. But I suggest more needs to be done.
I hope that in his forthcoming budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will take note of these needs, and will endeavour to provide stimulative measures to revive the housing industry, an industry that is so important to the economy and which benefits all levels of income earners in Canada. In conclusion, may I simply say it is not the objectives of the hon. member's suggestion with which I quarrel; rather it is with his method.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, in the twenty-ninth parliament a member of the Social Credit party moved a motion on a Friday afternoon in private members' hour that had an objective similar to the motion moved today by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). At that time the hon. member who moved the motion was the only member of his party present in the House, and I rose to second it in order that the very important subject matter could be brought before the House at least for discussion.
The hon. member for Parkdale, a member of the Liberal party, has moved a motion today which we are now debating. I think he is a man of some considerable compassion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He is a member whose motion ought to be accepted by this House. Normally I do not take issue with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). He and I are neighbours. In terms of these questions I think our differences are very small. I do not take issue with him now except to say that I believe his views on this motion are somewhat restrictive, having regard to the terms of the motion.
The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) talked about the possible discriminatory effects that there might be if this motion were to be adopted in that only those in the higher brackets would benefit. He then said this would cost approximately $1,800 million a year. That may well be a conservative figure in view of the inflation which is


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton allow a question?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if I may, I will give him time at the end of my remarks.
Then during the last federal election an incomes policy was perhaps the worst possible thing that could happen to Canada, according to the Minister of Finance, who is also my neighbour, and according to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). But what did we see in the Toronto Star today, and what is going to be in the Ottawa Journal tomorrow? The beginnings of an incomes policy. It is another retreat, perhaps a retreat that is too late.
It is the easiest thing in the world to put stumbling blocks in the way of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale. There are administrative difficulties, indeed all kinds of difficulties. But the important thing in this private members' hour is for the House to recognize that the hon. member for Parkdale has not asked that we enact a piece of legislation. All he asks the government-and compassion is supposed to be in the breasts of all members in this House-is to give consideration to the feasibility of his suggestion.
Surely to heaven we have not yet reached the day when members of the government should turn back the terms of a motion of this sort. I am satisfied that if this proposal is not contained in the minister's next budget, this proposal, with others that have been advanced by members on all sides of the House, will eventually become government policy in some form or another.
I think it is wise, Madam Speaker, that we recognize two things. Of course it is difficult to buy a home. But that is not the issue here, and I do not think the hon. member for Parkdale meant it to be the issue. It is becoming increasingly difficult for many people to keep up a home. Although many old age pensioners do not own a home, we all know the problems of those who do. Tenants are facing rising rentals each time renewal of their leases becomes

due. There are escalator clauses in leases the likes of which we never saw before-lawyers' dreams! This is what the hon. member for Parkdale had in mind in moving his motion.
There are a lot of things that perhaps the government can learn from the private members of this House. The hon. member for Parkdale has become a private member, and he is a very proud private member, and a very good private member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think it behooves his colleagues who are private members, some of them good private members, to ask the government to give this motion consideration. Let us examine its feasibility in the open manner which approval of the resolution would mean. I think it is important that we not lose sight of the difficulties some of our people are facing, especially since we have had certain difficulties of our own looked after recently.
I think we ought to give a sober second thought to the possibility of rejecting this motion, for there seems to be some feeling that it is going to be rejected or talked out. I hope that will not happen because I think this motion was brought forward in the best of faith by the hon. member for Parkdale. I want to commend him for it, and I support him. I know he has the support of members on this side of the House in respect of the principle he is trying to advance.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, when I was speaking earlier I attributed views to hon. members on the other side in support of the motion. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) interjected, and I gathered he felt I was imputing something unfair. I would ask that hon. member now whether he spoke in favour of the motion or against it?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I did not think my speech would put the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) to sleep. I want to assure him that I was speaking in favour of the motion.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, in the time remaining I want to be identified as supporting the worthwhile suggestion contained in the motion of the member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). This involves a very worthy exemption that should have been granted years ago in this country. I commend the hon. member for this worthwhile suggestion. Why should we not have an exemption and deductibility in respect of expenses which are basic to our living expenses?
This motion would also help the municipal tax system because it gives us an incentive to pay our taxes promptly in order to obtain the exemption, because unpaid taxes or taxes in arrears would not earn the federal exemption.
If the government will not allow this motion to pass today I predict that it will bring in a similar motion in the near future. Perhaps this principle will be brought in as part of the next budget, and I hope that it is included.
May 5, 1975

There are some strange parallels in this House. Today we have the Liberal backbench section talking out the worthy motion put forward by the hon. member for Park-dale. The point I want to make is that only last week during a private members' hour the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) put forward another very worthy bill in respect of gasoline marketing that would have assisted millions of Canadian consumers, just as would the motion today moved by the hon. member for Parkdale. That motion was also talked out by members of the Liberal party. This is a strange government with no purpose and no leadership. This government does not recognize worthy suggestions like that of the hon. member for Parkdale. No wonder this motion is being talked out by the-


Mr. Parent:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I happened to be here during the debate last week, and I was under the impression that it was not only members on the Liberal side who were speaking but also members of the opposition. So to suggest that we talked the bill out is not right, and I would like to correct the hon. member.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Madam Speaker, I hope the time for that interjection will not be taken out of our allotted time. The backbenchers on the government side do not know how the front line thinks or acts. There is not one member of the Cabinet here at the present time. They are not interested in this measure. They are not interested in any tax incentives, or even in the taxpayers today.
Let me throw out another suggestion along the same line of reasoning embodied in this worthy motion of the hon. member for Parkdale, and that is, that mortgage payments and interest on owner-occupied homes should also be included as tax deductions. Of course under the autocratic philosophies of the present regime we cannot expect this, but I predict that further basic cost of living expenses of this kind will have to be recognized by the government, and soon. I am sorry that because of the present policy of the Liberal Party we will not be able to pass this motion today.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: First of all, Madam Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). It is nice for a change during private members' hour to have a positive suggestion come from a private member.
In the ordinary course of events we have ideas promoted from the other side, and we sometimes wonder whether they have really done any research or work on the matters put forward. It is obvious that the hon. member for Park-dale has done some research and has, in fact, seen one of the problems in respect of this particular form of tax relief he is referring to, namely, how to help those who are tenants of rental property.
That hon. member, having done his research, as he does so well in respect of all his work here, has tried to overcome that particular problem by equalizing the tax advantage so that the homeowner and the tenant are not placed in unfair positions. I do think the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) recognized a similar problem, and endeavoured to provide the same kind of relief that the
Residential Taxes
hon. member for Parkdale is endeavouring to provide with this particular motion.
Unfortunately the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has left. Perhaps she had to go out for another Weekend Magazine interview. I do not think she was totally off base in her comments, but I think she misread the motion as another measure to help the housing industry rather than as what the hon. member intended, and that is to help people who are buying homes and those who are renting.
We heard some scoffing at the $500 grant. It should be pointed out to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), when speaking in Toronto on May 1, pointed out that there has been an enthusiastic response to our offer of a $500 grant to all first time purchasers of new, modestly priced houses. He pointed out that we have now paid out some $7 million in home-owner grants to about 14,000 families. These are families who would not have been helped had it not been for this particular piece of legislation.
Hon. members scoffed at the Assisted Home Ownership Plan. I would point out in that respect, as the minister did in his speech, that it is probably the most popular housing program ever introduced in Canada. It should be pointed out that more than $124 million has been allocated in AHOP loans to Canadian families. If this continues at the same rate we will have allocated more than $340 million by the end of this year. These are facts. It is easy to get up and say things are not being done, but this $124 million will blossom into $340 million through this single piece of legislation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As a lawyer I am ashamed to hear you say that.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I think the hon. member is speaking as a lawyer who used to make money out of real estate, and he is sorry that all these people on low incomes are able to buy houses.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
5484
[Stage Direction]
May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton) (p.	).
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was appealing to the House to have this particular bill set back so that the standing committee could have an opportunity to go to western Canada and hear representations from the farm producers. It is not sufficient to have a few briefs submitted by the executives of a few farm organizations because this bill, in its original form, did not meet with favour.
I pointed out that in western Canada there is a great distrust of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), which he brought upon himself simply because of the way he handled other legislation and other problems. He has injected himself, whether voluntarily or on the insistence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), into areas which are not considered to be within his domain as a minister. I pointed out the area of transportation about which we are very concerned.
It is interesting that after several years' delay the minister should suddenly slip in this bill just at about the time farmers are preparing to go on the land. That in itself is an indication that there is something about which the farmers should be aware. Every member of this House must be aware that when the farmers are on the land they are busy and do not have any time to be concerned about policy making or carrying on discussions. After all that time the minister suddenly decides to bring into the House a bill which he states is part of the government's over-all policy. No farmer will take the time while he is on the land to make representations, and yet there has been no effort until now to introduce this bill.
I am sure the farmers can live without this bill for another few months, or forever if it is not improved. Some of the problems in the original bill have not been corrected. The bill contains much window dressing. There are many problems. I have already mentioned the $100 million prize offered, but since then we know that $130 million has been collected. The question of regional consideration is not taken into account. The minister, in dealing briefly with this, said they looked at it but were not satisfied and required further information. What guarantee is there that a number of years from now they will still not have a solution?
In my proposal in respect of the original bill I said we should take into account the block system. We know that the Canadian Wheat Board manipulates grain movements through the block system. It is possible to have one area deliver more than another area simply because of the
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
manipulations of the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister says that we do not know the cost of production for individual areas. We ask why we cannot have a bill which takes into account the overall cost of production, but with regional pay-outs? We could give the government three, four, or five years to figure out a plan, and in the meantime work on the basis of the block system.
Since the minister has not even looked at that problem and has merely commented on it, I shall go one step further in view of the great problem in western Canada today. The smaller communities, as the minister is aware, are struggling for existence. One solution to their problem might be through the use of this legislation. We know the Canadian Wheat Board has a computer system by which every delivery point is known. We know exactly what the income is in every area where there is an elevator, and therefore the calculation can be made on the basis of every community. If the minister really wants to help these communities, this in his golden opportunity. I am sure all the people in the smaller communities would make this appeal. I say they should be given the opportunity.
Frost affects many areas locally. Frost may affect at one time only a few communities in a block. These are the communities that will be adversely affected, and they should receive the benefits of any stabilization. They should not have to wait for an area which has had bumper crops for a long period to have a failure, before they can obtain assistance. This is the type of question I should like the minister to answer. Having waited all these years, if we are to have a stabilization bill which will be effective on behalf of all these communities, why could we not wait a few more months, or even a few years, to accomplish this?
That is one of the big arguments at this particular time. Why would the minister overlook this? Why must the depressed areas subsidize the areas that have always had it good when it comes to delivery? They may have had good crops on a continual basis, but suddenly when the entire region suffers from a crop failure the better areas qualify for a payment. My area is one of those that suffer from snow, frost, flooding, grasshoppers, beetles. You name it, we have it. We are a frontier area. When it comes to disasters, we have all kinds of them. Often we have late crops, and in many cases we have poor quality crops. You can break sales down very simply. There are statistics available in the Wheat Board office in Winnipeg right now.
I did say that I had some 20 questions to put to the minister, but I do not know how many of them I will be able to put in the time available. Another question is: do we need this particular kind of plan? I am suggesting that this plan does not meet our requirements.
Then there is the question as to whether the plan should be mandatory. The minister made it possible for farmers to opt out after three years, but his department will not have the statistics until the three years are up. The minute you have the statistics, you are either in or out, and that is final. The minister should give the farmers an opportunity to consider the plan for a longer time. We will not gain
May 5, 1975

sufficient experience in three years. The clause as it stands now does not cover the situation adequately.
The next question is: why do we not take into account the entire cost of production? Even the income tax people recognize certain costs of producing grain as a legitimate deduction. The income tax people can be tough enough, but they recognize many of these costs as legitimate deductions, and yet the Minister of Justice himself tells us that he will not include those expenses that are included for income tax purposes. I say that the minister should take that into account.
Then, when it comes to considering averages, why must we take a backward look? Farmers are asking these questions. Why are we taking into account the average income over the past years? Nobody who works for a salary wants to sign a contract on the basis of his average income in the past five years. Surely to goodness the government should be forward looking these days. We know that inflation is with us, but the government has done nothing about it. If we make calculations, why should we not make them taking into account inflation? Even if you have to base the formula on the previous five years, you should add the rate of inflation that was experienced in the last five years.
If you take the cost of production into account, you must remember that today the dollar is not worth what it was two years ago. If you give the producer $100 today, you know as well as I do that he cannot purchase the same amount that he could two years ago. The cost of fertilizer went up three times. Why must we constantly look backward in agricultural matters? Why does agriculture not take its rightful place alongside other industries? Why must farmers be considered second or third rate citizens?
I have already mentioned the matter of payment on a regional basis. We take acts of God into account, but we must also consider acts of the minister with regard to regional economies. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) covered that question fully when he mentioned LIFT. The producers' income could be manipulated by the minister. What is the Wheat Board going to do once it collects the information? These are questions that have not been answered. Will they make decisions regarding grain deliveries and shipments out of those areas on the basis of the information they collect? Will they report incomes to the revenue department?
Why is it that the social insurance number has to be recorded in all transactions? Must the farmer have a third copy to submit to the Wheat Board, or whoever is administering the program, in all transactions, such as transactions regarding seed grain being purchased by one farmer from another farmer? Is Big Brother to look into all transactions? Why is the social insurance number mentioned in the bill before us, and why are farmers suspect? What will the minister do with that type of information?
Why must a farmer who happens to be in the elevator when the commissioner comes have to remain there until the commissioner is through with him? He may be dropping in for a social call, but the farmer has to remain there until the commissioner is satisfied that he has all the information. If he decides to keep the farmer there for the rest of the day, the farmer must stay. These are some of
Western Grain Stabilization
the questions the bill raises. What is the need for that type of control and authority? What kind of police state are we creating?


Mr. Bechard:: Don't get mad.


An hon. Member:: Hold your hat.


Stanley James Korchinski: Why do we have to set the limit for delivery at $25,000? We all know that $25,000 might have been a fair amount of money at one time, but now it is not enough to meet expenses. Why was that limitation put on? What is so sacred about $25,000? Perhaps that figure appealed to the minister at a time when the cost of wheat was $1.50, but it is no longer that.
Another question is with regard to the exclusion of certain farmers. Why can we not include all farmers? How does the farmer receive his overpayment? If, for example, he had an income of almost $25,000, and then, after a crop failure everywhere, how does he recover his overpayment.
Consider the bureaucracy. The minister said we will not have inspectors. If that is so, then how will he know how much grain is produced, and how will he know about transactions between farmers? How will he know whether or not I fed my grain to my cattle?


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is not relevant.


Stanley James Korchinski: But the entire production can go into feeding cattle. How will the minister know I actually produced that amount, and yet I am entitled to the payment under the bill? How will he know that without having inspectors?


Some hon. Members:: Hold it.


An hon. Member:: You will get a heart attack.


Stanley James Korchinski: What plans are there to review the program after a few years? Why is it that we are making the same mistake we made with PFAA? Originally PFAA was set up on the basis of townships. Why must we go into large regions, and then find out several years later that farmers must come to government to beg them to amend the legislation, when we know that that is what they asked for a few years ago? Why must we make the same mistakes again in the hope that the farmers will come begging to the government to introduce amendments to the act? The government will then say to them, "Look what wonderful things we are doing for you."
Fortunately for the farmers the government changed the provisions under PFAA. The Conservative administration was in office at that time. Why is it we are starting on the wrong foot right from the beginning when we have waited for this legislation for a few years?
If the government is paying 4 per cent of the levy, why can we not put the 4 per cent into a crop insurance plan, for example, thus improving the plan so that it would benefit the farmers and so that everybody could operate his own scheme? There would be no need for policing other than we have now. Under the crop insurance scheme provincial governments have set up a system of inspection and they know how it operates. We could improve on that. We do not need another army checking into the operation.
29561 -456

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
I am afraid that this will bring about an army of inspectors, and that it will bring about an army of political inspectors. If the minister is setting up another Gardiner machine, I want to know why we need one. The farmers do not need one. Perhaps the minister does, but if we must levy 2 per cent to set up his political machine, we do not want it. These are the kinds of things about which farmers are asking.
I ask the minister what the total contribution from the federal treasury will be? In his speech he was only able to skim over a few figures. When farmers' levies for all the years are taken into account, when the years when farmers do not receive payment under this plan are taken into account, when it is considered that there will be years when payments will be lucrative for one area even though that area experiences a bumper crop, when income tax is deducted from these areas, much of that money will be coming back to the treasury.
We would like to know what the total federal involvement will be. What is the government pushing here? Is it coming through with a plan which will provide a larger income to the farmer, or is it suggesting that the total distribution of available funds will be really adequate? It may just be an imaginary figure the minister has dreamed up in the course of trying to sell this idea of stabilization. Are we going to be stabilized above poverty level? It appears that this will happen because we are not escalating incomes in accordance with the rate of inflation.
We ask whether this bill can be written in a less complex way. Lawyers have stood in this House, and one quoted certain sections of the bill. Anyone reading this bill would wonder what kind of formula is being drafted. If the Minister of Justice, with all the expertise he has in his department, cannot draft anything simpler than this, I wonder what chance any farmer will have to determine whether he is actually being overpaid. There is a clause in the bill which says that if a farmer is over paid, he should refund this money. How in the world is he supposed to figure out whether he is over paid? On the basis of this formula it would be pretty tough going. I am sure that if the minister's department cannot draft something simpler, we will have farmers involved in litigation. Lawyers in the courts will have a real field day trying to defend someone, but that is about the only benefit this bill might have.
The minister might also explain how this bill will affect, for example, the port of Churchill. If the government can manipulate grain according to the statistics it has, how will that area be affected? If we find certain economies, will we be trying to push for those developments in western Canada? Do we have to wait for the southern area, such as Assiniboia, Rosetown, Biggar, and other heavy growing areas for benefits? Perhaps we will have to wait for them to have a crop failure before we receive benefits. What is the advantage? What is the net result of this type of readjustment in the thinking of farmers as far as western development is concerned? How is the small community going to benefit where it has been manipulated in the past?
I already indicated, for example, where grain was shipped from Assiniboia to the port of Churchill, and not

grain coming from my area which is right next to the port of Churchill. Would that kind of manipulation stop? Why should we allow it to continue with this kind of bill? Can we not check some of these inadequacies in connection with transportation? How will it affect, for example, the plea to retain certain railways? If the minister cannot figure out what the cost of production is to determine the total cash flow, how are we going to present a case for retaining railways?
The minister admits that at the present time he is having a tough struggle. Some of these inquiries are being conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission. Will the CTC be able to give us some of these answers which up until now we have not received? What effect will a trucking system have on the total cost of production? There have been studies. There have been grain deliveries into Saskatoon for a unit train set up. If the minister does not have that information and he tells us that he needs another year or so to obtain it, we might be patient and wait for the answer before we proceed.
There are many questions in the minds of farmers, but they hear few explanations. They fear that the minister is imposing something on them and in such a way that it will not help small communities which are struggling and fast being written off. The minister could help if he so wanted. We should have these answers before we proceed. If there is a possibility of an answer, we should know that before we consider tampering with adjustments or amendments to clauses. I suggest that we need more information. If the minister has not obtained the information, the committee is prepared to travel to obtain some of the answers. After receiving those answers, or at least making an attempt, we will then be prepared to consider the bill clause by clause to see what advantages, if any, there are for western Canada.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the grain industry has been debated on more than one occasion in this session. The Standing Committee on Agriculture has also spent a good deal of time discussing grain and grain related questions, but the bill before us is by far the most important and significant single piece of legislation dealing with grain farmers and the western grain industry which has been put forward in a long time.
There is a considerable body of legislation dealing with various aspects of the grain industry. I can mention the two price wheat system which we dealt with earlier. There was a good deal of time spent in committee, and I think it is still before the House at some stage. The cash advance legislation and deferral of cash delivery tickets are examples of grain legislation. We have seen a number of other policy developments in the last several years, not all of which have required legislation. I am thinking of the implementation of the block shipping system and the extension of credit facilities to the Canadian Wheat Board in order to assist it in obtaining greater foreign sales around the world, which it has done.
I think of the government purchase of hopper cars, the establishment of the Canada Grains Council, the establishment of the grains administration group, and perhaps
May 5, 1975

the most recent move in this direction, the election of the producer board of the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. These have been good moves. They have been helpful and necessary, and the list is by no means complete. I could mention other situations that have been corrected and other policies that have been introduced.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), who just took his seat, was speaking about what is going to happen to the municipal roads if any of the branch lines are abandoned. I should like to ask my hon. friend if he remembers how things were a few years ago when grain was bootlegged in the real producing areas of Saskatchewan-Yorkton, Kindersley, up into his area and into Meadow Lake in northern Saskatchewan. More grain was unnecessarily moved by trucks because of an outdated quota system inherited from Conservative times, than was moved by rail.
When the hon. member talks about the possible damage to roads because of some possible rail line abandonment, I ask him to remember the bootlegging situation. I am sure he is well aware of it because it is one glaring example of the policies we inherited from his party when they were in government. Improvements such as the block shipping system and other innovative policies have come about under the present minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Hon. members opposite have been very critical of the minister in this debate. He has the job of tackling the problems and policies of the grain industry, and they seem to wonder why a Saskatchewan minister, and member of parliament from that province, should be given this responsibility which is vital to western Canada. Is that wrong? One would think so, listening to the critics in the official opposition and, to a lesser extent, in the New Democratic Party. I am not sure, and I am sure nobody else is, just what disturbs my hon. friends in the opposition, because there has not been any basic criticism of the minister's performance. We have not heard any factual criticism of his many achievements in regard to the problems of the grain industry. They often refer to the LIFT program, and there were some good and bad things about that program, but they do not mention the record movements of grain, record sales to China and other markets, and the record exports of barley.
They forget that in 1969 the total barley exports, including malting barley, were 22 million bushels, but three years later under this minister were over 200 million bushels. They forget these things when speaking of the minister's performance.
It may be that what opposition members are really critical of is the determination and capable manner in which this minister has gone about analysing and tackling the problems of the grain industry. His approach is new, and different to members opposite. They always have simplistic answers-the NDP says "set the guaranteed price" regardless of production or any other problems. As far as the Official Opposition is concerned, their approach is more flamboyant-give a $200 payment to everybody.
While I commend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), a former minister of agriculture, for what he has done for the western grain industry, we must remember that his one big effort was a
Western Grain Stabilization
large sale to China some years ago, which has been surpassed more than once by the present minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Western Canadians in general, and farmers in particular, have been impressed with the minister's (Mr. Lang) dedication, determination, and performance, and with the analytical manner in which he has sought solutions to the problems of the grain industry.
Western grain farmers, and I am sure this is true also of farmers in other branches of agriculture, are much better informed of the problems in their own industry than heretofore. This has been brought about by a concerted and positive effort by this government and this minister. I strongly believe that if government, or government agencies, can provide farmers with facts and figures, collectively and individually they will make their own decisions and do much better than governments or any other kind of advice of experts passed on to them. The program of getting information out to producers is part of a policy begun by the present minister.
The history of Bill C-41 was discussed earlier in this debate by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) and others, Mr. Speaker. Both the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski), and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), pointed out that there are other issues and concerns that directly involve the grain farmer, such as transportation, labour unrest- even the weather when moving grain through the mountains of western Canada. That is true, of course, but the aim of this bill is much deeper and is not concerned with the problem of boxcar shortage, rail line upgrading, labour disputes and so on. That is the income question, the good years and the bad years, the cycles which directly affect not only the grain growers but almost every other sector and every other group of people in western Canada.
The importance of these cycles and their tremendous effect on the western economy is a difficult thing for Canadians in other parts of the country to understand, I am sure. Not everybody appreciates the tremendous importance of the health and welfare of the grain industry, and the dependence of all other sectors of the economy on that industry.
Western provincial governments of all political stripes- and in the last 30 years in Saskatchewan there have only been two-have wrestled for years with the problems of rural depopulation. Parties of all political stripes have fought to stabilize growth of development, and many good and helpful programs have been developed to improve the living standards of people in smaller urban communities in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. There have been programs such as natural gas service to small communities across the prairies, water, sewer, and other services, but despite that we have seen the trend away from farms and small communities.
The people who remain have been helped, but the trend of grain producers forced off the farm by the ups and downs of their lives, has not been reversed. These policies have been joined by a federal program of aid to agricultural service centres which is putting $10 million into Saskatchewan alone, and a similar amount into the other two prairie provinces, but still this has not prevented the flow of population from prairie towns to larger centres either westward or eastward. It is not because these people want

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
to leave, but because they need a stable job on a year round basis. They have not been able to find that in large areas of western Canada. They are dependent on a steady, stable cash income from the grain grower. This bill is aimed at that basic problem, whether it be lack of world markets, lack of ability to penetrate those markets as it has been before, reduced market prices, or increased costs of operating the farms.
I agree with the hon. member for Mackenzie that Bill C-41 is complex and complicated. In this regard it differs in a major way from Bill C-50 which we discussed in this House not so very long ago. However, I suggest to hon. members that you cannot have it both ways. Members opposite criticized Bill C-50 because it was not specific enough. It did not spell out cost indexing, and so on and so forth. In this bill the minister is trying to enshrine all these various aspects of the policy into legislation and have them written into law, leaving very little to regulation. You cannot have it both ways.
I do not pretend to understand all of the formulae spelled out in the bill. It will require some good, solid committee work on behalf of members of all parties to go into the mechanism of the bill. In this debate, however, we are dealing with the principle of the bill. The principle is one of providing a form of income stability for grain producers and, as a result, for the other tradesmen, the other people in the prairie basin.
Net income stability is one of the features of this bill. It was not one of the features of a similar bill put forward a few years ago. That was a valid criticism at that time. The minister corrected that in consultation with dozens of farm organizations and farmer groups which met and had some input into this bill.
This is not a floor-price policy. It is not a 90 per cent of the best five years' index as was Bill C-50. It is a different principle. The bill establishes a fund for income stability. As I indicated earlier, income stability for the grain farmer is the first step in creating greater stability for the prairies.
What does the bill do? Very simply, it is a plan whereby a fund is established. The fund gets money from two sources. From the farmer it gets 2 per cent of gross sales up to $25,000. As far as the contribution from the farmer is concerned, this represents a maximum of $500. It will be matched by the government of Canada, the taxpayer and the treasury putting 4 per cent into the fund. The hon. member for Mackenzie said the $25,000 figure is too low. I do not know. At the moment I do not think it is. However, that is not the principle we are debating in this bill.
For every $3 put into the fund, $1 is put in by the farmers and $2 by the taxpayers and treasury of Canada. Who is going to get that $3, and how? It will be the farmer, and only the farmer, who will get any money out of that fund. That should be easily understood.
I cannot understand why any member opposite would want to defer for further study a bill containing this kind of deal for the western farmer. It cannot help but be a good plan in principle. The farmer receives a cheque from the fund if the total net income from grain drops below a five year average.

Farmers and farm groups have been consulted. They have been discussing this bill and the principle of it for the past four of five years. To defer it for another six months is sheer nonsense. It clearly demonstrates the lack of any kind of policy on the part of members opposite.
Members opposite do not say what should be done about this bill, only to put it off for six months. They have had five years to think about it. They went through the last election campaign in western Canada without any great plans or policies, other than fixing prices and wages, and that did not work. They have had a little time since then. They now ask for another six months so that some of the experts and the farm members from western Canada can think up a better policy. Having already had five years, I do not think another six months will do them any good.
Members opposite are very concerned about getting this bill into committee and then hitting the road for, I presume, public hearings all over the west. Anyone who looks at this bill can see that that would be a very premature kind of move. The first job of the committee is to spend some time with the officials in order to study the details of the bill. The committee can then consider where and when it should travel. The committee should meet with producer groups, as has been done with regard to other somewhat similar pieces of legislation. We do not need to travel around the prairies for weeks or months to do that. The committee has an obligation to ensure that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Palliser Grain growers, the wheat pools and other groups are brought here and informed of this legislation so that they in turn can explain it to their members.
The principle of this bill is designed to meet one of the great concerns of western farmers since homestead days. I do not pretend that it will solve all of the income problems in the grain industry. No fund or policy could do that. Crop insurance will still be essential. But it is going to be an integral part of the scheme. I am sure the bill will need to be improved.
I agree with one of the main criticisms of members opposite that we have to look a little harder and a little further for a better approach to varying regions in order to reflect the actual situation over the broad geographic area in a better way than that provided in the bill.
The official opposition want to stall this bill. That is the only suggestion they have made. I suggest the amendment is sheer nonsense. It is petty politics. It is sheer personal antagonism against the minister for the sake of small-time political gamesmanship. They want to stall instead of getting this legislation in place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The hon. member for Mackenzie said it will take a year or two to get some facts, figures and experience. How in the world are we going to get experience if we do not pass this legislation, get the program, and get the fund started? What will be gained by postponing it for six months? Absolutely nothing.
Improvements can be made to the legislation in committee. This can be done by having discussions with those groups directly affected. We can certainly improve the legislation by experience in the utilization of it. The first
May 5, 1975

thing to do is to get the bill through second reading, adopt it in principle, and get on with the study. Bill C-41 is a welcome, significant and historic piece of legislation not only for Western Canada but for the whole of Canada.


Stanley James Korchinski: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he realize we are not asking for a six months hoist; we are simply asking for a little time in which to get some information from the farmers themselves?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Does the hon. member not realize that he can get all that information as we study the bill in committee? We can hear all the experts we like there.


Stanley James Korchinski: Get the farmers involved!


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-41 seems to me to be a very complex way of getting at a simple problem, its goal being to protect the western grain farmers' income. What we are really after is price and market insurance.
Although I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, I sometimes wonder about his common sense. I feel the bill before us is lacking in what could be called an approach of common sense. That is why we in the Conservative Party feel its subject-matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture before we proceed with second reading. In that way we would be able to hear those who wish to make representations before the bill passes second reading.
The purpose of Bill C-41, the grain stabilization bill, is to provide for stabilization of the net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to protect the producer from the ups and downs of the prices, and the quantities that move into the international market. This is as opposed to a crop insurance plan, which looks after the vagaries of Mother Nature.
It is generally conceded that by confining ourselves to practical farming methods already used by good farmers in different parts of the world, we could feed something like ten times our present population, and on a Canadian style of diet. This can be done only if the profit incentive is there for farmers to take the risk inherent in agriculture and to increase their output and productivity. But this must not be limited by the actions of the government.
The first question on this bill, of course, is: do we really need this new scheme for grain at this time, or is there some alternative course that we should take? The concept may be valid, and it may be needed for products such as eggs and fruit. But the question is: will it be administrable for grain without creating a bureaucratic structure that could overwhelm us? It is not the concept of the grain stabilization plan that is complex and unattractive; it is the operational and administrative features that require understanding.
It would seem, on looking through the notes on the western grain stabilization working paper put out by the government, that the main selection of criteria used was the cheapest plan for a given level of stability, and a plan that is actuarially sound. This, of course, in no way argues
Western Grain Stabilization
that it is an optimum plan for either government or producers.
The key question becomes: what stability is really provided to commercial western grain producers, and at what cost? That is, what are the costs and benefits from such a program compared to alternatives?
From the latest figures I have looked at, we can expect that about one-half of the commercial grain sales in western Canada would be covered by the $25,000 gross sales limitation, and there is no evidence that farmers with sales of $25,000 or less are in greater need of grain stabilization as opposed to larger grain farmers. Again, if the plan is actuarially sound, why use the $25,000 limit?
The bill appears to take the narrow view that the government is giving out money benevolently to provide some stabilization, and the level of the gift is the key focus. There are, however, direct and indirect benefits that the government receives as well as the farmers. For example, if a stabilizing net cash flow payment occurs, there is likely to be a four to five times multiplier effect on the prairie economy, and assuming standard tax levels it would seem the federal government would get back anywhere from $1.25 to $1.75 for every dollar it pays out. There is also the question of whether federal financial authorities might attempt or be able to deduct such payments from federal transfer payments to the provinces.
The point is that the program is unlikely to have a net cost to government at all, and therefore, as I said before, why have the $25,000 gross sales limit? Larger farm spending could be expected to have similar multiplier effects, so the question is: is the middle-size farmer the appropriate structural objective for western grain stabilization?
There can be lots of questions raised about entry, reentry, and getting out later, who administers the program, who pays for the administrative cost. One might also ask about the three-year system of calculating individual payout, which seems to penalize those producers who are expanding compared with those who are stable or are reducing.
So we go back to the first question: do we need this scheme? Certainly it was needed 20 years ago. However, when we look to the future, there are some questions. What we need now is a list of priorities. I suggest that labour disputes, transportation, high taxation, high interest rates, must be right at the top.
I personally think the alternative to this plan would be a crop insurance program administered by each of the western provinces, and we have a good basis for that now. We need a plan to take into account regional differences in the Canadian Wheat Board area, such as climate and soil type. This bill deals with the prairie economy as a whole.
Another danger to a plan such as Bill C-41 is that it tends to shelter the farmer from the marketplace. It is another block between the producer and the realities of the marketplace. There should be some provision for reassessing this program after three or five years. We can ask if farm-to-farm sales are to be excluded. Certainly, eastern grain producers will wonder about this plan. Are they interested in this scheme? What about grain fed on the farm? Does this qualify? There is no question that the economists who dreamed up this scheme have been look-

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
ing back, and that it is based on the past 25 years. Surely we can reasonably expect the next 25 years to be better for agriculture, so I very much question the actuarial basis, especially when the two key areas are Mother Nature and people.
One thing this bill will do: it will be a real red herring to cool the whole transportation and grain situation for the government. It will keep the farmers busy all summer trying to figure it out.
I am not aware of any producer pressure for this scheme. As I said before, we seem to be overwhelmed with pressing problems in the grain industry. I would like to see some of these solved before we move into these unknown waters. They include grain transportation, rail line abandonment, improved facilities on the Pacific seaboard and at Churchill, protein payment, development of a soft white wheat, a Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board, a farm storage program, a government grain storage program, some tax relief, a registered retirement savings plan for farmers or ranchers, solutions to labour strife and industrial disputes, some effective chemical control for insects and wild oats, and general measures to prevent rural depopulation. When we consider the magnitude of past errors of judgment in the western grain industry there is room for lots of searching research here.
In closing I strongly recommend that the House support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Grenville Carleton (Mr. Baker), so that the committee may be able to travel and in order that western farmers themselves can supply input to this legislation.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking a second time on this bill as a consequence of the amendment. I hope the House will support the amendment; I appeal to members on the opposite side to do so.
I think most of us will agree that there is throughout the farm organizations, and certainly among farmers all across Canada, a desire to establish for themselves an income stabilization policy. Such a policy can be established in two or three ways.
One of the reasons why I am so interested in having the subject matter of the bill referred to committee is that I have little hope in the minister's response to suggestions to improve legislation of his in committee, regardless of what the evidence proves. There is little chance of acceptance of change by the minister.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) who has just taken his seat. I was pleased to note there was no rancor on his part regarding the minister and stabilization. I think the last time there was any agricultural stabilization he and his party members in western Canada felt the effects. If you remember, Mr. Speaker, at that time we were faced with a much more comprehensive bill than the one we have now; it was a $100 million carrot held out in Saskatchewan for election purposes.
The situation then was not much different from what it is now since an election will probably take place there this year. It was nice to have a bill just before the last election

there so that the election could be fought on better ground.
I agree that this bill is a better bill by a considerable margin than the previous bill, but I would suggest to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley that stabilization and the huge carrot held out last time were not to the advantage of his own party.
I was also surprised to hear the hon. member mention a matter that has not been referred to in the House for some time, and that is the bootlegging of grain. I was particularly surprised to hear him bring that subject up, knowing that he had been a cabinet minister in the Thatcher government at a time when most members of parliament here in Ottawa were of the opinion that the biggest bootlegger in Saskatchewan was Mr. Thatcher, the premier, who traded wheat for furniture and built up quite a bootlegging business. Not that there is anything wrong with bootlegging, Mr. Speaker, but it is a page in our history that we look back to and hope that it will remain in the past. As I say, I was surprised to hear the hon. member raise the subject, particularly in view of the connection it must have had with some of the people with whom he was fairly close.
The last time the stabilization bill came before the House no consultation was held with farm organizations and farmers. A number of economists and officials in the various departments concerned with the marketing of grain drafted a program in which a number of programs already in effect were eliminated. Most of them had been unsuccessful, with the possible exception of PFAA, which still has a fund of $9 million which is to be put to use under the terms of this bill. But with that one exception, none of these other carrots ever produced any advantage for the farmers.
It should also be pointed out that not only was an election fought and the stabilization act lost, but some court cases followed in which it was charged that in order to make his point the minister was doing things which were dishonest and illegal. It was amusing to see the minister recommending an illegality to accomplish a political end, yet this was the decision of the court, and at that time stabilization was dead.
At that time other matters were mentioned, one of which was cost of production indexing. The minister gave no consideration to that at all because it did not fit in with the nice, neat little bill that he had drafted. It might have interfered in some way with the structure that had been established. If the subject of this bill is referred to committee, it would be my expectation and hope that we would hear from farm organizations, those connected with the trade, and others. The subject matter of the bill does not only concern the farmers: as someone has mentioned, it also concerns the grain exchange, those brokers who travel across the world to sell our cereal products, those who are concerned with the tariff structure and the relationship between our exports and imports, as well as a very large segment of the Canadian economy, since wheat and cereal grains play such an important role in the export capacity of this nation. The effects of the bill spread far beyond those who just produce the grain.
If the subject matter of the bill is referred to committee we would be able to listen to the input of those who come before us. This would be before the bill was finally draft-
May 5, 1975

ed, and before the minister's position had become so inflexible that he could not possibly change anything in the bill without losing face. If there is one thing this minister does not like, it is to lose face by changing something.
The backbenchers in the Liberal party who are from farming districts know that this bill can be improved. It is not the only answer to stabilization. They know there are other factors that the farmers will put before the committee for consideration, and which have not yet been discussed. As the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has already done, farm organizations will probably give an indication that there are two forms of assistance that can be provided to give income stability, only one of which is outlined in the present bill.
I suggest that the whole country is going to be affected by this piece of legislation, not only this year but for many years to come. Unless we are to believe that the cabinet has all of the knowledge, that the farmers have none, that the farm organizations have none, and yes that, even individual members of parliament have none, then I would strongly urge the Liberal party, and its members particularly from western Canada, to vote against sending the subject matter of the bill to committee-in other words, to vote against the amendment. In the standing committee they will obviously be able to use their majority and will eventually get their way; it only becomes a matter of time. If that is what they wish, then obviously they should be opposed to sending the subject matter to a committee.
If they believe that such things as the stabilization of income for cereal producers in Canada, and its relationship to export and domestic sales of wheat and other cereals, with the effect this will have on production of livestock in western Canada and on any attempt to diversify production away from cereal grains in given areas of western Canada, are not important, then obviously they will vote against the amendment and will not send the subject matter of the bill to committee. However, if they feel this is a long-term proposition that is worth looking into, then I would strongly urge them to send the subject matter to committee.
I suggest that we are discussing a bill that is highly technical. We must first decide what type of stabilization we want. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) said that no one else had set out an alternative. That is true. It would take considerable effort to do so. I give the minister full credit for having made that effort. Certainly the effort that has gone into the development of this piece of legislation has been considerable. This is probably a technically correct bill. The question I raise is whether it is correct as far as the agricultural community in western Canada is concerned, and that is what we would be discussing if we discussed the subject matter instead of the bill.
The Federation of Agriculture put out a paper on farm income protection. Its convention passed a fairly simple resolution which states in part;
Whereas provincial farm income protection plans are emerging as an approach to farm income stabilization and protection
Western Grain Stabilization
Be it resolved that the C.F.A. endorses the concept, and establishes the principle that the farmers of Canada must occupy a position in Canadian society that generally provides to farmers, net income and conditions of work at least equal to those conditions and incomes in society as a whole in terms of return to investment, managerial ability, hours of work and conditions of employment; and
Be it further resolved that the C.F.A. work to achieve national commodity income protection plans with a minimum of adjustment being required; and
Be it further resolved that any plan or plans meet at least the following policy.
To provide a price guarantee for farmers during periods of unfavourable market conditions based on cost of production.
The federation went on to set forth a number of methods. Having seen the legislation which is put forth, the federation outlined a number of alternatives to what is presented in this bill. What is being presented in this bill is really subsidization with the co-operation of the farmers and the government. When the prices fall and remain down over a period of time, the government makes a contribution.
Of course there are other types of protection. Most of the provinces, including British Columbia and Quebec, are looking very closely at another type which involves the cost of production, a reasonable wage for the entrepreneur and labour costs, all of which things would be reflected in the price in the marketplace.
British Columbia is operating this type of a program on the basis of allowing the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture to establish prices for commodities, which involves a detailed look at what they call model farm units. This is done through a negotiating agreement committee which makes a study in depth when establishing the cost of production. That is the way the province of British Columbia is handling income stabilization. This allows a great deal of flexibility and an orderly increase in the production of specific commodities as the ability to sell the commodity increases.
That federation is not in favour of establishing production quotas or controls which will regulate the degree of participation by individual farmers, or will place limitations on production. Personally I would like to go a step further in deciding how much of a product can be sold, and at what price. We should also calculate the cost of production.
When I hear people talk about stabilization and the danger of over-production I am reminded of what happens when you get a very good or a very low price for a commodity. I am reminded of earlier days working in a mine when we had a change from a 10-hour day to an 8-hour day. Many of the employees were asked, and agreed to work an extra two hours a day in order to get the extra money they needed. They felt the way to get this extra money was to work an extra couple of hours. They had done it before, so they wondered why they should not go back to the 10-hour day.
We did not let them work the 10 hours a day. We had established that an 8-hour day was sufficient. We decided that just because they could not earn the money they needed by working an 8-hour day there was no point in working the extra two hours. We felt it was much better to bring the pay up so the 8-hour day would produce a decent

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
income for those people. I think labour in general has taken that attitude.
We have been using a number of federal programs to stabilize agricultural products. I think anyone who is remotely connected with agriculture will agree that one of the bright spots in the history of agriculture was the stabilization of dairy products. This was not accomplished without difficulty. Some small dairy farmers have gone out of business. Cream production is non-existent in many parts of the country. In the main, dairy production has been stabilized and the prices have kept relatively level.
I suggest that if this industry had not been regulated and there had not been a willingness to put the right amount of money into the program at the right time, we might have been faced with one of two things. We would either have over-produced and had lower prices, or overproduced and had to buy the excess commodity with government funds, as we have always done in the past. This was not necessary because we were judicial in deciding on what the optimum prices should be. The government must be given full credit for having done this. This was done on a national basis, but it has not been an easy proposition. I think all those connected with the dairy industry will agree that it was only successful because all the farmers agreed to participate in the program.
You will find in Ontario, I am sure, that the majority of farmers will agree that industrial milk prices have been advantageously raised to a level that has not destroyed the fluid milk industry. In fact it has supplemented the fluid milk industry by making it possible for that industry to obtain a large source of supply. At the same time it has enabled the industry to provide good products to the consumers at reasonable prices.
If this stabilization bill is to be successful we will require the participation of all producers of the commodities involved. Unless we have that input to a program that is acceptable, it will not work. I am surprised to hear members in this House, particularly those on the government side, suggest that this program is not too good, that it is flexible and allows room for change, and that it will be changed shortly. I suggest that we should start off with an optimum amount of input from the farmers.
We should not look only to the bright little boys in government departments who may have a very good plan, but one which is totally unrealistic to the farmers who do the producing. While it sounds complicated to me I am sure those people who use a slide rule or calculator do not find the calculations difficult. However, the fact is that the farmer must know how it is done so that he will know whether or not he is satisfied. Any information I have is that the farmers have not been consulted at all. The last occasion was in 1971 and at that time they were very strongly opposed to it, even with the carrot of $100 million. Facsimiles of the cheques were sent out telling them how much they would receive. They still turned it down.
I think it is wrong for us to talk about the concept of agricultural stabilization in the cereal field at this time without having the full input of the farming community. We have not had a major farm conference for some time. I think we had one about ten years ago. At that time the
[Mr. Peters.)
farmers came down here and set forth a number of proposals which the government has been attempting to implement ever since, even though many of them are out of date.
It seems to me that if we do not have this kind of input from the farmers who are directly concerned, we will not have a stabilization plan that will be acceptable. Surely as members of parliament that is what we wish. If one looks around the various departments of the government one will see many whizz-kids of 22 or 25 years of age who are just recently out of university. There are many of these very bright young people in government departments. They are very competent in their fields, but they have one great disability. They lack experience. One cannot hold that against them because they will gain experience as they become older.
Most of us who are members of parliament have some limited experience, and should be in a position to adopt a program which we believe is the ultimate. Surely we want the best plan to stabilize income for agriculture. We are quickly running out of farmers. It has been mentioned that the average age of a farmer is well over 50.
Recently I witnessed a sad event. It involved a farm that was started up by a chap who came to the country when it was opened up. The son of this original farmer, who is now on in years and who has farmed for many years, has two sons of his own. The farm is a good operation. It has all the necessary livestock, implements, and necessities for farming. But this farmer sold the farm because the two sons took a look at it and said that they could get more money by working in a machine shop or in other employment off the farm. They said they would have every Saturday and Sunday off, and a number of paid holidays. They said that in this way they could take a few days off without being hurt too badly financially, and without allowing the cows to suffer. So we do not get young people on the farms.
This farm was sold to a buyer from Toronto who intends to hold it strictly for speculation purposes. He has offered to rent it to another farmer for the next year or two because he does not anticipate selling it again in that period. He has also bought eight or ten other farms.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I have been listening very carefully to the hon. member and fail to see the link with Bill C-41. Perhaps the hon. member would speak on Bill C-41 now.


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, I am shocked at your lack of knowledge on the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Arnold Peters: We are really are not discussing the bill. We are discussing an amendment to send the whole problem of farm income stabilization to the committee without the bill, so that the subject may be discussed and representations heard in order to decide whether or not this is the kind of bill we should be implementing in respect of stabilization. I was indicating that the need for farm stabilization is obvious in view of the lack of income in the farming community today, which has resulted in very few young people going into agriculture.
May 5, 1975

The age of the average farmer now is increasing well beyond the half century in years, and unless we get additional farmers we will have serious difficulty not only in this particular field but in all fields directly related to agricultural production. I am sure the minister's advisers would agree that this bill is only one form of stabilization. The minister, of course, will argue that it is the ideal one for this purpose. The purpose of the amendment, however, is to have the subject matter, which is really grain income stabilization, sent to committee so that we may ascertain whether or not this is the proper route or whether another route might be suggested.
I have indicated I am doubtful that the minister will agree we should look at other forms of income stabilization, but I suggest we have already in the past looked at two, three, or four types of income stabilization in the agricultural field. The other stabilization bill involves a totally different method, and I am sure there are also others.
I have not spoken at all of the method that was used in the other stabilization bill. One form of that of course is deficiency payments, where the marketplace is allowed to play the full role and at the end of the year you calculate on your political basis, or your cost of production basis, or however you wish, the need of the producer in respect of that particular commodity to have a certain amount of money, and if the price of that commodity in the open market is not sufficiently high a deficiency payment is made almost always on a subsidization basis without any regard to premium paid by the producer. There are also other methods.
On a number of occasions we have used named commodities and have agreed that a commodity would be pegged at a level that would be a percentage of the actual cost of production and what would be necessary to keep the producer in business. In those instances we have made an offer of a percentage of the cost of production of the commodity, and have said that any amount they wish to produce we would buy. This has been done on a number of occasions, and in fact the largest expenditure in agriculture has always been in stabilization under the Agricultural Stabilization Act.
On numerous occasions we have obtained large quantities of surplus products which we had to dispose of eventually, often at a considerable loss to the nation. In all those cases, when the cost of production increases rapidly, to raise prices to the same level becomes futile because the input in production is usually considerably higher than the increase in the cost of the product. This is one of the major problems that we have to face, and we must face this problem in almost any type of stabilization program that we put into effect.
If this bill were in effect today and prices started to drop, the payment we would be making would be very high, but the income level would be dropping and we would be paying a premium on that loss to the farmer at the same time that his input cost for the production of the commodity was going up rapidly.
It is normal, when prices are low and income is based on a five year or any other average, that when prices start to
Western Grain Stabilization
increase farmers continue to have yet higher input costs. So that when the price of the product is low, input prices continue to go up and are never below the five year average. The farmer will be paying premiums, but he will not get any benefits because the market price may be going up gradually.
It seems to me that there are a number of ways in which the problem of stabilization can be solved. This is a very important subject, probably the most important subject that agriculture has ever faced. Farmers do not have the advantage of the strike weapon, they cannot withhold their product from the market. Also, it is impossible to organize a boycott among farmers. I remember one time when, in an effort to get a better price for fluid milk, producers organized a meeting at which they discussed what they needed to do to stay in business. I suggested to them that the way to go about it would be to dump their milk, thus creating a shortage on the market. Immediately the farmers asked, who will pay for the milk?
When a labourer goes on strike, he knows who will pay for it-he will. But when the farmer was asked to withhold his product-


Mr. Horner:: The farmer had already milked the cows.


William Arnold Peters: That is true. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has made a very good point. His labour had gone into it, but in the other case, the guy just hung around. However, whether or not a man has worked, he has put in his eight hours, so their losses were somewhat the same.
It seems to me that that is not the way in which prices can be maintained by Canadian farmers, that withholding their products is not the right way. I am sure every member of the House is well aware of the fact that if farmers adopted that method, there would be a shortage of food in all parts of Canada and we would all suffer.
Farmers should have no complaints about the actions of Canadians in general with regard to them because the Canadian population has been willing to support agriculture, and on many occasions to stabilize farmers' incomes. They have done so gladly and without reluctance. In return, farmers have had to pay a very severe price, namely, a loss in their income.
In bringing forward this legislation the minister has put forth a method by which grain production can be stabilized. It is true that it has many variables and that large sectors of producers in western Canada might find themselves making no deliveries and no sales. Yet, under this bill, if the other areas receive a good price for their commodity, a price which meets the criteria established in the bill, then no pay-out takes place anywhere. It is possible that if grain production is good in Assiniboia, in the Palliser triangle, and in other extremely productive wheat producing areas where number 1 wheat is the rule rather than the exception, the remaining three quarters of the prairie region which on many occasions produce substandard grain whether it be because of frost, hail, or grasshoppers, will get nothing for their product.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.

May 5, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization


William Arnold Peters: I suggest that probably the hon. member is right because no farmer will agree to a bill under which the whole prairie region would be taken as one area. I am sure that every farm organization that comes before us will agree with the minister from Assiniboia that it cannot be that way, and that the regions must be divided into districts which would be about the size of the PFAA districts, and that they would number 15: one in western Ontario, one in the Peace River country, one in British Columbia, and the remainder in the major producing areas.
I suggest that that is not in the bill and it is an obvious deficiency to anyone who looks at the bill. I am sure that the young whiz kids who drafted this bill were more interested in the form than they were in facts.
This reminds me of a meeting which I attended-and this is not on the subject before us. A number of bright young people from Toronto came to a small community numbering 500 people and presented a plan for which the Ontario government paid $40,000. It brought many benefits to the community, but the plan would have suited better the new city of Pickering. It was done by excellent planners and it would have developed any city of approximately 100,000 people. The program was totally unrelated to that small community. Similarly, I suggest that much of the bill before us is totally unrelated to the reality which is well known to the farmers. I sincerely hope-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in the debate on Bill C-41. I was not in the House when the minister introduced the bill, but I did have the opportunity to read his speech. I hope he did not strain his arm as he patted himself on the back for the programs and planning he claims he has developed or is developing to put grain farmers on the road to prosperity.
Bill C-41 is entitled: "An act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain ...". The history of grain production in the west is one of instability in the thirties and the early forties, caused by drought and grasshoppers. These were acts of God. There was really no means by which the producer could control those hazards. Since then, while there have been dry periods and hoppers, there have been new developments in the field of farm machinery, there are new farming practices, new chemicals to control weeds and hoppers, and these have enabled the farmer to increase his grain production so much that the annual average yield per acre has increased over the long term average by as much as 10 or 15 bushels per acre in some areas.
In the last 10 or 15 years we have been producing a substantial amount of grain every year, with the exception of the year we had the LIFT program. Basically, production is not really the problem in the west. Our problems are primarily man made. They are problems of inadequate or poorly planned transportation systems, labour disputes, strikes both with the railway company on the west coast 
and amongst the longshoremen, and a lack of salesmanship. If we can solve these problems that will take most of the instability out of grain production in the west. We must solve these problems.
The lack of an international wheat agreement has and will continue to lead to instability. Many parts of the world are faced with starvation. Surely as a producer of cereal crops it is Canada's responsibility to help feed the starving world. I am not suggesting that we give this grain away, but I am wondering what we as Canadians have done to work out an international wheat agreement with other producing countries of the world. What are we doing to make satisfactory financial arrangements with some of the underdeveloped countries in order to help them in their plight?
As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, the bill before us is complicated. I sometimes wonder who drafts the legislation which is presented. When I started practising law some 20 years ago one could pick up the statutes of Canada, or the statutes of any of the provinces, and any layman could read those statutes and understand them.


An hon. Member:: You've got to be kidding.


Douglas Charles Neil: This is a fact, if you will go back that far.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Did you ever read the Succession Duty Act?


Douglas Charles Neil: Yes. It is fairly simple compared to the legislation before us. Every piece of legislation I have seen come into this House since 1972 has been complicated. The only legislation I have seen in the last three years which a layman could understand is the Corporations Act. Someone with some sense drafted that legislation.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton read clause 6 of the bill. That clause is simple compared to clauses 9 to 11 inclusive. When I first saw the bill I did a careful study of it, and I did relatively well in understanding what it meant until I reached clauses 9 to 11. I sat down with a pencil and paper, as did many of my colleagues, in an attempt to try to understand what those clauses meant, and it seems to me that unless one has a computer or has studied higher mathematics, it is an impossibility to understand what it is all about.
Perhaps the minister has access to a computer or to someone who has studied higher mathematics. He did give some examples in his speech in the House. He spoke about benefits if the plan had started in 1965 and carried on until 1975. He spoke of the amount of benefits a producer would receive for the period 1968 to 1971. Presumably he was working on the basis that the producer had contributed the maximum for the years 1966, 1967 and 1968. But what would the payment be to the farmer if we started in 1975 and the net cash flow for each of the next three years was below the five year average? This is something hon. members should know, and something members of farm organizations and individual farmers should know so that they can study the bill and understand it.
There has been the suggestion by hon. members on this side of the House that the stabilization bill should be tied into the Crop Insurance Act. The minister has said that this is impossible. I believe that it is possible and that it
May 5, 1975

can easily be done. It needs some study, perhaps, but I sincerely believe that the matter of combining the stabilization bill with the Crop Insurance Act should be seriously considered.
The bill as it stands covers the whole of the Canadian Wheat Board area. I can visualize many areas over the years where no payment will be made under this legislation where there will be crop failures, perhaps due to isolated areas of drought, hoppers, Bertha Army Worms and other problems, but the Wheat Board area as a whole will have an income which will prevent payment out to these areas.
It will be like the PFAA program when for many years it worked on the block system. There were many instances where farmers with good crops received benefits because the average of the area they were in was low. There were neighbours across the fence who had no crops year after year, but they were in an area where the average was high, and they received no payment. I know, because I lived on a farm which was on the wrong side of the fence.
I submit that the administrative machinery is in place under the Crop Insurance Act to administer a program such as this. The minister has not told us what it will cost to administer this legislation. Will there be a duplication of inspectors? Will the inspectors under the Crop Insurance Act come to the farm one day, and will the inspectors under the stabilization program come to the farm the next day to measure the same bin and perhaps arrive at a different figure? I see the minister smiling.


Daniel Aiken Lang: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Charles Neil: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I wonder whether the hon. member can tell me how he develops the fear that any bin measuring is required at all. As I read the bill, everything depends upon the sales of grain. Some of his colleagues may have spoken about on-farm transfers, which were in fact not put into the bill because of the administration which would be involved. There is no necessity for the bins at all. I would like the hon. member to point out where there is any such necessity.


Douglas Charles Neil: In response to the minister, Madam Speaker, I would point out that the bill calls for a year end inventory, and it would seem to me that an inventory would require the measurement of the grain on the farm.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Where is the inventory?


Douglas Charles Neil: I would assume the inventory is in the farmer's bins.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Nonsense.


Douglas Charles Neil: Where is it?


Daniel Aiken Lang: It is not in the bill.


Douglas Charles Neil: Unless the bill has been changed since it was first presented or since I last read it-in any event,
Western Grain Stabilization
Madam Speaker, I do not have the time now to read the bill through, but I will be happy to dig out the particular section and send a note across to the minister later.
I wonder if the minister is afraid to combine this stabilization plan with the crop insurance program. Is he concerned that, because the crop insurance is administered provincially and the stabilization plan will be administered federally, the provinces will get the credit?
Stabilization of income for the western grain farmer is important and essential. It is important that the program be effective and not one that just tosses out a few dollars to the farmer, particularly at election time. I think that the bill should be referred to committee for study and that the minister and officials of his department should appear and give open and frank answers to questions raised by the committee. That information should be fed back to farm organizations and individual farmers. There must be thoughtful study in order that the plan may be workable if it is adopted.
It must be a plan that is as free as possible of red tape, and it must give real stability. It must also be a plan that the producer wants, and that he is satisfied with. It must not be forced upon the producer in the west, because he is an independent person who wants to make his own decisions and not be dictated to by anyone. He is suspicious of government and suspicious of bureaucrats-and who can blame him?
A producer in my riding handed me a news report from the Western Producer of April 10 when I was home last week, which reads as follows:
Wheat Board Commissioner R.M. Esdale announced April 4 that all quotas on durum and the top three grades of red spring wheat will be open until May 16, when they will terminate.
Mr. Esdale said the quota changes are necessary to ensure that remaining on-farm supplies of high-grade wheat are delivered into the elevator system between now and mid-May, to meet immediate export requirements at both east and west coast positions.
"With the recent resumption in export shipments out of the west coast and Thunder Bay, every effort must be made to compensate for the delays we have experienced over the past few months," the commissioner said. "This means that the grain needed to fulfil sales commitments must be moved forward as quickly as possible."
The producer told me that he had the grain, and would like to deliver despite the fact that he was in the process of getting his machinery and his farm ready to seed. But the roads have a ban on them, Madam Speaker. The provincial government will not permit the trucks to travel on the highways, so he cannot deliver. He asks, "Am I to be cut off at May 16 and not allowed to deliver any more grain?" The western grain producer does not take kindly to threats, Madam Speaker. He was threatened by the minister under the LIFT program and told, "Cut back on your grain production or you will have a cutback on your quota." In this case it is, "Deliver by May 16 or you will be cut off-you cannot deliver any more grain this crop year".
The western grain producer is a smart businessman. If left alone and not threatened, not given bad advice, he can operate a good and efficient business. He, and he alone, can tell this government and this minister what kind of stabilization program he needs and what type of program will be efficient. Let us give him a chance to have an input.

May 5, 1975
Adjournment Debate
We are asking that this bill be not now read a second time but be referred back to the committee in order that the individual producer and the farm organizations can have an input. The committee should travel. There is no point in a committee meeting only in Ottawa and, only organizations appearing before it; there must be the individual input as well.
I would therefore ask, Madam Speaker, that members on both sides of the House support the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the amendment now before the House-


An hon. Member:: It is a filibuster.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: When the hon. member speaks of filibuster it seems that Liberal members of this House of Commons are so eager to get legislation passed that they forget the purpose of parliament. Parliament is to represent the democracy we still have in Canada.
The amendment which is proposed commends itself to all members of this House. When one studies the track record of this piece of legislation-and I say this to the new members who were not here in 1971-one realizes that the farmers were actually saved money in 1971 by parliament not passing the bill that was then before the House. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is a great mathematician, so if I am wrong in that statement I am sure he will rise tomorrow and prove it. But I know he cannot, Madam Speaker.
In 1971 the House of Commons saved money for the farmer by not passing a piece of legislation similar to that which is before us now. If the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board had brought in operation LIFT as legislation instead of by order in council and regulations, members who were here at that time could have saved the farmers' money by opposing and defeating that legislation. The minister did not have the farmers' point of view when he brought in that earlier legislation.
May I call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, if we have learned anything in the past year, especially from conferences conducted by the United Nations on the subjects of energy, population, food and the Law of the Sea, it is that all of these problems are not

diminished but are interlocked and required an interlocking solution.
It is no longer enough for us to consider unilateral solutions to problems which cross national frontiers and are global in character. We need a comprehensive policy by the countries known as the developed countries, in which we bring together reforms of our trade and international monetary arrangements, our foreign aid programs- all of these things must come together. I think this is one of the things we have learned.
It is not enough for us just to consider CIDA, important as that agency is, and which the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence is now considering. Certainly CIDA needs to be investigated and there are things which the committee needs to highlight, but it is wrong to think that only an examination of CIDA is enough to repair the damage done to the poor nations or the world.
Today I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), who has just returned after acting in his capacity as chairman of the International Monetary Fund. I asked him about the situation concerning the recovery of the industrialized nations, the rich nations of the west, from the excessive prices that we have had to pay as a result of the quadrupled oil costs of the past year or 18 months, because the International Monetary Fund reported that the industrialized nations have been able in this very short space of time to come back. We have recovered.
The minister responded to me that the situation with the poor countries of the third world is still desperate. It is as it was before. That illustrates my point. Despite all the CIDA aid and other aid of the developed countries to the developing countries, that aid was wiped out because of the escalation of energy costs which has resulted in those countries being unable to buy sufficient fertilizer. It has led directly to famine situations in Africa, India, Bangladesh and other countries of Asia. In short, what do we have?
I wish to quote from a brief presented to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence from the Canadian Council for International Cooperation. I
quote:
No real solution of the food problem can be found unless fundamental social reforms are initiated that will allow the weak nations to share with the powerful in political power and the control of resources. In some way, CIDA could become the government indicator showing the way toward a new international economic order. Along the same line, non-governmental organizations are convinced that they can contribute new thinking. But, to this end, it would be necessary to cut the ties of dependency of the poor on the rich, and recognize that external aid can no more be considered the primary element of Canadian policy toward the third world.
That is where we are now. That is why I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back in March if he would support the suggestion of a permanent sub-committee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to consider international development because of the need for a long-range comprehensive policy that gets us beyond just foreign aid. The Prime Minister said at that time he would welcome suggestions and input from all members of the House. When I put the same question to
May 5, 1975

the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) in committee, he said he would not oppose it.
Because of the special session on development which the United Nations will hold in September when these problems will come into their proper focus, and this is something for which Canada is now preparing a special policy stand, the time has come for the members of this House to share in the development of a Canadian policy that will reflect a comprehensive way in which the Canadian government can take a leadership role internationally to do that which will go beyond what we have done this far.
I believe the members of that committee are ready to move in this direction. I believe that would be the most constructive way in which we could help to reduce the dependency of the poor countries on the rich countries.
There must be new structures worked out for social reform. It is not enough just to have an interdepartmental committee on economic relations with developing countries. That is quite a mouthful. It is a committee of officials from the various government departments who are meeting to draw up this comprehensive policy about which I am speaking. It is not enough just to have officials from the various departments concerned with Canada's new role internationally, about which the Prime Minister is speaking at the Commonwealth Conference and about which the Secretary of State for External Affairs is speaking.
There are members on the external affairs committee who want to share in the development of the Canadian policy. We can do the same kind of job that was done when there was the special committee on international development at the time of the total foreign policy review in 1970. Many things have changed throughout the world in the short space of five years. We now see the hopelessness of single actions by countries which are not responding to the full approach of the United Nations' desire for a comprehensive policy. This is the way Canada can move ahead.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Breau) to the question from the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) concerning co-operation between the developed countries and the developing countries of the third world. This is certainly a very appropriate time for such a matter to be raised having regard to the role and activity of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the Commonwealth Conference now going on in the Caribbean.
The concern of the government to ensure that developing countries are able to derive greater benefits from their participation in international trade, investment and finance was indicated very well in the Speech from the Throne where it was stated that Canada's contribution would involve us not only in increasing the flow of financial assistance through developing countries but also in re-examining other policies which affect our economic relations with the third world. The Prime Minister reiterated this concern in London.
Adjournment Debate
The interdepartmental committee on economic relations with developing countries was established by ministers at the suggestion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to carry out the re-examination of those other policies which affect our economic relations with developing countries. The policies in question fall in the areas of tariffs and trade, investment, the provision of appropriate technology, and financial and monetary policy. They may also touch on questions of transport, energy, resources and agricultural development. The committee is pursuing a continuing review of these policies from the perspective of the bearing they have on Canada's over all relationship with developing countries.
A number of international meetings in the future, at which issues of importance to the developing countries will be discussed, will afford Canada the opportunity to consult with both developing and developed countries with a view to taking appropriate action to respond to the needs and aspirations of developing countries.


MANPOWER-OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PROPOSED CONTROL OF GRANTS ON A CONSTITUENCY BASIS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I rise tonight to follow up a question I put to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) on March 24 concerning the Opportunities for Youth program. My question was:
Given the fact that the consideration and granting of OFY grants through the use of management area advisory groups is suffering from a lack of information, advice, control, and any indication of managerial competence on the part of his department, is the minister giving consideration to allotment and control of OFY grants on a local constituency basis where the advisory group would at least have some knowledge of the project being considered?
At this point the record reads:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
I might say that the hon. members who applauded my question were mainly Liberal backbenchers. The minister replied-I will excerpt parts of what he said:
We do not have the sound statistical base in such detail as to be usable for OFY allocations at the constituency level.... From that stems the problem of having to make allocations in a broader geographical area, such as labour management areas where the consultation process takes place. Also, it was a choice between giving hon. members the opportunity to name people with whom we would consult or arbitrarily, as in the past, have the people with whom to consult in the community selected by the departmental staff.
This is an attempt to excuse a shocking method of dispensing public public funds. I am reminded of the days when Jimmy Walker of New York City was caught the same way. His reply then was: "There comes a time in politics when a man must rise above principle." This seems to me to be what the minister was attempting to do.
Last fall or winter I received a direction from the minister to select two members for this advisory committee from among my constituents, and I did so. Another direction was that one member should be under 25 years of age, and I was fortunate to be able to select two very competent people. This administrative area group comprised five constituencies. We expected there would be ten delegates or members of the committee. I found out, somewhat

May 5, 1975
Adjournment Debate
to my surprise, that there were the two from my constituency, one from Esquimalt-Saanich, none from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, none from Comox-Alberni, and none from Coast-Chilcotin. So this group was filled in by the Department of Manpower which appointed delegates that it knew, and the members it appointed were largely those people who had had OFY projects the previous year.
The pair that I sent to the committee meetings came back to me somewhat horrified after the first or second meeting and said that fantastic things were going on. There was, to them, this large amount of money, and to me it is a large amount of money, some $750,000, and they had not been given any advance notice or copies of the project summary sheets. Consequently, on the night of the first meeting they were handed hundreds of these sheets and were expected to start getting ready to make decisions regarding disbursements of taxpayers' money on this basis.
I could see no way out of it at that time so I encouraged these two people to continue going to the meetings, and they did so. But the difficulty was compounded by the enormous distances involved. For example, one constituency, that of Coast-Chilcotin, is on the mainland of B.C., and I suppose the closest point from my constituency is 80 to 100 miles away. Yet my representatives were expected to vote on projects submitted from Coast-Chilcotin without their knowing the people involved. In fact, they were fortunate if they knew the people involved in projects submitted from Victoria.
Let me point out that the summary sheets which they received, some of which I have, were models of brevity, certainly not models of any method known to mankind for giving information to other people. I have one in front of me. The name of the applicant does not matter, but this is the entire project description: "The objective of this project is to create a film on the concept of dance improvisation as an art form". I am told that there were five participants, the total work weeks involved amounted to 48, and the salaries to $5,280. With this scarcity of information the people on the OFY committee were expected to allocate funds. It is expected of the people who were appointed to these committees that they would give final advice on this kind of project.
It may be a great thing politically for the Liberal party to be able to disburse vast sums of money. But they need fall guys, and that is where we MP's come in, to take responsibility for the bad decisions. I suggested at one time that we should say we do not want any of this money so we can save the money of the taxpayers, but that just would not happen; the other four constituencies would get that many more projects. So our hands are tied. We cannot save the taxpayers' money, and we have to go along with this idiotic way of disbursing funds.
There may well be some good OFY projects; indeed I am sure there are. I have nothing against the basic concept of trying to get young people into the work force. They have a lot of good ideas, but how on earth are we expected to judge the good from the bad on the information provided? I have a booklet that lists the previous year's projects, but once again there is no information about whether any given project was any good or whether it was in fact

accomplished. All we know is that the money was paid out. The book contains hundreds of projects. For example, this is the one for Ganges:
Ganges-Salt Spring Youth Activity Centre (4X 1339) To provide a recreational and education experience for children on Salt Spring Island: $9,523; Jobs-12; Linda Stafford, Rainbow Road, 537-2937
The people on the committee could not tell whether that project was ever carried out, whether it was considered a good, bad, or indifferent project.
If the OFY is to go on, Madam Speaker, and to get the support of the community which the projects may well deserve, then we must have some kind of management procedures that will bear some resemblance to reality.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to reply to the hon. member. I should like to explain first of all why the management area advisory group system was introduced under this year's OFY program.
It had not been in existence before and was created as an offshoot really of the constituency advisory group instituted under the Local Initiatives Program. This type of consultation had been very successful, and it was thought that some sort of system like that would be appropriate under the OFY program. We needed to have community input and we needed to set up priorities, and we needed somebody who knew the local situation.
With regard to the comment of the hon. member that there were people on these advisory groups who had no knowledge of certain areas in which they were asked to make decisions, that of course was true. Then, of course, members of parliament are really in that same boat. An hon. member for British Columbia quite often has to make decisions in this parliament with regard to the Atlantic area, Quebec, or other areas of Canada with which he may not be totally familiar. In that sense I suppose democracy is a system which has faults, but is still the best system we have devised so far.
There may be refinements of the management advisory group, but this was an effort at least to involve local people in the decision making process. While it might not have been absolutely perfect, I believe it did have some sucess. It certainly did in my area, and the people I recommended to my own advisory groups I believe were quite satisfied that they were able to achieve what they set out to achieve.
Since the OFY program is aimed at a very special segment of the population it was deemed necessary to set up these advisory groups on the basis of management areas. As the minister said initially, we did not have the statistics available at the constituency offices to set up advisory groups in the same way we did with LIP.
Under the management advisory group system, representation can be made by people selected by the member of parliament and, of course, I should point out that an MP still gets the chance to make his own personal representations to the minister. If there should be somebody on the advisory group who does not know parts of the constituency, the MP having a knowledge of the whole constituency can make his representations to the minister on a very sound basis with very sound knowledge.
May 5, 1975

As the management area advisory group system is an experimental process, and because the program by its nature must operate within very restrictive time frames, some administration problems were to be expected. However, I would think that-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired.


POST OFFICE-ALLEGED LACK OF AUTHORITY FOR SALE OF NON-POSTAL ITEMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I am at a bit of a loss to know whether I should commence my argument when there does not seem to be anybody on the other side to reply, although I received a note a few minutes ago from the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) indicating that he might answer. If the Chair wishes I will proceed.
On Friday last I asked the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) a question concerning an operation of the Post Office, and I should like to read it into the record. It is: Since the Auditor General has again criticized the Post Office for selling non-postal items to the public without parliamentary authority, a practice which continues today, will the minister tell the House why this program was entered into without proper authorization and why suitable accounts had not been established to determine whether or not the program was profitable?
The minister replied on that day:
-a better authority on the subject is the deputy minister, who has appeared before the miscellaneous estimates committee to explain precisely the reasons for this. I assume the minutes are available. If I am wrong, I will find out for the hon. gentleman and report back on Monday.
At the time I was unable to ask a supplementary question which would have been in these terms: Why have steps not been taken to obtain the approval of this House for the program with which the Post Office is proceeding?
To give the House a little background I would point out that the Auditor General in his 1972 report first mentioned this problem. He referred to the marketing branch of the Post Office which had set up this program. The Auditor General said it involved the creation of 177 new positions, and was established in March 1971. He further stated that in addition to the sale of philatelic and other postal items the branch embarked upon a program of sales to the public of a number of miscellaneous items such as coin sets, commemorative spoons, and so on. He also observed that there are no established policies governing sales, inventories, or other facets of the activity.
Furthermore, he said whether or not the program was profitable in 1971-72 could not be determined as suitable accounts were not established for the activity, and over-all operating statements have not been prepared. The Auditor General suggested that the Deputy Postmaster General seek the opinion of the Department of Justice, and concluded his remarks by saying the department had included proposals for legislative action for the 1973 session by additional provisions in section 5 of the Act.
Adjournment Debate
A comment in terminology similar to that of the 1973 Auditor General's report appeared again in the 1974 report as follows:
We questioned whether this fell within the powers of the Postmaster General.
Then the report continued:
... it could not be determined whether the program was profitable since suitable accounts had not been established and over all operating statements had not been prepared.
It concluded:
A suitable financial reporting system to determine profitability by product has not yet been established ...
Three years in a row this situation has continued. The Deputy Minister appeared before the Public Accounts Committee and, although section 5 of the act gives wide powers to the Post Office but does not give the power to sell at retail non-postal items, the Deputy Minister suggested the section did give that power. There is no way a layman could interpret it in that manner.
Furthermore the minister said that a better authority is the Deputy Minister. Surely someone might argue that there is no better authority than the minister himself. The Deputy Minister told the Public Accounts Committee that he was afraid he could not answer on behalf of the Postmaster General. Now we have a minister telling the House that the best authority is the Deputy Minister, and the deputy minister is telling the committee that he cannot answer for the Postmaster General.
I should like to refer to the minutes of that committee for a moment. This meeting was held last Tuesday, April 29. The deputy minister admitted that their legislation did not cover the powers they were using, and said that they would in fact prepare legislation to be more specific concerning what this might mean. He went on to say that it is their intention to introduce a bill as soon as they can, and added that unfortunately he could not dictate government priority. Finally after persistent questioning he said it has not reached the House because it never reached bill stage.
He said the motive was profit. They wanted to reduce the deficit of the post office, in other words, produce a little profit. He actually said, "to increase the revenue which actually reduces the deficit". Well, now, it is obvious if one wants to produce a profit and determine whether or not one is producing a profit, one needs to provide the proper accounts. The Auditor General observed at the committee just last week that the Post Office was not authorized to do this anyway, and they agree with that. He continued by saying that there is no way to determine whether or not a loss is being incurred, but if a loss is being incurred he said he thinks it is fair to say this is an unauthorized drain on the public purse. The Public Accounts Committee in its fifth report stated:
... a government department should not initiate or take any action that is not authorized by Parliament even though it contemplates that Parliament may eventually take action to provide that authority. It considers that the actions of government departments must be limited at all times to the legislative authority existing at the time the action is taken.
If there were any doubts that the Post Office was continuing to carry on with this unauthorized practice, let me read from the most recent list of products the Post Office

May 5, 1975
Adjournment Debate
is offering for sale, and it includes mint sets dated 1975. In addition to that, there are some strange things called-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Bill Rompkey: Madam
Speaker, I am happy to reply to the hon. member on behalf of the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) with regard to the selling of retail items through the Post Office. He has asked why the Post Office entered into these transactions. In 1970-71 when the Post Office embarked on a program of offering for sale certain items through some postal outlets, it did so in the belief that it had the authority under section 5 of the Post Office Act. I should like to read from that section which states:
5(1) Subject to this Act, the Postmaster General shall administer, superintend and manage the Canada Post Office, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing may-
(c) Establish and operate a system ... and such other services and
systems as he deems necessary or advisable for the efficient operation of the Canada Post Office.
Subsequently the Post Office encountered a difference of opinion with the Auditor General who took the approach that unless the Post Office had specific authority for these sales, it was in fact limited to the activities mentioned elsewhere in section 5.
In the interest of clarification, the Post Office proposed to introduce legislation which would set out specific authority for the sale of what it termed "postal related items". The nature of this legislation would be similar to that included in Bill C-196, an act respecting the 1976 summer Olympic games recently approved by parliament. This legislative amendment, however, was not regarded as a priority item by the government and has not yet been tabled for parliamentary consideration.
Since the Auditor General has registered his concern, the Canada Post Office has restricted its retail operations to convenience postal items related to its philatelic service, or encouraging better packaging, or supporting other government operations.
The government, in tabling proposals for legislative consideration, has devoted attention to matters that were regarded as having greater priority.
With regard to the adequate accounting system let me say that a system of accounting was not introduced which would reflect a full allocation of costs to these convenience items. The department considered that sales of these products would not result in an increase in overhead costs. Consequently the pricing on these convenience items during the initial period was limited to the direct or out of pocket costs plus a mark-up representing a contribution to overhead. The department has since taken steps to introduce an improved form of reporting.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, May 6, 1975