1975-03-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh, eighth and ninth reports of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Poulin.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Pearsall.

[Stage Direction]
Seventh and eighth reports of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul).

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization-Mr. Sharp.
[Editor's Note: For Text of the above Reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning which I gave Your Honour notice earlier this morning. It pertains to the incapacity of members of the House to obtain information from ministers of the Crown on matters which were properly their responsibility when they were ministers of different departments on previous occasions. On Tuesday of this week Your Honour ruled concerning a question put to the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion on a matter for which he was responsible when minister of transport. Your Honour ruled it was not proper for a minister to provide answers to questions which pertained to his previous responsibilities.
In light of Your Honour's ruling, and in light of further revelations concerning criminal proceedings which have arisen as a result of alleged illegal activities of the Hamilton Harbour Commission, there is very real concern by members on all sides of the House, and the public, with regard to obtaining from the former solicitor general his view of the proceedings alleged to have taken place in the summer of 1972.
A councillor of the city of Hamilton stated that the former solicitor general was given documentary evidence, on the basis of which he should have initiated certain proceedings. It is alleged he did not do so for many months. If Your Honour finds there is a prima facie case of privilege with regard to former ministers providing information which is of concern to members of the House, and for the purpose of clearing the record for their own benefit, I would like to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that the minister in question will have the opportunity to appear before that committee and clarify the situation.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question of principle. I believe it is in accordance with the traditions of the House and its usages that ministers are cross-examined on their departmental responsibilities. While I recognize that it is a very difficult problem, I feel that unless we adhere to this principle parliament will not be able to fulfil its function as it should.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I admit this is a very difficult problem which has been posed to Your Honour. You must consider a number of factors. For example, the public accounts committee deals with matters which go into the past. If a rule of that kind were adhered to, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the kind of information the committee wished if ministers in charge of departments at the time the items complained of were in the government's responsibility were no longer there.
I refer Your Honour to Standing Order 39. I think we have to commence discussion on the rules with regard to written questions, because the rules for oral questions spring from the rules for written questions. I quote from Standing Order 39:
Questions may be placed on the order paper seeking information from ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs-
I emphasize the words "public affairs": it is not "public affairs limited to the responsibility of the minister of the department concerned". I suggest that when we address questions to ministers of the Crown, we are questioning the ministry as a whole. One minister, because he occupies a certain portfolio, might have specific knowledge of a particular subject matter, but I suggest to Your Honour that until the discussion the other day I doubt whether

Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
there had been a hard and fast ruling on that point; and, of course, the question period itself has been developing over a period of time into its present form.
I submit to Your Honour and to members on the government side that it would be monstrous to permit a minister who had been in charge of a portfolio and who subsequently had been removed from that position to say that because his responsibilities had been changed he could not be questioned as to events which happened during the time he occupied the previous position. Of course, the questions must be related to public affairs, and what we were trying to discuss in the House and in committee are surely public affairs of the greatest magnitude.
It is all very well for one minister to say he will inform himself from another minister; this does not have the same effect as subjecting the minister directly concerned to public scrutiny by way of questions from the opposition or, for that matter, from the government side. If it all has to be done by hearsay, one minister might hide behind the interpretation placed upon a situation by another minister and a great deal of the value of the question period would be lost. I ask Your Honour to consider this matter seriously because your ruling could have an impact on the value of the question period.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I heard your ruling the other day with some astonishment. Certainly, it has never been my impression that a minister could not be questioned about a matter over which he had exercised responsibility. The ruling that a minister could not be questioned about matters for which at one time he was responsible, but for which he is no longer responsible, means that in order to wipe the record clean of anything which may have transpired, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can simply ask the members of the cabinet to play musical chairs by stepping over one pace to the right; the whole record would be wiped clean, or at least questioning would be prevented. I do not think this was ever the intention of our rules.
Ministers who have been responsible for certain matters ought to be open for questioning about those matters. The situation is analogous to that of a privy councillor; there is a shared and continuing responsibility even for actions taken when a member occupied a portfolio which later was relinquished for another. I respectfully submit that Your Honour might wish to reconsider the effect of your decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will hear other hon. members- there are several who wish to contribute to the discussion-and I shall certainly give the matter very careful consideration and reserve my decision. There has, however, been comment that some hon. members were caught by surprise or somewhat astonished by my recent decision that ex-ministers ought not to be questioned. Before the discussion proceeds, I think I should refer hon. members who want to participate in the discussion to citation 171 (11) of Beauchesne, found at the top of page 149, which provides that questions ought not to "seek from an ex-minister information with regard to transactions during his term of office". That is as clear and explicit as

it can possibly be, and I have a little difficulty understanding why hon. members are astonished by that.
Furthermore, at page 323 of May's eighteenth edition, under the heading "Questions to unofficial members", under paragraph (u) the following appears:
-and a question to an ex-minister with regard to transactions during his term of office has been ruled out of order.
I put that on the record only to indicate that there is a very clear and explicit foundation that I think would direct us into a situation where questions could be put, on a broader interpretation, to privy councillors who sit on the opposition side of the House in regard to responsibilities that they had at one time when they were in the ministry, and I would have some difficulty with that.
In any case, I want to put the foundation for my decision on the record. What I am troubled about is not so much the very clear citation that relates to use of the question period and the specific responsibilities of ministers during the question period, but I take it that the point raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) relates to a much broader context, namely, that there is difficulty, not so much on the question period but in getting information from ministers in other ways before the standing committees; then it would seem to me that any member can be called before a standing committee and asked questions about matters on which he may be able to contribute information that would be of some value in the study of any matter put before the standing committee. If there is some difficulty there, this is a point that I should like to review further, but I did want to put that on the record before hearing other members.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, about the question of privilege, may I say first of all that I understand very well the concern of hon. members who want to know the whole truth and it is also my concern that all the facts be disclosed.
My attention was drawn to statements reported in the press and allegedly made by Mr. Campbell who I understand is a Hamilton city councillor. I would like to assure the House of two things: first, I have never met Mr. Campbell; second, I have never seen a letter that Mr. Campbell is supposed to have sent me. This being said, I have asked for an immediate inquiry on all allegations contained in Mr. Campbell's statements and for a report as soon as possible, not later than Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rising on the same question of privilege?


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In light of what the minister has said, I wonder whether he is speaking for the government. If so, is the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) now prepared to agree to the kind of investigation for which we have been asking? Obviously the minister wants one, and we want one.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not aware that we had slid into the question period that fast. The hon. member for Northumb-

erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) on the same question of privilege.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: This is strictly on the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I can well imagine and appreciate the concern of the ex-solicitor general, the present minister, in this matter. I am trying to be as helpful as I can, sir. If I may put forward this point of order, I will do so.
The minister has indicated he would like to get this matter cleaned up as soon as possible. Perhaps I could make this simple suggestion. Last night an attempt was made to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs call the minister so that his side of the story could be presented. That committee is still a valid committee of this House and the members who were there last night are here today. I would ask if the House leader would agree to a request by the chairman of that committee to meet, say at 12 noon today, in order that the committee could hear the minister and have this matter cleaned up as soon as possible. In this way, his position could be presented to us, to the House and, of course, to the public as a whole.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the question of privilege raised by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Initially, I should like to point out that my friend was very careful not to question the ruling Your Honour made the other day. I may feel, as my leader does, restricted by the nature of that ruling; but I have to say that it seems to be supported by citations in Beauchesne's fourth edition, not only the one to which you referred but also citation 178 which states:
Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament, or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible.
The point of the question of privilege is that under the rules as they are, and in light of the precedents, we are stuck with this difficulty of not being able to question a minister concerning a responsibility that is no longer his because he has been moved to some other department. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pointed out, this could pose a real difficulty. If, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) comes back on Monday, he were to move the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) to some other post, then we could not question him on what has been going on, and so on.
It is because of this that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby would like to see this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections on the basis of a motion under a question of privilege so that in the committee there could be a discussion of how we can cope with this matter. I realize that many questions of privilege do not meet the definition under the rules, but I think the privileges of members of parliament are affected, in the sense that they are trying to get information to which they are entitled but are frustrated by a situation over which at the moment they seem to have no control. I think, therefore, Your Honour's ruling should be that this
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In the meantime, we have had the statement of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and the suggestion of the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). I would urge Your Honour not to try to give a ruling today, but to hold this matter in abeyance for a day or two until we see whether ways are found or offered of getting this information. If that is the case, nothing further may need to be done about it. If we are still being frustrated in respect of legitimate right that should obtain for members, then I think Your Honour should find in favour of the proposal made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
I submit that the issue is a terribly important one. No one is suggesting, even by questions, any guilt; but when questions are raised about the conduct of members of parliament or members of the government we owe it to the people of this country to have the matters clarified. We also owe it to the ministers whose names have been mentioned to have the matters clarified. I think, therefore, that the matter is of such importance the Minister of Supply and Services should take the opportunity of pursuing his suggestion of a few moments ago. If that does not meet our needs, then after consideration I submit Your Honour should rule in favour of the question of privilege.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with specific reference to the matter raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), last night there was discussion with regard to what witnesses should be called by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and it was suggested that the steering committee should meet at the earliest possible time to determine what business would take place. I do not think it is proper to suggest that the committee should meet at two o'clock today, in the absence of discussions concerning what witnesses we wish to hear and what evidence could be obtained. I and other members are willing to meet at the earliest possible moment to discuss future business of the committee.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for a few moments on the very important principle of whether or not members of this House have a right to require or invite a former minister to appear before the appropriate committee which is dealing with a matter which came under his jurisdiction at some former time when he was a minister of the Crown.
In 1964, when I was not a member of this House, the question arose in the public accounts committee about whether or not there had been impropriety in the letting of a contract to operate the restaurant and bar at the Montreal airport. I had been minister in charge of the department at that time. The public accounts committee decided that, as the minister who six years before had been in charge of the department, I should be asked to appear before the committee to answer questions put to me by the members of the committee.

March 14, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
The chairman of the committee at that time, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), contacted me in Montreal and asked me to appear before the committee. I immediately accepted the invitation and came to Ottawa, where I was subjected to very searching questions for a very considerable time before the committee. I might say I was able to demonstrate clearly that there had been no impropriety-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: -as you would expect, Mr. Speaker. This, I believe, demonstrates the need and the right of members of this House to be able to ask, and in fact demand, the attendance of former ministers before the appropriate committee and to subject them to questions put by members of the committee, and in that way to maintain the integrity of our whole parliamentary system. I urge that that principle be followed when you consider this matter, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, there is one point I should like to make to Your Honour before you consider this matter. Last night I moved a motion in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to have the former solicitor general, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), called as a witness as a result of a question asked of his successor the present minister. That motion was ruled out of order by the chairman of the committee.
Your Honour has already read the citations with regard to questions asked in the House of ministers in respect of their previous administrative responsibilities, but if we are to be further restricted in standing committees during the examination of the estimates, then we would be denied any opportunity whatsoever to call ministers and question them regarding any of their administrative responsibilities past or present. Therefore, I would ask Your Honour to consider this matter very carefully and review the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of last night and, more particularly, the ruling of the chairman of that committee.
Finally, may I say that the whole matter could be resolved quickly if the government House leader would stand in his place and have this whole matter referred to a committee, as we have been endeavouring to have done for the past few days.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to say a few words. My first words might surprise Your Honour. With respect, I think that the question of privilege of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is almost out of order in the sense that it is in a vacuum or is hypothetical. Four or five days ago I asked a question about which, obviously, we had all had notice. At that time, because we were in the midst of the question period, I did not really debate the point at issue with Your Honour, although I was interested in the ruling which certainly changed the form of my question.
I think there are two points which have not been mentioned yet. We are discussing this matter in theory, really,

because obviously there are times during the question period when this very point might arise and I would have thought, with respect to all my colleagues, that that would have been the time to debate the point, when Your Honour had before you the actual situation of a question being asked and could see just what the question was trying to get at.
Your Honour said that some of the rules in Beauchesne show quite clearly that the practice is that one cannot ask ministers of previous administrations about past transactions in their departments. There is no question about that so far as I am concerned. However, what is different here-and, again, it depends upon anticipation of questions and I think we know what the questions may be-is that this is not a question about a departmental transaction in terms of policy of the Department of the Solicitor General and why, for example, there was rehabilitation for prisoners under the former minister and not under the new minister. In that way, obviously we would pollute the whole parliamentary process more than it is polluted today.
This matter goes to something not in a departmental way. First, if we had the facts before us in the question period-undoubtedly the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), from the general statement he made, knew that he might be involved in these questions-it would be evident that they did not involve the Solicitor General in terms of how he administered a certain policy of his department with respect to which now, four, five or three years later we are trying to ask questions retroactively.
The minister is a member of the Privy Council and a member of this cabinet and this government. That is a little more relevant than the case of a minister who is no longer around, or the case of an opposition privy councillor who is no longer in the administration. So, first, it is a relevant situation because he is a member of a government. Second, and most important, it is not a question of departmental transactions but a question of credibility, where the minister involved is in the cabinet and is a member of the Privy Council. Surely that must be relevant and it separates this matter, I suggest, from the precedent cited where questions concerned past departmental transactions.
The third matter which really points out why the issue is credibility is that in the evidence given to the committee last night, quite properly the Solicitor General said he had talked to his predecessor who told him certain things. That is hearsay. Since last night many of us have heard a direct contradiction of the hearsay evidence given by the Solicitor General about his predecessor. Obviously, the best way to clear up any conflict in respect of this evidence is to hear direct evidence from the former solicitor general, or direct evidence by the man who is contradicted-in this case, Mr. Campbell.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: There are charges.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh, forget the charges. The fact is that at the moment there is no charge against anyone, but there is a real conflict of evidence given before a committee and involving the ministry. Mr. Speaker, the matter is important. Because the hon. member is still a member of the administration, and because the contradiction occurs with
March 14, 1975

respect to the administration, I think the matter should receive not only the serious consideration which Your Honour will give it, but a very important and different interpretation from the one Your Honour first gave to the House.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: As a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who participated in the debate last night, I rise to say just a few words because I feel the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) may have, unwittingly I am sure, given Your Honour an erroneous impression of what transpired at the meeting last night and of the chairman's ruling. The chairman's ruling was with regard only to the supplementary estimates for 1974-75 with which we were dealing last night. These supplementary estimates have to be taken strictly. It was discussed, argued and decided that they should be taken strictly and that the committee should not be given the scope to hear witnesses in this kind of inquiry. But the Chairman, in his ruling, specifically left open the question of what might happen when the main estimates were considered. I might add that the government members on the committee who spoke, such as myself, also indicated an open mind on the subject.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I just wanted to make a couple of brief points on this matter which has already been discussed so fully. My first point is with reference to citations, which Your Honour has quoted on two occasions, in which the word "ex-minister" is used. It seems to me that it is possible to interpret that word a little more broadly than one might suspect. Ex-minister may not necessarily mean a minister who was formerly responsible for a department and is now responsible for another department. He is still in fact a minister, not an ex-minister. Ex-minister may mean someone who is no longer a minister at all.
The second point I want to make is that the practice in this area has not been as clear cut as some people might suggest. May I say with the greatest respect to you, Sir, that I have before me a copy of Hansard containing a question and answer which you have allowed concerning a matter which had been the responsibility of a minister at an earlier time. I should like to refer you to page 2879 of Hansard for February 4, at which time a question was put to the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) concerning an event which occurred while he was minister of national health and welfare.
I will read the question and answer, which deal with arsenic pollution in Yellowknife. The following is the question put to the Minister of Labour:
Having been the minister responsible for health at the time this report was initially produced and tabled, could he explain why the health study was not initiated at that time?
The question was allowed, and the minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall at the moment, but I could check into it with my colleague.
This is an example, it seems to me, of this procedure being allowed.
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


An hon. Member:: The minister did not answer the question, he said he would check with his colleague.


Paul Yewchuk: The fact is that the question was allowed and an answer was provided. So, it seems to me that the practice in the past is not as clear cut as one might think in the first instance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As indicated earlier, this is a matter which I think deserves the most careful consideration. I think there are a number of areas that are quite clear. I take it that the citations in Beauchesne make it quite clear where the responsibility lies during the question period itself. There are both precedents for prohibitions or disallowance of questions put to ministers about their former responsibilities and admonitions that questions should be directed to ministers about their current responsibilities. I think that fact remains strong and clear.
However, I feel in addition that the chair does not have the power ever to prevent a minister from answering a question which he wishes to answer. It is one thing to suggest that, if a minister raises an objection on technical grounds to answering the question, the question must be examined to see whether the technical grounds are correct. However, if a question is put and the minister wishes to answer it, I am sure it would be improper for the chair to try to stop him from doing so.
In addition, suggestions have been made that the chair review the procedures of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Whatever the dimensions of the problem may be, it is also abundantly clear that the chair does not sit on appeals to procedures in standing committees. These committees are masters of their own procedures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I should say that the corollary of the committees being masters of their own procedures is that the committees have very wide powers, provided they are in agreement to take a certain step. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), once the committee agreed to invite him, there was no problem with his being there. There may be difficulty with the committee coming to such an agreement, but in that case it is not a matter with which the chair should concern itself.
In the final analysis, I again see the question of privilege of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) as touching not simply the narrow question about the question period, but also the wider question as to whether hon. members' privileges are restricted because they are stopped, not only by the rules in the question period but by other procedures, from having access to information which they feel they have a right to obtain. That is the wider question which I propose to review and upon which I shall reserve my decision, not only in the hope that the arguments provided will throw some light on the question but also because possibly, with the passage of two or three days, there may be some agreement among members of the House to try to resolve this question on their own volition.

Oral Questions


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity in view of what I think should be the desire of us all to permit a member of the cabinet to clear his name, to clear the air and to present information so that further derogatory statements and innuendos will not be circulating at least this weekend in our public press. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be instructed to convene immediately, and no later than 12.30 p.m. this day, to hear the testimony of a member of the ministry, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Goyer), pertaining to his knowledge of the so called Hamilton Harbour matter and in particular the allegation that has been made that the hon. member had documents and information presented to him in September, 1972, by a member of the City of Hamilton council, namely, one James Campbell.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion which is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 cannot be presented or debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in light of the very proper request made by the Minister of Supply and Services-and I say this quite sincerely-for an investigation into the matters which we have been discussing, whether the Acting Prime Minister will take immediate steps to set about establishing a forum in which this investigation can take place and the terms of reference of that forum.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to have misunderstood what the Minister of Supply and Services was saying. He said that he was having an inquiry made in his department as to the circumstances surrounding the presentation by Mr. Campbell of a letter to him. That is quite different, of course, from the sort of suggestion that has been made by the hon. member. I can assure the hon. member that so far as this government is concerned, we have absolutely nothing to hide.


George Harris Hees: You said it with a straight face, Mitch.


DREDGING CONTRACTS AT HAMILTON-WILLINGNESS OF MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES TO APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE OR ANSWER QUESTIONS IN HOUSE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, following the distinction made by Your Honour in your ruling a little while ago, I should like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether he is in fact anxious to have an investigation by the committee of this House, and is he prepared to appear before that committee? In addition, following the suggestion of Mr. Speaker, is he prepared and willing voluntarily to answer questions in the House on the matter?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, of course I am prepared to submit to any practice accepted by this House. I do not intend to escape in any way. I have too much respect for this House and for hon. members to try to use regulations which could hide the truth. There is no such practice in this House. I think you took your decision and I readily submit to it.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General with respect to Mr. James Campbell who apparently had, as he states or was alleged to state, delivered material to the former solicitor general in mid-September, 1972. Will the present Solicitor General now ask the RCMP to interview Mr. James Campbell, a city of Hamilton controller, to ascertain whether he gave information to the former solicitor general, Jean Goyer, in mid-September, 1972 regarding dredging irregularities or abnormalities related to Hamilton harbour activities?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated last night I will ask and I have asked as a matter of fact, people in my department and the RCMP to check into that. This has been confirmed by the former solicitor general who has said that he also will look into this and report to the House as soon as possible.


INVESTIGATION OF DREDGING CONTRACTS AT HAMILTON-SUGGESTED INTERVIEW WITH MR. CAMERON, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary. It was reported in the Hamilton Spectator on September 13, 1972 that a Mr. John Cameron, administrative assistant to Mr. Goyer, indicated that his department had in fact received information from Mr. Campbell. According to the newspaper article Mr. Cameron said:
March 14, 1975

We did receive a communication from Mr. Campbell but it was decided that if there was to be any federal government involvement it would have to be with the Department of Transport.
In view of this alleged statement, would the Solicitor General undertake to see to it that his department, through the RCMP, contact Mr. Cameron in order to determine just what occurred mid-September, 1972 with respect to these documents?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have already contacted Mr. Cameron and asked him to provide us with all details necessary.


INVESTIGATION OF DREDGING CONTRACTS AT HAMILTON-SUGGESTED INTERVIEW WITH FORMER MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that it was reported in the same issue of the Hamilton Spectator that the said documents were subsequently delivered to the then minister of transport who at the present time is Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, would the Solicitor General undertake to contact his brother minister in order to ascertain whether those alleged reports are true and report back to the House?


William Warren Allmand: I have already done that, Mr. Speaker. I must say that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion had already left for Newfoundland to attend an important meeting with fisheries people but he will be back on Monday.


POSSIBLE INVESTIGATION OF COMPANIES CONNECTED WITH DREDGING COMPANIES BEING INVESTIGATED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster asked the minister if the RCMP or other appropriate agencies within his department were involved in an investigation of contracts with companies with which the 14 individuals recently charged on other matters are involved; that is to say, companies that have contracts with the government for operations other than dredging. The minister said he would check into that and report back to the House. I wonder if he can now tell the House what the situation is?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did ask for information on that question. A lot of information was given to me as I came into the House. So much has been given to me at the last minute that I will have to check my documents to see if I have the answer to that question. I apologize but so much has been put before me in the last few hours that I have not had time to read it all. I will try to get back with an answer in the next few hours.


PROPOSED INVESTIGATION OF DREDGING CONTRACTS BACK TO 1963-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an answer to that question. Evidence has been provided in the reports of the auditors general
Oral Questions
from 1963 until just a couple of years ago which documented a very substantial overrun in dredging contracts in each of a series of years. These are overruns between cost estimates and what was finally paid on dredging contracts. I refer the minister specifically to two years. In 1966, in four contracts there was an overrun of $629,000 and in 1967, in seven contracts, there was an overrun of $472,000, making a total in excess of $1 million paid over the original cost estimates. In view of these very significant discrepancies between estimates and what was actually paid for dredging operations, would the minister assure the House that these and other contracts for dredging operations going back to 1963 will be investigated by his department?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the RCMP if the items referred to in the auditors general reports were the subject of their investigation and if not, I will ask them to look into it.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to get absolute clarification of the last point. The minister is saying to the House that if they have not investigated those contracts he will take steps to ensure such investigations take place?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will ask if they have already looked at those items in the auditor general's reports as part of their inquiry to date. If they have not I will ask them to look at those particular items in the auditor general's reports and follow them up.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the minister tell us whether he asked or intends to ask the Minister of Public Works to make more adequate facilities available for civil servants and clerks of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Rouyn.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take note of the hon. member's concern. I am not presently familiar with the situation, but I will look into it and advise the hon. member what action might by taken.


TRANSPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplementary to the previous question put to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the

March 14, 1975
Oral Questions
conflicting statements made by the minister and his successor as Solicitor General, the present minister, before the committee last night and in the House today, and in view of the statements reported to be made to the press by the minister's administrative assistant, Mr. John Cameron, which would indicate that the Solicitor General either misled the committee last night or the Minister of Supply and Services misled the Solicitor General, would the Minister of Supply and Services now rise in his place in this House on a question of privilege and set the record straight?


An hon. Member:: Maybe McGrath is wrong!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the question tends to divert the attention of the House from the real subject. In my opinion, there is no contradiction between what the Solicitor General said yesterday in committee and what I said today. To be more specific, I shall say to the hon. member that I spoke from memory and according to the personal records I have.
When I left the Department of the Solicitor General, I respected absolutely a rule that has always existed in all previous governments, namely that the records belonging to a department must remain within that department, particularly the Department of the Solicitor General. Give me time to consult these files, to which I still have access because of a tradition long established by all previous governments and ministers, and I shall certainly be able to answer your questions. I can say clearly today that I never met Mr. Campbell and that I never read the letter he supposedly sent to me.


James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary. May I ask the minister if he can now tell the House if his administrative assistant, Mr. John Cameron, made a statement to the press to the effect that:
We did receive a communication from Mr. Campbell but it was decided that if there was to be any federal government involvement it would have to be with the Department of Transport.
Did his administrative assistant make that statement and if so, is the minister now prepared-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


James Aloysius McGrath: -to revise the answer?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. From the hon. member's question I am not sure whether he is asking the Minister of Supply and Services about an action by his administrative assistant or-


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Nonetheless, not a departmental person.


James Aloysius McGrath: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question has to do with the present administrative assistant of the Minister of Supply and Services, the same gentleman
	,
whom I understand was acting in that capacity when the minister was Solicitor General. I think it is a very important question and I think the minister owes the House an explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is still not clear to the Chair whether the hon. member is asking a question about actions which took place under the minister's past responsibilities, or his present responsibilities. If it has to do with actions which took place under his present responsibilities, I think it is in order.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any statement made to anybody. I based my reply on the circumstances I know, that is all.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I appreciate that in the debate on the point of procedure the hon. member said something about the steering committee meeting to define the future course of conduct of the justice and legal affairs committee. In view of the questions which have arisen today could the hon. member as chairman on that committee, even before the steering committee meets, get in touch with all necessary people, perhaps including the present Solicitor General, to make sure that we can consider at the next meeting of the steering committee, which hopefully will take place early next week, the presence before the committee of the present Minister of Supply and Services and also the gentleman known as James Campbell who has been featured prominently in connection with certain matters, so that certain questions and conflicts can be clarified as soon as possible.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Annapolis Valley for giving me the first opportunity to answer a question in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: As the hon. member knows, and as Mr. Speaker just said, the procedure of the committee will be decided by the committee, which is master of its own proceedings. As I indicated to the hon. member last night, I and members of the committee would be prepared to meet with the steering committee at an early date. Really, I am only waiting for them to tell me when we can meet, so that we can set the business of the committee.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, following that admonition, may I ask a supplementary question. I tried to get in touch
March 14, 1975

with the hon. member this morning, as I think his secretary will confirm-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will you be quiet for a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You know, my Grade 6 teacher said-


An hon. Member:: Your mother?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, no, my Grade 6 teacher.


Mr. Speaker:: That remark is too far afield, not on the grounds of passage of time, but on simple philosophical grounds.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, if you knew my Grade 6 teacher, you would not think my remark is so far afield. She said that empty vessels make the most sound. The hon. member for St. Boniface should remember that and take it seriously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asked the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, in his capacity as chairman of the committee a question relating to the possible procedure of the committee. That is quite in order. If he has a supplementary question, perhaps he will ask it now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will come directly to my supplementary question, and I appreciate the hon. member's answer. It was very sensible. I will not comment about some things which take place on the government side which are not so sensible. In view of statements made, especially by the Minister of Supply and Services, and information which came to the fore after last night's meeting, will the hon. member, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, move with despatch to convene a meeting of the steering committee, hopefully this afternoon, so that we can make arrangements to clarify the matter I have raised.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. Was the hon. gentleman informed by Mr. Cameron about any meeting at that time between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Campbell regarding affairs at Hamilton harbour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not clear to the Chair what time the hon. member's question relates to.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, the reference is to mid-September, 1972.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


STRIKE AT PORT OF VANCOUVER-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS AND GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SETTLE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. On Wednesday the Acting Prime Minister, answering my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, said that no decisions have been taken to restore the movement of grain and shipping. When asked to advise this House on Friday, that is, today, about the situation, he said that he would advise his colleagues, the Acting Minister of Labour and the President of the Treasury Board, to be as forthcoming as possible. Can the Acting Prime Minister now tell this House what is the situation and what action the government intends to take?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, active negotiations have been taking place with respect to public service employees, and I understand the situation is more hopeful for an early settlement than it has been at any time previously.


An hon. Member:: You said that yesterday.


Mitchell William Sharp: So far as the Longshoremen are concerned, one of our most experienced mediators is now on the west coast working with a sort of deadline, so that he can make an early report. When we have this information we will decide whether it is necessary to take further action.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that a negotiated settlement and resumption of service can be achieved this weekend?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the House want a negotiated settlement and are in favour of parliament not having to intervene.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for fisheries. As the $4 million extension to the cold storage and inventory financing costs assistance program administered by the Fisheries Price Support Board terminates on March 31, 1975, and in view of the marketing problems still faced by the industry, is the minister giving thought to extending this program beyond the cutoff date.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice. The gradual phasing out of this program appeared desirable, since we wanted to encourage the industry to liquidate inventories before the start of the new season. We recognize that this has not been as successful as we should have liked. In fact, last Tuesday I met

Oral Questions
with the crabmeat producers of the Atlantic area to study this very problem, and they are looking at solutions with which we will assist them. Perhaps my remarks are not couched in the best English, but I hope they are understood.
As for continuing the program, we are looking at possible assistance programs as from the end of April on. We want to integrate the assistance programs and take into account all these questions which have been raised, especially the one concerning high inventories, which worries us. In conclusion, I hope that all hon. members will eat as much fish as possible.


ICE COOLING FACILITIES-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SUBSIDY PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the extension of ice cooling facility subsidies. As the program was phased out on December 31, 1974, can the minister now say if it is being extended?


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that program was extended for a further six months when it was realized that there were a fair number of requests which could not be processed in time for the cut-off date chosen at the beginning of the program.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns strikes and rumours of strikes and is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Given the prospect of a mail strike, or at least a hold up in the near future in mails across the country, will the Acting Prime Minister, in consultation with his colleagues most directly concerned, ensure that all necessary measures are taken so that all deadlines for appeals to the Public Service Staff Relations Board will be appropriately extended in order that persons in the process of making appeals concerning employment shall not lose their cases because their letters of appeal failed to reach Ottawa in time for the hearing.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I assume it is a representation as well.


TRANSPORT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I return to the statement of Controller

Campbell of Hamilton City Council. As everyone who listened to the morning news heard, Mr. Campbell said that he had come to Ottawa and placed certain information before the Department of the Solicitor General in September, 1972, and as today we heard the present Minister of Supply and Services, who was then Solicitor General, say that he had never met Mr. Campbell, had received no such document and that his department had received no such document-


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that at all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -I
suggest that this indicates either that someone is not telling the truth or that there has been administrative incompetence or a misunderstanding which would be very difficult to explain.


An hon. Member:: Campbell could be wrong too, you know.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the standing committee of the House of Commons is not the proper place to reach a conclusion with respect to this matter. Is the government prepared to reconsider its position to have this matter looked at properly under a judicial investigation so that both sides will have an opportunity to place their facts before properly trained people and the country will have the privilege of knowing the actual facts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has not, of course, quoted the Minister of Supply and Services accurately. On the question of privilege, the Minister of Supply and Services said that he had never met Mr. Campbell and at that time was unaware of his letter. That is what the Minister of Supply and Services said. I want that to be on record so that the interpretation placed by the hon. member on the transaction is not accepted as a fact. As various ministers have said, the government is now searching the records. As far as I am aware, we would be only too happy to put the full story before hon. members, either in committee or in the House.
As I said earlier, there is nothing on the record for which we have any reason to feel ashamed. There has been no suggestion at any time that there was any political interference with the process of justice. Until that is the case, I see no reason to suggest that there should be a special inquiry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DREDGING CONTRACTS AT HAMILTON-POSSIBILITY DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY MR. CAMERON CONCERNING ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some difference of opinion between the Acting Prime Minister and myself as to what the Minister of Supply and Services said. May I ask the Minister of Supply and Services, who is quite capable of speaking for himself, whether any document was received
March 14, 1975

by his department, and particularly by Mr. Cameron, with respect to complaints from the Hamilton city council regarding certain alleged improprieties in the management of the Hamilton Harbour Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it the hon. member is posing a question to the Minister of Supply and Services concerning his function as a former minister. I do not want to be unduly restrictive, but we have gone over this ground rather thoroughly. However, the minister in the interval perhaps changed the circumstances by rising on a question of privilege. If the hon. member's question simply asks the minister to clarify his comments on the question of privilege, it might be more appropriate.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not see really how I could clarify such a precise statement. On the question of privilege, I said that 1 had never met Mr. Campbell, that I have never read a document or letter which Mr. Campbell is said to have delivered, and that I have ordered an investigation into this matter. Moreover, I have requested that a report be made available to me by Monday at the latest and, for further clarification, have indicated that I no longer have in my possession the files related to the responsibilities I assumed when I was Solicitor General, but that I still have access to these files, under a long tradition honoured by all previous administrations.


INVESTIGATION OF DREDGING CONTRACTS-SUGGESTED JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a final supplementary to the Acting Prime Minister. There is a great deal of difference between looking into alleged criminal activities by certain persons whose conduct is now under investigation and in making a suggestion, such as has been made by Mr. Campbell, that there has been an attempt to delay or even obstruct justice, which would lead one to suspect that the subject now before the Canadian people is whether or not there has been an attempt to cover up the situation with regard to the activities of the Hamilton Harbour Commission and the dredging contracts which have been given by the government. In light of those facts, will the Acting Prime Minister at least consider between now and Monday the advisability of dealing with this matter in the proper manner, which is through a judicial inquiry, particularly in view of his often stated remarks that the government has nothing to hide and it wants to have a full investigation to ascertain all the facts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said before. I have seen no evidence that there was any attempt to cover up, delay or otherwise interfere with the course of justice. The government is only too happy to lay all the facts before the House or whatever is a suitable place for this to be done. We will consider what is the best way of bringing all the facts before the House. However, I have not seen anything to suggest there has been anything such as has been alleged by the hon. member by way of action to delay or interfere
Oral Questions
with the course of justice or any suggestion of political interference. Until there is some such evidence, I think it would be most improper to have the kind of inquiry of which the hon. member speaks.


DREDGING CONTRACTS OF HAMILTON-KNOWLEDGE OF FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL OF MR. CAMPBELL AND EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER, 1972
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of what was said on his behalf last night by the present Solicitor General, namely that he had been informed the Minister of Supply and Services had no knowledge or information whatsoever with respect to the Hamilton Harbour matter, can the Minister of Supply and Services now inform the House, apart altogether from Mr. Campbell, departmental officials, reports or correspondence, of his own personal recollection and memory of the events of September 1972, a Mr. Campbell and material presented to him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been dealt with exhaustively in those terms. In any event, it is again asking the minister to give information about his responsibilities in a previous capacity.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Your Honour earlier permitted the Minister of Supply and Services to rise on a question of privilege relating to this very matter. I think it was three weeks ago yesterday in this House that Your Honour set a precedent in relation to another minister of the Crown rising on a question of privilege to speak about a matter that related to his administrative responsibilities in another department or in relation to his personal affairs and his own recollection and memory. Now that this matter has been raised in this fashion by the minister himself, all I am asking is that we have the opportunity to ask him a question like that. If Your Honour wishes me to rephrase my question or be more specific, I am certainly willing to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister, of course, changed the circumstances somewhat by rising on a question of privilege today. I submit that makes it in order to ask him questions with regard to clarifying the statement he made in the House today on the question of privilege. That is something he has done in his current capacity as a minister of the Crown. That was the nature of the question put by the previous questioner. The minister clarified that statement. It seemed perfectly clear to start with, but he clarified it to eliminate any uncertainty as to the nature of his comments. Further questions relating to what the minister said today might be in order for the purpose of clarification. If there is still room for clarification, I will listen. However, as I understand the precedents, it is still not in order to ask a minister about his responsibilities in respect of some capacity he enjoyed prior to the capacity he represents at the present time. I do not see any shadow of doubt.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker-
4112

March 14, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has put a question which I have disallowed. The hon. member raises a question of privilege which I see only as an appeal against that ruling of disallowance. It is not a question of privilege. If the hon. member has a further question of privilege or something different, I will be glad to hear it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is simply this. I am asking the minister to clarify the points he made on the question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Members opposite can hoot and holler at me and tell me the minister has already clarified it. Your Honour can say that you are satisfied it has been clarified. That may be Your Honour's judgment, but it is not my judgment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have every right to raise this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whatever consequences it might have, there is clear precedent that as between the hon. member's judgment and my judgment, perhaps fortunately for both of us, mine stands without appeal.


DREDGING CONTRACTS AT HAMILTON-POSSIBLE CONVERSATION BETWEEN FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL AND EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CONCERNING LETTER FROM MR. CAMPBELL
George Harris Hees: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Supply and Services. As the statement made by Mr. John Campbell, the Hamilton Controller, was reproduced on the seven o'clock and eight o'clock CBC news programs, and as I am sure the minister, when he arrived at his office this morning, talked to his executive assistant who, I understand, is the same executive assistant as he had when he was Solicitor General, and as it would be very natural for the minister to ask his executive assistant, Mr. John Cameron, whether he had ever received a letter from Mr. Campbell, the Controller of the City of Hamilton, and, if so, what had he done about it, I would ask the Minister of Supply and Services whether such a conversation took place this morning, and, if so, what was the result?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, to clarify what I said about the question of privilege, I must say that I ordered an inquiry precisely that all the facts might be sorted out and that I might then be in a position to give the House the required information. Perhaps the House would rather have that information bit by bit to create some sensationalism

instead of seeking out the truth but if, as I believe, hon. members want to know the whole truth, as I do, then I should at least be given time to complete the inquiry. All I ask is the weekend. I shall work over the weekend to sort out the information since I have access to the documents of the Department of the Solicitor General pertaining to the time when I held that office. That is all I ask. Please, let no one accuse me of having ulterior motives.


George Harris Hees: I am perfectly willing to give the hon. minister the time he requires. I thought it would be an easy way for him to clarify the situation if he were to answer my question. However, I am perfectly willing to wait.


AIRPORTS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am in a slight dilemma because I have given notice of this question to two ministers and each of them is competing to answer. The definitive word, however, is that this is a transport question and the acting minister is gazing at me now. Is the Saint John airport open. Are the firemen back? What is the current situation? This airport has been closed for eight days.


Hon. Ron Basford (Acting Minister of Transport):: The
runways were cleared early this morning by management personnel. The firemen were called back by telephone this morning and then by wire. The airport manager is endeavouring to call them back to work. The latest word I have is that the firemen are not yet back to work at the airport.


Mr. Fairweather:: Does the minister not find it incongruous that the firemen are not back at work because of a game plan, to use the ministry's own words, and that the authorities should now find themselves in a difficulty of their own making-they let the firemen go, and now they are unable to get them back.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not so advised. I am told the firemen were laid off work because there was no work for them to
do.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In the light of the press conference held on Wednesday morning of this week by Premier Regan, at which time the premier announced several appointments to a body whose duties will be to bring together the planning, partners, organizations and capital requirements for the building of a large internationally competitive
March 14, 1975

Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS
steel plant in Cape Breton County, and in view of the statement made by the premier that he has been assured of the understanding and co-operation of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and of the federal government, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he can advise the House that this understanding and co-operation will also consist of dollars?


Mitchell William Sharp: There has always been very close co-operation between the governments of Nova Scotia and Canada, at least in recent years, and usually there has been some dollar assistance given to that government. I would assume there will continue to be that kind of co-operation.


Robert Muir: In view of the action of the federal government in commissioning the Canstel study on the proposed steel complex, would the minister not agree that the Nova Scotia government, in an endeavour of this magnitude, will require not only understanding and co-operation from the central government but that such co-operation will of necessity involve the provision of a great deal of money along with what might be raised from private sources?


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member is an eloquent advocate.


MANPOWER
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration been made aware of the contents of a telegram sent by Frank D. Moores, premier of Newfoundland, to the Hon. Mr. Justice Robert Cliche in which Premier Moores protests that Montreal Local 144, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the pipe fitting and plumbing trades, refused to allow some 50 or more Canadians, whose place of domicile is Newfoundland, to work at the Quebec Cartier mining operation job site? Does the hon. gentleman consider such action to be discriminatory? Does it severely restrict the application of the principles of confederation and the freedom of Canadian employees? Does conflicting provincial legislation prevent the minister from taking action to forestall similar occurrences in the future?


Robert Knight Andras: I am aware of the circumstances. I understand that at Mont Wright the plumbers and pipe fitters union has ordered some of its members off the job. I am aware that the Premier of Newfoundland has expressed his concern since there are Newfoundlanders involved. I would have to say, however, that this is a matter which is entirely between the union and the employer, and that in terms of jurisdiction it is entirely a matter for the province concerned. To the best of my knowledge, there is no action I can properly take in response to the circumstances raised in hon. member's question; it is doubtful whether it is a matter for federal intervention.


STRIKES AT PORT OF VANCOUVER-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATED SETTLEMENT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister-it is related to one which was addressed to him earlier in connection with the grain handlers strike at Vancouver. Since the minister, in his answers earlier today, seemed vague about the intentions of the government, I should like to ask him whether the cabinet has emergency legislation ready to bring in and, if so, whether it would be used in the near future should a settlement not be reached involving both the longshoremen and workers who belong to the public service? Will legislation be brought in in the very near future to settle this strike before it spells complete disaster for the Port of Vancouver?


Mitchell William Sharp: These questions are under very active discussion by the government. We have not set any deadline; I think it would be most unfortunate if deadlines were to be set because it is our desire, as I am sure it is the desire of the hon. member, that these strikes should be settled by negotiation rather than by parliament having to interfere once again with the process of collective bargaining.


Jack Burnett Murta: One short supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because this is the last chance we shall have to question the Acting Prime Minister on this matter before Monday. Can he tell us whether or not the government has emergency legislation ready to be used in the event nothing is settled?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope the government is always ready to meet all emergencies.


An hon. Member:: No way!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct another question to the Acting Prime Minister. Based on the dates contained in the information made available this week by the RCMP concerning certain corporations and individuals, would the Acting Prime Minister confirm to the House that the government continued to do business with these companies a full two years after the Minister of Transport himself said he had asked the RCMP to investigate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is basic to our consideration here that we always have a presumption of innocence. Charges have been laid recently, but no one has yet been brought to trial. There are some difficult problems involved in this area. As the hon. member will have noticed, practically all
28996 -55V2

March 14, 1975
Oral Questions
of the dredging companies of any size in the country have been charged with some crime or other. Problems will arise when dredging has to be done, and it will be necessary for the government to make a decision as to how it is to proceed, so that the public interest is not jeopardized by the fact that certain companies are under charge.
Moreover, other problems have been raised previously with regard to subsidies for the building of ships. I am sure that the hon. member would not want people to be thrown out of work because the government cancelled contracts.


COAL-POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OF DEPOSITS UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN SOUTH-EAST KOOTENAY
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Has the minister arranged any discussions with the minister of mines of British Columbia in regard to the development of coal deposits on blocks of land in the south-east Kootenay which are under federal jurisdiction?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and refer it to the minister.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that both the minister's office and mine have received numerous letters of protest from all parts of Canada with reference to the character assassination of the city of Trail by the National Film Board production "Where are you going, Company Town?", and in view of the fact that Miss Wendy O'Flaherty of the CBC has produced a film on the city of Trail that places it in fairness rather than in prejudice, would the Secretary of State use his good offices to urge the CBC to show this "Hourglass" production on the national CBC network to help redress the wrong perpetrated on Trail and its citizens?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the question, I know the hon. member feels strongly about it and I will certainly make a representation for him.


OIL-REASON FOR TRANSFER OF IMPORTS FROM VENEZUELA TO MIDDLE EAST-POSSIBLE RECAPTURE OF SOME SUBSIDY PAYMENTS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but it seems that he is not going to be back in the House so may I direct it to the acting minister. Has the government made any inquiries of the oil companies to find out why there was a transfer of imports from the Venezuelan fields to the Middle East fields, and what explanation have the oil companies given for this transfer of imports?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on such a technical, important and very complicated question I am sure the hon. member would prefer to hear from the minister himself, so I shall be pleased to take notice of the question and refer it to the minister.


James McPhail Gillies: I am glad the minister understands that it is an important question because hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of the taxpayers' money is affected. My supplementary question is this. If in fact there is no legitimate explanation provided by the oil companies for this change other than the fact that they would get a larger subsidy from the Canadian government, is the government prepared to recapture this money from the oil companies on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will, of course, refer that question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I just say that I hope to recapture some of that oil money myself when I lead a trade mission to Venezuela next week.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister and it concerns a matter that has already been discussed, namely the effect of statements made in the House today that question the credibility of an elected official, namely Controller Campbell of Hamilton. Would not an inquiry by a judicial officer to clear up the matter be fairer than an inquiry by this House or any committee of this House, which is bound to have political bias in the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With due respect, it appears to the Chair that that is precisely the question that was put by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands earlier today.
March 14, 1975

Agricultural Stabilization Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether there has been any change in the order of business for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, when I hope a very large number of ministers will be present to entertain questions and give answers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am also hopeful about today, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, when I hope we will make progress on some government legislation. Today, as the House knows, we will be resuming debate on second reading of Bill C-50. If that is disposed of before four o'clock, it would be my hope that we might turn to the resolution on metrication standing in the name of my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If it is not concluded today, that will be the first order of business on Monday.
The exact order for that day I am not quite certain about, because on Monday I should like to see the opportunity taken to clean up some report stages and third readings of a number of bills that have been through committee and which I think should receive royal assent so they can be put into effect. Bill C-8 is our next priority. So if I may summarize, we will take Bill C-50, then metrication, report stage and third reading of a number of bills, and then Bill C-8.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since there were references to government business covering Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, does this mean that the designation of Tuesday and Wednesday as opposition days is being revoked?


Mitchell William Sharp: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the other day the House leader of the official opposition and the House leader of the NDP suggested they would like to move those opposition days forward into the next period. On consideration, the government is prepared to go along with that, and it would be necessary, of course, to effect that transfer for next Tuesday and Wednesday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then are we transferring, now, those two days into the next semester? If so, we agree.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would so move, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House agreed, and shall it be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-50, to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, quite a few speeches have been made on this particular bill, a fair amount of ground has been covered and some very sound advice has been presented to the minister.


An hon. Member:: Except for the NDP.


Stanley James Korchinski: I agree with the hon. member-except for the NDP.


Mr. Nystrom:: Especially the NDP.


Stanley James Korchinski: I rise this afternoon to make a few comments on matters that I think have not until now been mentioned and which should perhaps be brought to the attention of the minister and the country. In the last several months following the throne speech debate the minister has indicated that a steady stream of agricultural legislation would be presented. There appeared, to everyone who read the press, to be a long list of measures that were apparently intended to open up a new era so far as agriculture is concerned. I think that anyone who perhaps did not give this matter very serious consideration, keeping in mind the complications and implications of all these legislative items, might in fact get that impression.
The minister has travelled throughout the country reciting one item of legislation after another which will come before the House. In fact, some of these items are now before the House. What the minister does not tell the people and the country is that in none of these items of legislation is there an inkling or a suspicion of new areas being opened up in so far as agriculture is concerned: the minister is merely introducing amendments. Certain amendments may be necessary to update the legislation, but it is not acceptable to the agricultural community in this day and age to have to depend on legislation enacted at some period of time in the past to cover specific situations which do not necessarily exist today. The fact that the minister's proposals contain nothing more than amendments to existing legislation indicates that this government has no new ideas of its own.
I find that most of the legislative items dealing with farm credit, stabilization and other matters pertaining to agriculture relate to ideas introduced at the time the Conservative Party was in office. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with the legislation; the legislation is good, and certain amendments are necessary. It is totally incomprehensible that this minister should roam around the country making one speech after another without putting forth any new idea of his own. He certainly

March 14, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
has enough people writing speeches for him as it seems he is delivering, on average, about two speeches a day: they are coming fast and furious from all sides.
I have been hoping, in vain, that the minister would take a new approach. I find it almost disgusting that the minister should always refer back to the original piece of legislation. The preamble to the original bill, for example, recognized the increase in the cost of production as compared to the income received by farmers. The minister simply rearranges the preamble and puts it into the new bill, then refers to it as a great, new innovation or new approach to agriculture. Then each one of his trained seals gets up one after the other and praises the minister to high heaven.
I really wonder why we must spend time debating this bill, because when looking at the past performance of the government under this legislation it is obvious that the minister could have done almost anything he wanted. This legislation already gives him the authority to support agricultural products. The minister shakes his head, indicating that he cannot. Let me suggest again to the minister that he could have done anything he wanted; he could have supported any item he felt required support, under the provisions of this act as it now stands.
It is true that there are certain commodities in respect of which there is mandatory support. I have before me an annual report which lists about 28 commodities that have been supported in the 16 years since this act was enacted. This indicates that the minister did have the authority to support any agricultural commodity he wished to support. The minister has supported various commodities in the past by order in council. As a result of research, I have found that the minister not only can support whatever items he wants but he can support them at whatever level he wishes.
The minister makes a lot of noise about the fact that with the new amendments it will be possible to support the mandatory commodities on a five-year average rather than a ten-year average, and that the new level of support will be 90 per cent rather than 80 per cent. For the information of the House, there are many items which have been supported in the past at a level higher than 80 per cent. I would ask the minister to indicate to the House the present level of support in respect of cattle. I can tell the House that at the present time the minister obviously has the authority, because support is at the level of 154 per cent on the ten-year average. No new ground is being broken by these amendments; the minister has the authority to support these commodities at any level.
Let me go through this list very quickly to indicate some of the items and the levels at which they have been supported in the past. In the year 1971-72 hogs were supported at 88.5 per cent; in 1971 sugar beets were supported at 117 per cent, blueberries at 105.5 per cent, rutabagas at 83.3 per cent, and carrots at 93.4 per cent. Further on in the list we find that in 1972-73 apples were supported at 90.3 per cent, and fowl at 251 per cent. What new ground is being broken? Let us consider the other side of the coin. In 1973, for example, the support in respect of potatoes was at the 78.1 per cent level. In other words, the minister could have supported any item above or below the 80 per cent level except for those mandatory items.

Without the provision of additional funds, what additional safeguards will the farmers have as a result of these amendments? I suggest that what the minister is telling the farmers around the country about the results of these amendments is just a lot of boloney. This minister has the authority to support these commodities, but he is doing nothing. He is telling everyone that the farmers must get more, but he does nothing about it himself. The potato producers are at this moment crying to the minister to do something. He does not require additional authorization, he can act under the existing legislation. Potatoes have been supported in the past and there is nothing preventing the minister from introducing support again at this time. All that is required is a few minutes in cabinet to convince the minister's colleagues. That is what he should be doing, instead of running around the country talking to all the farmers but doing nothing.
If one looks at the record of the minister's speech, he will see that the minister is actually preparing the farmers for a drop in income this coming year. He is paving the way by telling the farmers that they will have to accept a reduction in income. He tells us here that he has a formula to take into account the cost of farm production, but there is nothing that would prevent him from supporting potato prices under the existing legislation, for example. The minister can support any commodity that requires support in order to increase the farmers' income. He is not doing it; he is running around telling everybody that their prices are too high and that the farmers need more money, yet he will not do anything about it.
He has legislation in effect today to do this. The minister can run around telling everybody that legislation is being introduced, but now is the time to act. He makes speeches in which he threatens one group or another. Obviously he cannot do anything about the cost of production, but he can do something about the income of the producers. The minister has the legislation but is not acting on it. Now he says he needs more. This is all window-dressing which makes it possible for the minister and all his supporters to write letters and have every newspaper in the country, every week, write columns in which it is suggested that amendments have been introduced to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Then everybody sits and waits in expectation.
What happens? The farm incomes will go down about 15 per cent. The minister says he will guarantee a certain cost of production and that he will set it at 90 per cent. At best this is a backward process. It is to be set at 90 per cent of what the producers have had in the last five years. The fact is that cattle are supported at 154 per cent at this moment, and farmers find this insufficient for their needs today. We might take a look at the cattle industry. The minister did not have to stop at even 154 per cent. The farmers' unions have been asking for a support price of $65 per hundred, while at this moment I believe it is $45.42 per hundred. The minister has one thing stuck in his head.


An hon. Member:: Otto Lang.


Stanley James Korchinski: No, not Otto Lang. The minister has marketing boards stuck in his head. This he considers to
March 14, 1975

be one cure for all the problems. Do you know what the minister represents?


An hon. Member:: Eggs.


Stanley James Korchinski: Yes, he has egg all over his face. The minister represents restricted production. The minister has told us that he will take into account the increase in the cost of production and other needs. I might mention some of the things we see when we pick up the newspapers. I will give one example. I see that the posties are demanding a 71 per cent basic salary hike. Their present salary is $4.59 an hour and they are asking for an additional $3.26 per hour, which will bring their salary up to almost $8 per hour. A salary of $8 per hour, calculated on a weekly basis, represents almost $300 a week.
Without arguing the pros and cons of the demands of these workers, may I say that these people come in at an appointed hour, do a certain amount of work and no doubt have a coffee break and a warm place waiting for them. No doubt a cafeteria is provided for them so they may have their lunch, and so on. I have seen some of these things around the departments, and it seems that they are ready to leave about 15 minutes before quitting time. Like horses at the starting gate, they wait for the bell to ring and are off to catch a bus. That is as far as their responsibility goes.
I wonder how many people would like to receive $300 for a steer. If one had 50 steers a year, this would represent $15,000, equal to the posties. This does not necessarily mean that that would be clear money, because not only must the producers pay for the feed but they also have their capital investment, the land, the interest and the input costs. The producer must consider all these things before he can think about the same amount received by one worker. This amount of $15,000 would equal the sale of 50 steers.
If this minister were realistic and realized what is going on around him today, and if people such as the posties have the right to make such demands, then the minister has the right to ask the same for the farmers. His responsibility does not end just by making a speech. He must do something with the legislation he has before him, and he has not done so. There is no indication that he intends to do this. This is what is so frustrating to us. The minister could have been doing something, but instead he stands up and says that rather than a ten-year average there will be a five-year average, and the guarantee will be 90 per cent.
Why must the minister stop at 90 per cent? What is wrong with 100 per cent? This still would not be enough: with the addition of the cost of production, it would only be a break even point. What is the minister's explanation for setting the support at the level it is? It is not intended that the producers make a profit; this is a "stop loss" program. I wonder how people like this when it comes from the Minister of Agriculture who is touted around the country as being a friend of the farmer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley James Korchinski: As a farmer, if he said he was my friend I would expect him to put money in my pocket instead of just using a lot of words and hot air. His
Agricultural Stabilization Act
supporters, instead of telling him there is something wrong with this legislation and that not enough is being provided for the farmers, run around telling the people that the minister is a great guy. This is the extent of their responsibility. This is supposed to be agricultural policy but this bill is a waste of time. I must point out again that the minister has the authority to do something about the situation and is doing nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was saying that the minister had travelled through this country leaving the impression with the press and with all those who cared to listen to him that he was introducing updated legislation, and that it was necessary for the survival of the farming industry. In fact, he even left the impression that this would improve the business of farming. However, I was able to point out in the course of my remarks that the minister already had the necessary legislation which was passed by a Conservative government, and he did not have to run around the country making speeches and suggesting that further legislation was necessary. What he does not have is the will to work for the people, and will cannot be legislated. It will be up to him and his colleagues in the cabinet to produce that will. If there's a will, there's a way, as has been pointed out to the government frequently in the last 16 years since this legislation was first introduced.
Let me illustrate a point with regard to the stabilization of the price of certain commodities, for example, certain grades of cattle. Under the present bill the government has extended the stabilization program for the first time in 16 years. When one looks at the annual report, one finds that it contains no mention of cattle; but for the first time in 16 years the government is proposing to stabilize the prices of cattle, specifically of grades A, B and C. Of course, those are not the only grades of cattle. The minister must realize that if we are to assist farmers, we must provide them with sufficient income to enable them to stay in farming. However, obviously the minister will not do it because he does not have the will. Another approach must be adopted.
I should like to go on to another matter. The other day the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) asked the minister about the possibility of a stabilization price for honey. It may interest this House to know that not only do we produce grain and a lot of cattle in the area I come from, but we also produce honey. There is a need for stability in that product. The minister wanted to know what kind of a system there was for marketing honey, and that implied to me that the only way producers will get stability is to go to a marketing board. That is the only purpose the minister has in mind, I believe; but he does

March 14, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
not need a marketing board in order to provide stability. There is no marketing board for cattle and he can provide stability there, so he does not need one for honey.
Several years ago a subsidy was provided for wool, but then it was dropped. It had amounted to something like $12 million. My information is that the subsidy was dropped because production was not increasing sufficiently. That would appear to mean that perhaps the subsidy was not high enough to entice producers. It seems that in the last few years all the problems of agriculture have been solved by gradually cutting down the number of producers and the amount of production to the point where we have to import commodities.
It is amazing that a country that is so forward looking in other ways should be so backward in its thinking in this regard. It seems there is a stigma attached to agriculture. If you speak on behalf of agriculture, you are not supposed to know anything else; this is the prevailing attitude. It does not matter what kind of background you come from, if you are associated with an occupation other than agriculture you are on a higher level. As a result of depressed prices we are losing farmers every day and a strange parallel is developing. Just about a year ago we were told we had ample supplies of natural gas: we had oil to burn, so to speak; we were able to export it and did not have to pay any attention to fuel consumption in automobiles, and so on. Then suddenly there was a great shortage and we started scrambling in the other direction.
We now find ourselves in the same situation with regard to agriculture. I think we should treat the farmers as well as anybody else. The posties have demanded a 71 per cent increase in salary, which would bring them to something like $8 an hour. Surely we should pay the farmer an adequate price for his commodity and encourage him to stay on the land. Farmers do not want a guaranteed income just to sit around and do nothing, and I am not suggesting this; but I am in favour of paying them enough for their products so they will see the advantage of staying in production. Farmers can take their ups and downs. The annual report for 1973-74 published by the Agricultural Stabilization Board shows that $1,459 million was spent to stabilize the prices of commodities during the 16 years to 1974. Of this amount, $875 million was transferred to the Dairy Commission, $92 million was for hogs and $154 million was for milk. Indeed, if you take away all the dairy aspect of the subsidies, only about $300 million was spent in subsidies for other agricultural products in that 16-year period. Mr. Speaker, this is not sufficient to keep farmers in production.
Farmers have accepted quotas for the production of wheat for human consumption; indeed, they have been asking for it for years. This shows that they are willing to accept quotas, but they want a good price for the commodity. We should gear our production policies beyond our domestic requirements, however, to the extent of 10 per cent or 15 per cent to provide protection against the difficulties of nature and other circumstances over which we have no control.
The world will always demand food and as taxpayers, not as individual producers, we should willingly donate any surplus to the hungry people of the world. If we can obtain agreements in this respect with other countries,
[Mr. Korchinski.l
that is fine, but if not we should do it alone. If necessary, we should build storage facilities so that when the time comes these commodities will be available to others. A shipment of grain destined for Pakistan, where people are starving, cannot leave the country because of a stupid shipping tie-up. When we have to work under a threat with a gun at our head, so to speak, it is time that we had storage elsewhere. We have a moral obligation to the rest of the world. We have the capacity, the ability and the know-how to produce grain and many other commodities, but we have only diverted $300 million in 16 years, roughly $20 million a year, to encourage production.
' We are not doing a lot for agriculture. The minister reminds me of a puff-ball. Anybody who has walked around on the prairies knows what a puff-ball is. It is big, but if you step on it there is a cloud of dust and then nothing. With this minister you might expect something solid in legislation, but when you test it, there is nothing there. If the government were to say, "We will base support prices on other prices prevailing in society, plus 10 per cent," we could go along with it; I do not think farmers would argue with the minister. But he wants to base support prices on the average prices of the last five years. Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to work for last year's salary. Why should agriculture be forced to produce for prices that could be as much as five years old?
What is wrong with the minister? He is like a car with only a reverse gear. It is time he looked forward. Farmers must be enabled to produce enough income to support themselves, otherwise they will go out of business. We do not need the sort of "stop loss" program the minister introduced for cattlemen. How can he protect them adequately with such a program? It is not enough. As it is, cattlemen are not earning enough and the minister's program will only prevent great losses. I do not see how it will enable cattlemen to survive. That is why I say the minister's policies are backward-looking. Why, even now some people are demanding 71 per cent more salary than they were paid last year.
I find that the price guarantees in this bill are totally unacceptable. When you consider the minister's record you will not be reassured that farmers of western Canada or of other parts of the country will be induced to stay in agriculture. With farmers leaving the farm our situation will become difficult. I think that cattlemen have already touched bottom, so to speak. The minister can manipulate the price structure any way he wishes; he can base it on quarterly figures, yearly figures, or any way he wishes- but what good does that do if he will not act? I wish the minister would take into account increases in production costs when considering support levels. He might take some flack from consumers, and Mrs. Plumptre might make a nasty speech about him, but he would be doing the right thing. It is no good saying what must be done and then doing nothing. The minister could do the right thing; he has the means but not the will.
The government, with its majority, will force this bill through, but its approach to the establishment of marketing boards is faulty. The minister comes from an area which produces considerable quantities of milk. I know milk producers face difficulties, but they are not the only
March 14, 1975

ones. If we can spend large sums of money on the dairy industry without being hurt by taxpayer flack, I suggest we can spend similar sums on other areas of agriculture. The national interest demands the support of agriculture. After all, amounts spent on agricultural support will not be overly significant, given total government expenditures which, with supplementary estimates, will approach the $30 billion mark this year.
Frankly, I do not think we need this bill. It does not give the minister powers he did not previously possess. Subparagraph 1.1 of clause 5(2) on page 4 of the bill reads:
For the purpose of stabilizing the price of an agricultural commodity, the board may exercise such other powers as are prescribed by the governor in council for that purpose.
In other words, it does not really matter what the board says, as the decision depends on the cabinet. An order in council must be passed. Mr. Speaker, the old bill contained the same provision; an order in council was necessary. If the minister wants to save the agricultural industry, he will need to act on sound advice. It is clear that in the next year or so there will be a shortage of cattle, primarily because cattlemen cannot survive at present-day prices. The industry will only survive if it is told, under some sort of program, that Canada will require such and such an amount of meat in the next given period and if the price paid for the meat is fair and bears some relation to cost of production. Never mind "stop loss" programs. Don't look back. I ask the minister to look forward, otherwise the situation in agriculture will be comparable to the situation in our petroleum industry. Already we are being told about petroleum shortages.
As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) pointed out clearly and ably, our farmers will only produce the food needed for feeding our population and the starving peoples of the world if conditions are right and if they are induced to stay in food production. If conditions are not right, they will leave the business of farming and we shall all lose. This bill is not adequate. The minister is looking back. Only if he turns round and looks forward will he provide the stability for agriculture which is necessary if the industry is to survive.
I do not think I need say any more except this: I hope that one year from now we shall not find that the agricultural producer's income has declined and that the minister has done nothing to help him. So far he has not demonstrated that he truly wants to do anything. Mr. Speaker, it is not a change in legislation that we need; it is a change in attitude.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a few brief comments on Bill C-50, the agricultural stabilization bill. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski) covered many of the things I wanted to say. His comments about the public profile of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) were particularly apt. I will not dwell on the lack of action in implementing satisfactory agricultural policies. We on my side of the House will in all probability support this bill, but we do not underestimate the dangers inherent in this type of legislation. I am troubled by that part of the bill dealing with support prices across Canada for a commodity. Clause 1(4) on page 2 of the bill reads in part:
Agricultural Stabilization Act
The powers ... conferred by this act may be exercised in relation to an agricultural commodity throughout Canada or in any region in Canada when, in the opinion of the governor in council, the market situation for the agricultural commodity in that region is substantially different from the market situation therefor in the rest of Canada.
The bill will assure that the regionalization of support prices will be recognized, but the cabinet is to make this decision. It can be assumed that in any democratic country like Canada, intervention by the federal cabinet will be based on a political decision taken at a given time. Quite possibly, the decision would be based on political expediency and the desire of the party in power to retain power. This is certainly an area that we on this side of the House would like to see changed for the good of agriculture. When the bill is passed, farmers of that particular commodity from that region of the country who want a specific amount of money will, because of low prices, have to lobby with the government. A lot of valuable time will be lost; the minister's time will be taken up with the various lobbies that must take place because the decision will not necessarily be set down but will be a political judgment by the cabinet of the day.
I wish to raise a point that does not necessarily pertain to the bill. The support price is available for all commodities, as I mentioned before, only in certain regions of the country. This brings me to the point that is starting to be of major concern to many Canadian farmers and farm organizations. Three provinces have already moved toward what has been called a guaranteed income. British Columbia is into this to a certain degree. According to press reports, Ontario is looking at it, and Quebec is certainly looking at it. At the present time there is talk of drafting legislation to be brought forward within the next few months.
When we talk in terms of a guaranteed income we must realize that this will come about in various forms; it will not be standard across the country. Programs would not necessarily be criticized to the extent they are if they were not always tied to production controls. I have not seen all the programs and I have not talked in detail to the ministers involved in drafting the programs; however, it certainly appears as though the guaranteed income approach will be attained through controlling supply and production allocating quotas, and so on. I come from a part of the country which produces more than its people consume. I refer to western Canada. This whole approach could ultimately eliminate the kind of exporting western Canada must do if we are going to maintain a viable agricultural base.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture is looking at the problem. It is of grave concern in various regions of the country. Farmers feel they could not operate under this kind of guaranteed income approach. If this were carried to its logical conclusion, there could in effect be ten so-called guaranteed income programs, one in every province, if in fact the provinces wanted that and if the population or tax base were there to warrant that kind of expense. If that happened, Canada could conceivably be divided into ten regions. In that event it would be very difficult to move products from one area to another
4120

March 14, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
because of the controls involved, our borders and the balkanization that would take place within this country.
If we are going to have any kind of guaranteed income, and I suppose it could be justified for certain commodities, I firmly believe the base for that kind of approach must be established by the federal government. With this legislation, one of the provinces I mentioned previously could supplement the federal money and use it to help run its own guaranteed income program. With the kind of land base and people base we have in this country, I do not know whether Canada is ready for that kind of agricultural program.
I am certainly not an expert on the guaranteed income approach as far as the Quebec situation is concerned. While it may be commendable for some commodities produced in that province, it appears to almost be a European Common Market approach to agricultural problems, whereby you become involved in price support to a very high degree over a period of time, and it disrupts normal market functions. I would not want to see Canada become involved in that to any great extent. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give consideration to the concerns that have been echoed in this debate and across the country. The minister has discussed the matter with people in various parts of Canada. If the provinces each go their own way for the good of the province, this could have a devastating effect on agriculture in the future.
Talking now about stabilization and the bill itself, the minister will hear one criticism when he brings the bill to committee. Farm input costs have increased tremendously. The price of everything a farmer has to purchase to grow a crop or feed his animals has increased so rapidly that 90 per cent of the five-year average may not be adequate. Because of the present inflationary cycle it may have no significance. This should have been done in the mid-sixties when there was a much lower rate of inflation; price increases did not occur on an almost monthly basis. Looking at the past five-year average, it might have worked; however, I frankly do not think it will have any bearing on the present long-range future of the commodities affected.
When we get to the clause by clause study of the bill I hope the committee will consider this question in total and come up with an amendment to meet the present economic situation. The cost-price squeeze which farmers experienced in the years 1969-71, and from which we moved away to some extent during 1973 and 1974, is back with us again. Farmers have not yet realized the extent of the squeeze which is likely to be forthcoming. In the last few weeks there has been a drastic decline in the prices of most agricultural products. Blame for this cannot be placed on any one government; it is a consequence of general instability in the economy and I cannot see us moving away from this situation for some time. The farmer-businessman who is keenly aware of his costs, and who knows what he must do in order to keep pace with them, is the farmer who will survive what I think is likely to be an extremely difficult period in the next year or two.
There will be opportunities to give the bill further scrutiny in the standing committee. I should like to see
[Mr. Murta.l
committee members sit down with some of the officials and try to agree on an amendment which implies less attention being paid to cost averages when fixing floor prices. Remember, the situation today is different from what it was even two or three years ago and, as I have suggested, the biggest factor has been the rate at which costs have increased. The bill will pass whether the committee does this or not, but unless it is amended it will not prove to be of any real help to the people it is intended to help. I therefore hope that all members of the committee will work toward an amendment of the kind I have outlined. Such a change is needed, and in the future I think it will be desperately needed by farmers in Canada.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill before it goes to committee. I support the bill. I think we have to recognize that it attempts in some way to provide a reasonable support price for specific agricultural commodities. Of course, such legislation is in no way a substitute for an aggressive marketing policy, something we badly need. We have shown that we are efficient producers, yet in the last five years we have become a net importer of agricultural products. Thus, one of the main priorities-and I am sure the minister shares this point of view-must be to work out effective marketing programs rather than speak about production control and supply management.
Producers want to produce. They do not want to be bound by quotas and regulations. They do not want an agriculture policy which causes them to look inward but, rather, a policy which will create a desire to produce in abundance. I confess I find some contradiction in government policy in this area. We hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) telling farmers to produce to beat the band, and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) says the same thing. At the same time, we hear the Minister of Agriculture talking about supply management. I find it difficult to reconcile these two points of view. When you have asked farmers to produce to beat the band it is difficult to expect them to take kindly to the imposition of quotas and restrictions.
The egg marketing board attempted to control production, albeit ineffectively. What we saw as a result of the efforts made by CEMA was the greater concentration of production in the hands of relatively few people. Two provinces in particular took advantage of the situation and overproduced, as did a number of individuals. Unless we are prepared to place policemen on duty in every egg-grading station, it will be impossible to supervise a supply management program effectively. I do not think agriculture is ready for restrictions of this kind.
Then, again, as members who sat on the committee inquiring into CEMA know very well, it is impossible to administer a program of supply management in the absence of control over importations of the product concerned. I may be wrong, but I believe that among the conditions under which the provinces agreed to become parties to the national egg marketing plan was a stipulation that there should be effective import control; in other words, the imported eggs would be considered on the same basis as though they were supplied by another producer, otherwise there is no possibility of getting a supply management program to work effectively. According to a
March 14, 1975

Canadian Press report quoted by a Prince Albert newspaper, a member of the executive of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency said on Friday that the agency-
-is having serious internal problems and will either succeed or fail during the next month.
Harold Crossman, one of three executive members on the agency, says the oversupply of eggs in Canada has led CEMA to ask Ontario and Quebec to reduce the number of their laying hens.
Mr. Crossman said he is not optimistic about the agency's future.
He said Quebec would have to make reductions of about 11 per cent and Ontario about 9 per cent.
That agreement was entered into supposedly in good faith, yet we have a situation where the producers and the provinces failed to uphold their terms of the bargain. Indeed, the federal government failed to uphold its terms of the bargain in that it failed to control in any effective way the importation of eggs. The operations of the national egg marketing agency can only be described as nothing less than shameful and wasteful. After all, this is the reason we lost 28 million eggs. Certainly at this juncture it does not augur well for Canadians to be party to a situation where we have people in this world starving and anxious to get their hands on this kind of food, yet we waste it carelessly.
In my opinion, the federal government has not provided a fair climate for giving Canada's agricultural producers confidence in the economy. The producers of this country are entitled to a fair return so as to cover their cost of farm input, production, management and labour. Certainly that is a worthy goal. I realize this bill goes part way in an attempt to achieve that goal, but in my opinion many of the things done by the federal government over the last two years have not necessarily worked toward providing the right kind of climate. As a matter of fact, there have been a number of irritating measures put forward by the federal government. For example, there have been a number of ad hoc, piecemeal attempts to correct industry that is in trouble, but these have met progressively with failure. Since the Minister of Agriculture assumed his portfolio there have been in the order of 29 variations of policy in the beef industry. How, in the name of heaven, can a beef producer plan his future with any degree of certainty in such a situation? Did the minister say he accepted that?


Mr. Whelan:: I said you cannot say I will not accept change.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is quite true. I would never accuse the minister of lack of trying, but when there are 29 different policies affecting the beef industry in a period of two years, this must bring about utter chaos, confusion and frustration. The cattlemen are not used to this kind of government intervention.


Eugene Whelan: Are you suggesting they have not asked for assistance?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, I am not suggesting they have not. When an industry is in trouble, particularly the agricultural industry, it must go to the federal government and seek its advice, guidance and wisdom as to how to
Agricultural Stabilization Act
save itself. The minister professes to be a farmer himself, so surely, with the backing of all his bureaucrats, he should have the ability to iron out a policy that will be effective. The minister has access to information that the average cattleman or member of parliament does not have. He has constant access to the international marketplace and the market south of the border. Yet we have this dastardly, piecemeal approach that has thrown the beef industry into utter chaos.
I remind the minister, who champions the cause of the farmer and producer, that it was under his guidance and administration that we started manipulating and mucking around with the tariff structure between the United States and Canada. So far as our dealings with the United States are concerned, it seems to me that had we not embarked upon unilateral approach of developing a system of proportionate quotas and reciprocal tariffs, we might have been able to work out a better arrangement. In view of the lack of consultation and co-operation, it seems to me the responsibility for this has to be laid at the doorstep of the minister.
There have also been a couple of beef stabilization programs, and here again the minister, at least on the surface, tried to assist the beef producer. But what has been the effect of these programs? We have had nothing but lofty words. Not a nickel has been paid out at this point in time to the cow-calf producer or to people who raise slaughter cattle. As a matter of fact, we are informed that they might get six cents out of the cow culling program.


Mr. McKinley:: The 2 per cent guys.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is right. It is almost a non-program. I remind the minister that at a time when producers are selling canned or cut cows at four cents a pound, a six-cent subsidy is not going to defray-


Eugene Whelan: It was 24 cents yesterday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, I can table, for the minister's information, evidence showing that a couple of weeks ago cows were selling at four cents a pound. As a matter of fact, I ought to put on the record the fact that in my area a producer sold three cows weighing 2,560 pounds at four cents a pound, and by the time he paid his trucking and commissions he ended up with $69.61 net for the three cows. Surely, this kind of nonsense cannot continue, and if it does it can only do more harm to an already precarious beef industry.
In addition, there is discrimination in the minister's beef program. A producer who may have sold his slaughter cattle for 50 cents a pound will get as much, in the end result, if a subsidy is paid, as a farmer who gets 30 cents. I think that is unfair. Furthermore, what can a producer who has cattle ready for market do when he cannot sell them and the packers simply do not want to take them? I urge the minister to take another look at his beef stabilization program and to consider the possibility of averaging over a quarterly or six-month period, so he can put some money into the hands of the producers when they need it and who at the moment are going out of business or have their backs to the wall, particularly the small producers.
4122

March 14, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
Another way in which the government has failed to produce a climate that is conducive to a strong agricultural industry is in its failure to deal with inflation. Input costs over the last two years have increased appallingly. I should like to refer to a Free Press report on farming for November 16, 1974. This report gives a pretty good outline of the way in which input costs have risen over the last five years. For example, 11-48-0 fertilizer cost $103 per ton in 1970; this year the projected cost is $200. Weed spray, 2,4-D Ester, five-gallon pails, in 1970 cost $24.95 and the projected cost in 1975 is $70.
Carbyne in 1970 cost $59.90 for a four gallon pail, and the projected 1975 price for that same pail is $75. Avadex was $78 for a pail in 1970 and the projected 1975 price for that same pail is $92. I could go on to tractors, diesel fuel and what not, but the point is that most of these things are manufactured in this country. We hear the argument that our inflation is imported from abroad, but that certainly does not hold true in respect of these products which are manufactured here.
The over-all approach of the government is that we must learn to live with inflation. I suggest the government by its policies is fanning the fires of inflation, and this has caused a great deal of the difficulty in the agricultural production sector of our economy. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) talked about past averages. If the government does not adopt an effective anti-inflationary policy these past averages will not work to the benefit of the farmer. This policy of failure on the part of the government does not only perpetuate these difficulties in respect of the producers but also in respect of the consumers and everybody else.
The government has also failed to deal effectively with strikes. All we see in newspaper headlines today are references to strikes in various parts of the country. The Ottawa Citizen of Friday, March 7, carried the heading "Govt, should end strikes: wheat pool official". The Edmonton Journal of the same date carried the heading "Government won't end grain tie-up". Why will the government not act on these matters?


An hon. Member:: They don't care.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This minister does not have any impact with the cabinet when he speaks on behalf of the western farmer. I would like this minister to tell us how he can sit idle and allow 300 or 400 grain weighers and samplers to tie up the movement of grain out of western Canada.


An hon. Member:: What about the longshoremen?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The longshoremen were not on strike on February 17, but they are now. When the Public Service alliance embarked upon a program of rotating strikes, why did it choose to single out the grain moving industry by imposing on that particular trade a continuous walkout?


An hon. Member:: Get back to the bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister of health suggests I should get back to the bill. I am talking about costs which have to come out of the earnings of producers in this country, and I have pointed out that this bill will not help them in defraying these unnecessary costs. The only thing that will help them is strong decisive leadership from that group over there. The Minister of Agriculture sits there very smugly, and suggests that we must let the collective bargaining process take its course. I suggest that when 300 or 400 grain weighers and samplers can tie up a multi-million dollar industry it is absolutely shameful. The minister cannot take consolation in the fact that his colleagues say we must not interfere with the collective bargaining process. Surely the public interest is more important at this stage of the game than the interests of these few hundred people. The government could act, but it has failed to do so.
The minister can boast very boldly about this piece of legislation. I am not denying him credit for introducing this bill, but is he prepared to recommend to his government that the producers who are being severely affected by these strikes should be given some protection or some insulation? They paid the $17 million demurrage bill last year. That was a total waste of money, but nothing compared to the loss of something in the order of $200 million to $300 million in income to the farmers. This loss is being incurred because of our forward sales agreements which establish the price of grain at the time of delivery. There has been relatively no grain shipped for the last month, and prices have tumbled in the last 60 days by as much as $1 to $1.50 a bushel. In spite of that this minister, who contends to be the champion of the farmer, will not put pressure on his cabinet colleagues to move to help those farmers immediately, and not on the basis of a five year average.
The solutions are not simple, but they require some guts and some leadership. Transportation is another area directly related to the income capability of producers. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board talks about abandoning Crowsnest pass freight rates, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) says we are not going to touch those rates. This creates confusion, apprehension, and frustration in the minds of producers in western Canada. It seems that, if we do not have a strike that slows down the movement of grain, we have a transportation failure.
The philosophy of the government is to use a lot of words, mouth a lot of expressions, but when the chips are down it fails to come through with any meaningful actions or programs of assistance.


Mrs. Holt:: Whine, whine, whine, whine.


Jack Burnett Murta: Now, Simma.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister's legislation is acceptable, but I must say that it was conceived by the Progressive Conservative Party back in the late 1950's. It seems that any good legislation in the last 15 years was inspired by the Conservative party, and most of it still forms the beneficial cornerstone of our agricultural policy.
The only agricultural policy the government seems to refer to is that policy enunciated by the task force report on agriculture. Our marketing legislation and the grain
March 14, 1975

stabilization bill seem to have emerged from that report. That task force report was a product of the bureaucrats, and I hope this minister will dissociate himself from it once and for all. His former colleague did not dissociate himself from it, and look what happened to him.
Let me conclude by reiterating that we do not need lofty pieces of legislation. The producers in western Canada need assistance right now, particularly in the movement of grain but also in other fields, especially the cattle industry. Most of this assistance can be provided by the government through order in council, or by the adoption of adequate policies. Perhaps all that is required is a shift in government policy. We certainly do not need complicated legislation. As my hon. friend suggests, all that is required is common sense, guts and leadership.
I hope this minister will consider these problems right now, because by doing so he might save an industry that is on the verge of going under and speak of the beef industry. Perhaps the minister is willing to meet with members on this side who are concerned with agriculture in order that we can work out something together.
We have always supported the minister in respect of good legislation, and we will continue to do so. We must impress upon him the importance of dealing with these specific problems right now. If he does not deal with them soon it will be too late to do any good for the producers or, and just as important, the consumers in Canada. If he does something he might even get back the support of his colleague, the hon. member from Windsor, who is the champion of the consumer. The two points of view are not contradictory. I think in order to have a good productive sector in agriculture we must have people who can buy and can afford to pay the price. So, I commend these suggestions to the minister. We will certainly support his bill and hopefully he will support some of our suggestions and amendments in the committee.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Before I recognize the minister I remind members of the House that the minister's statement will close the debate on this bill.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cote) wishes five or six minutes to make a contribution. If it is agreeable to the House this would be agreeable to me.


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have always been somewhat like the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) who, on starting his remarks, said he was a wise man. Like him, for many years, I have tried not to keep the House too long and simply repeat speeches to get my name into Hansard, to show that I had spoken or that I knew this or that.
So, I have been good, and today I did not even want to speak because, knowing the importance of this bill and the good results it can have, I would have liked to have seen it passed as soon as possible. But when the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) spoke a while ago, I said to myself: It is almost impossible to overlook all those
Agricultural Stabilization Act
remarks. Two things occurred to me: either he knows nothing about the administrative past of his own political party, or else the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) repeated each other. I then thought of putting a question to the hon. member for Mackenzie because his remarks were exactly contrary to the accusations of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) against the minister.
I agree with some hon. members that that bill will bring no fundamental change in the field of agriculture. I agree that the bill should be introduced as soon as possible, but I did not understand why one hon. member had followed another in such quick succession to study the bill until today, to then refuse to refer it immediately to the committee. One hon. member followed another hon. member simply to kill time, without listening to each other.
On this side of the House, not too much of an attempt was made to fight back. I was offended when it was explained that the minister was only running around. First of all, my good friend for Mackenzie said that, to improve the bill, the minister should stop running about. It may be that the minister explains the agricultural policy throughout Canada well enough to describe to the population the preparation of some changes in the policy, in the philosophy underlying the adaptation of certain measures, and that somewhat hurts the hon. member for Mackenzie.
That hon. member, whom I tried to listen to with the most possible wisdom said: the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) should do as he did in the milk industry in order that we realize that he is sincere about the measures concerning other farm commodities. What is amazing is that, last week, the hon. member for Crowfoot said: in agriculture, and especially in the milk industry, it is a total mess. Hon. members from eastern Canada should rise and scold the Minister of Agriculture. That is what the hon. member for Crowfoot was saying last week. On the other hand, the hon. member for Mackenzie is saying today that the minister should reorganize his policies along the same line as our dairy industry. There must certainly be a misunderstanding.
I suggest that the changes which this bill proposes, namely to use the average price over a five-year instead of a ten-year period, are important. What is still more important, however, is the adjustment on a yearly basis of base prices for farm products. I feel therefore that one and half or two years from now, we shall come closer to production costs. I do not want to take too much of the minister's time, but I want to make it clear that I did not agree with the hon. member for Timiskaming when he blamed the minister for providing the Canadian Dairy Commission with $140 million. In fact, he should check his figures, for these $140 million apply to last year only. He also blamed the government for establishing quota . ..


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege I wish to say I did not criticize the minister for making available to the National Dairy Commission $143 million, which figure the hon. member will find in the annual report if he takes the trouble look at it. Secondly, I would suggest he should read the bill and know exactly what he is talking about

March 14, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
rather than criticize other members who may have done so.


Florian Côté: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you consider it a question of privilege. So he just said $143 million, but he is completely wrong again. I will not tell him the exact amount, I shall let him search so that he will remember it. I do not want to criticize hon. members in any way. I just want to know what they tried to tell the House. They claim that with respect to administration the government introduced no reasonable policy. Everything is criticized. I just want to let them understand that they should at least back their criticisms with figures, to have something real at least. Then we shall have to confess that the government is wrong. But right now their criticism is unfounded.
I guess the hon. member for Timiskaming might listen to me. I am going to ask him another question, and he may refer to the official transcript of last week's debates. He was then blaming the government for introducing quotas, and he said that it had resulted in dismal failure for the dairy industry. Quotas were not imposed by the government, but by us farmers. I was a member of the Farmers Union then. We asked the government to fix quotas for the dairy industry in order to match production with consumption.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I had to say. A question was raised by an opposition member, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), and I appreciated that. If we had had on the bill such remarks as those made by the hon. member for Lisgar, I believe we would not have strolled about so long, and probably we could have referred the bill to the committee last week. I support his suggestions, and I would like to discuss them with him, because they apparently make a lot of sense.
Instead of being criticized for roaming across the country, the minister should be encouraged to continue his travels. Instead of hearing speeches, we could have gone through 5 or 6 bills, now before the House, to help the farm industry. Those 6 bills could be voted and the minister could go and inform the people, which the opposition will not do because they are not interested in explaining legislative items.
This bill deserves our support. It may need improvements from year to year, and I hope that in committee opposition members will not take all the time. I have noticed that opposition members have control over the time of the House, while we on the government side control only legislation. Time is controlled by the opposition. This prevents us from getting the bills into the book. Therefore, next week or the week after, when the bill is deferred to committee, I would ask opposition members if they would agree that two or three representatives from each party state their views, vote on amendments and carry the bill through as fast as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the debate that I must try to set some things straight.


An hon. Member:: Hurray!


Eugene Whelan: Bill C-50, contrary to what some hon. members have said, is important. Also, it breaks new ground in the stabilization legislation of Canada. Some hon. members have said that this is just old legislation to which some improvements have been made. Let us go back a few years. What was the first bill? The original agricultural support bill was established in 1944. In 1958 we had the first stabilization bill. In the bill before us we put forward the first major amendments to the original agricultural stabilization legislation.
We can even go back to the legislation which first established the Canadian Farm Loan Board, the present Farm Credit Association. This is being amended. Hon. members have said that we have created no new legislation. I ask, what do hon. members think the Canadian Dairy Commission is? The act establishing the commission was one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever created in the field of agriculture. It was passed in 1966. Some hon. members have asked why I have not put forward the same sort of legislation to protect the beef industry as I have for the dairy industry. Let us not forget that the legislation under which the dairy industry operates, and similar legislation put forward by the provinces themselves for fluid milk marketing are a supply management program. The dairy farmers in Canada today average about $2.75 a hundredweight more than dairy farmers in the United States. There is no other commodity that receives that kind of protection. All I can say is that this is not bad for quotas.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is why we are importing butter.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) spoke about wheat. I would dare him to travel across the prairies and say we will get rid of the quota delivery.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is not supply management.


Eugene Whelan: Is the hon. member suggesting that what is good for one segment of the population is not for other parts of our society? I hope that is not what he is suggesting. When the hon. member was speaking about the labour groups I had the impression that he thought the Minister of Agriculture should say that that is a small, insignificant group, let us crush them like a road roller crushes a bug, push them out of the way, and make the elevators work. I had the impression that he thought those other several thousands are more important, that perhaps it is more dangerous to do something to them so we will let them do

what they want. Again I hope that that is not what he was suggesting.
I have said, and I am sure that the hon. member will agree, or at least I hope so, that we should have some system which would make strikes unnecessary. Many suggestions have been made about putting a matter before a parliamentary committee. A joint committee of the House and the Senate is right now today studying the Finkelman report, trying to work out solutions. I and other hon. members know that the work of the committee will not be completed in time to settle the present problem, but perhaps the committee can work out a system, or make some suggestions and report to parliament so that some solution can be found that will work. There is no denying that we must have such a system.
With regard to the beef industry, to which reference was made about 29 times, although I am not sure of that number because if one includes all the provincial programs it may have been even more than that, let me tell the House that our beef producers are 29 times better off than beef producers in the United States as a result of the action we took.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Don't say that in Vegreville.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member should not forget that rarely does the government move without some representation being made to us. We never take action without consulting the industry and the provinces.
I have been reading Hansard, and I have listened to most of the speeches made in the House in this debate, and I find that, with the exception of the last two speakers from the opposition, who did not criticize me for it, most hon. members have said that they think I should be present more often in the House. I would challenge them to find any other member of parliament who stays around here more than I do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The fact is that nobody has ever seen him outside these buildings. Somebody has even said that he lives in the Peace Tower. I could never manage to be here as much as he is, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody has to mind the store.


Eugene Whelan: I am a strong believer in not making people come to the government. There is nothing wrong with taking the government to the people. People get copies of the speeches I make-and hon. members even object to that-but I want them to know what I am saying, or at least to see a reasonable facsimile of what I am saying. I would challenge any one of them to find an inaccuracy in anything I have said, and I challenge them to do some research.
I told farmers to prepare for the future because times will not stay good forever. Never once did I say that I was totally responsible for the prices they were getting. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) also took part in the debate. In his province income in 1974
Agricultural Stabilization Act
increased by 360 per cent, and in the whole nation there was an increase in 1974 of 215 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I admit there are some problems in agriculture, but to hear some hon. members who took part in the debate one would think there is nothing but gloom and doom in agriculture. It is my duty to state some of the facts. It must be admitted that the press in the big cities does not do the job it should in telling the people of Canada what the score is, so I believe in taking the government to the people. I myself do it on Wednesday nights when this institution is not sitting, and I also do it on Friday evenings and on the weekends, so let no one say to me that I am jeopardizing my job here. I work seven days a week, and that is my business if I want to make that sacrifice on behalf of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I think there are two damn many politicians holed up in this place who forget that there is an outside world, and again I apologize to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not say that the minister was going out too much. I said he was not doing anything here.


Eugene Whelan: I did not hear what the hon. member said. I am lucky, I have a slight hearing impairment after having run machinery as a young farmer and industrial worker. I have that affliction, which one is sometimes fortunate in having, because one does not have to listen to everything-that goes for cabinet meetings also.


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Eugene Whelan: I only accept one out of twenty invitations that I get. If I am saying bad things, tell me about it. People are certainly not telling me that I am saying so many bad things. I was accused of doing that just before the election in 1974. They said, "That is Whelan's job." I want it made plain here and now, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or nobody else never told me what to do. They said, "You do your job the best way you know, and we will not stop you from doing anything." I felt it was my duty as minister not just to talk to farm audiences but to urban audiences also. Over 90 per cent of the meetings I go to are non-political; they are meetings called by service clubs, rural-urban nights, chambers of commerce-you name them, Mr. Speaker, and I have been there.
I was in Saskatchewan again last week. I can tell the hon. member for Mackenzie that I did not hear a thing about him because I do not think they have seen him for a while. One person told me he sees me more often in Saskatchewan that the hon. member for Mackenzie. He thinks he is holed up here in Ottawa or some place, and you know we have made special provisions for the hon. member, to go home every weekend on an airplane if he wants to, with a free ticket. He only has to drive a couple

March 14, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
of hundred miles through the beautiful province of Saskatchewan. That would do him good, and he could familiarize himself with it more than he has in the past few years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Hon. members opposite say the legislation has been delayed, Mr. Speaker, but they delayed it more than I did. I never called the election last July-they called it and delayed parliament several months. This should have been undertaken earlier but we delayed all these things, and I say we are delaying some of them too long at the present time.
I was also criticized for saying that we had inter-departmental discussions when we made decisions on agriculture, food production, etc. I told hon. members about the flexibility of the new bill, how it gives me wide powers, and gets the support of producers. I also said that in some of these areas governor in council approval would be needed, and that inter-departmental discussions were utilized. You would think I was a dictator or something! But, Mr. Speaker, we are running a parliamentary system. I believe in consultation, and on this bill we have had consultation with all farm organizations.
You would think that nobody had ever heard of this bill before, but in the gallery right now are members of the Stabilization Advisory Board with whom I met at noon today. They were appointed a long time before I came here. Indeed, I think some of them were appointed in 1958 when the bill first became law. I have a report from them on what they think of the stabilization bill, and I can tell you that they think it is a big step forward.
I see nothing wrong with departments that are concerned about trade and all these other things working together and coming to a mutual understanding on what we are trying to do about food production in this country. I have been accused of being just a representative of the farmers. That is a damn lie, and I will say so at mass on Sunday if anybody wants me to do that. It is a damn lie, because if I can make a strong agricultural industry, all society benefits, not just agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) insinuated that I tried to pit people against people, but I have never done that, Mr. Speaker. Some people in the media have tried to build that great war, but I would let the House know through you, Mr. Speaker, that the riding I represent is 90 per cent urban. It is mostly working people that I represent, and this kid was a factory worker. I was a member of Local 89 UAW CIO at one time. I have the respect of labour and the working people in my area, and I won the biggest majority in my life in the election of 1974. Anybody who says that I represent just a bunch of farmers is paying me the greatest compliment of all.
Nearly 75 per cent of our society in Canada-and the opposition had better take a few lessons from this-is rural oriented. These people are not fully one generation away from the farm. The biggest contributors to urbanization in this nation were from agriculture-bigger than all
[Mr. Whelan. 1
the immigration. And the immigrants who came to this country did not come from big cities, Mr. Speaker. They came from rural parts of the world, mostly from Europe. They are the people who make up society, they are the people who understand the problems of rural living, and that is why this government has their support also.
My reference to the five ministers and inter-departmental discussions was to make it clear to the House and the public how this government operates to co-operate programs for the good of Canadians. This is a matter of co-operation and consultation, and I commend this approach to hon. members opposite. It works, Mr. Speaker.
We talk about what we have done in some of the communities, and the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) mentioned this the other day. Mr. Speaker, I have five pages of items of things that I have done for agricultural Canada since becoming minister. For hon. members opposite to say I have done nothing just proves that they do not even read our news releases. I think we have done nearly 400 things to improve agriculture.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And 29 changes in the beef program.


Eugene Whelan: Our aid for storage to provide stability to the food industry in the Okanagan Valley has cost over $700,000, without any strings attached. They were improving storage so that they could keep food in better condition to supply the market in a supply management fashion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And 29 changes in the beef policy.


Eugene Whelan: That money has gone to 17 districts across Canada, but the area of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary received the largest contribution.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Tell us about the 29 changes in the beef policy.


Eugene Whelan: As Minister of Agriculture one of the first things I did was to protect the cherry producers in that area, something that had never been done before. Generally it was not done until after disaster struck, and then action was sometimes taken too late. For hon. members opposite to say I have never done anything but talk-by God, I love talking-but I love doing things too, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that.
I could mention Alberta, Mr. Speaker, the richest province in the nation. Who takes more advantage of the loan program we have for small communities, community centres, etcetera? Naturally the province of Alberta does. I sign more agreements with the province of Alberta to build community centres-I just signed one with Edmonton for $6 million, and one with Calgary for $6 million and one for $4 million. They are going to take pretty nearly the whole fund we have set aside. We will have to use more supplementaries. I do not want the hon. member to criticize me because we are going to be helping Alberta, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: We have a good government in
Alberta.


Eugene Whelan: They need help out there, that is for sure. I have visited some of those community centres and I agree
March 14, 1975

with the programs to help keep the small rural communities alive. Its a helluva good program, and I only wish more provinces in Canada were taking advantage of it, but they are not taking advantage of it the way they should. That is one of our programs, Mr. Speaker. The opposition did not do that.


An hon. Member:: We have a good Conservative government out there.


Eugene Whelan: Now let us talk about the national marketing legislation. Eggs have been mentioned here today. That is a good four letter word, Mr. Speaker; there is nothing wrong with it. Eggs are the cheapest thing you can buy today, and anyone in society who says eggs are too expensive does not know what he is talking about. There was never a time in our history when an hour's wages would buy so many eggs. I would ask hon. members to check anything they like, and I will say more about that later on.
They said that CEMA did a poor job of marketing. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) talked about "those gods who are running CEMA". Mr. Speaker, those gods were only farmers who were running CEMA. I dare him to ask any farm meeting out west, or any place in Canada, if they think they are gods. They never thought they were gods. They were just trying to do a job with the God given powers that they have, and they didn't do that bad a job when you think of the problems they had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: They lost 1 per cent of total production, and they did not even know where the chickens were laying them. How can you condemn them for that?
You could look at the automobile industry in my area. The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) did not say a damn thing about that the other day. The highest priced computers you can buy, the highest priced market analysts you can hire, the highest priced marketing forecasters you can get all made horrendous mistakes in the automobile industry. They did not know what happened. People quit buying cars. All computers told them was that production should continue, but did you see a request for an inquiry into that?
We know that losses in automobile production have cost this country 1,400 times the amount we lost when eggs went bad. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some of the experts on whose predictions automobile production is based earn more than the Prime Minister. We do not say that the difficulties in automobile production were the result of stupid marketing policies. If unemployment rises by 4 per cent in any district, the entire nation pays the bill for unemployment insurance. In my area unemployment is at the 10 per cent level because of the horrendous mistakes made by some high-priced market computer specialists. Do people say that the workers are at fault in this situation, or that marketing and computer specialists were wrong? Why blame the difficulties in egg production on agricultural producers?
Agricultural Stabilization Act
I was surprised to hear a farmer condemn the system. I am not surprised when the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), or wherever the hell he comes from, condemns the system; he is liable to condemn anything. But I am surprised to hear a farmer condemn the good job being done in egg marketing.
The system is not without fault and the people running it are not perfect, but egg prices have not been as stable as they now are for a long time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I want hon. members to think about farmers and farm organizations; when they look at Hansard they expect to see a straightforward account of what this bill will mean to them. I hope they will derive more benefit from the last few speeches than they have derived from previous speeches. They look to this House for sharp, clear-cut, thought-provoking debate; they do not expect confusion.
Before I finish I want to set a few things straight for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the farmers of this nation. The bill calls for shortening the base period to five years. We did this because the ten-year period proved to be too long. Costs and prices can change so sharply in a ten-year period that the base price no longer does its job. And that is exactly what did happen. Right now the legislation on our statute books is little more than token legislation.
Let me refer to a comparison some hon. members have made. They say that all I have done is improve on old legislation. I ask them to think of what the Wright brothers did when they made the first successful powered flight at Kitty-hawk; then let them think of the sort of aircraft they fly home in, the DC-8 and Boeing 747. Certainly, these are airplanes, but they are big, magnificent improvements over the original. That is exactly what we are doing with this legislation; that is exactly the type of job we try to do in parliament. We do not tear down this institution and build it up again. We try to improve it all the time. That is exactly what we do on our farms. We improve livestock breeding, plant cultivation, horticulture, and our cultivation procedures. We try to improve all the time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Then bring in 29 more beef policies.


Eugene Whelan: That is exactly what we are trying to do with this legislation. I cannot understand all the criticism of this bill. Such criticism is not based on any philosophy.
Stabilization law must be more than just that. It is set up to be stop-loss legislation. However, to do its job the support price must be high enough to save efficient producers from going out of production when prices nose dive. There is nothing in this bill for those who are not productive. This legislation will not rob efficient producers of incentive, no matter what anyone says.
Many members have taken pokes at the five-year period. They say it is still too long. They would be right if the bill did not go any further; but it does, it goes a lot further. This bill builds an indexing system, and this index will be tied to everyday costs of production. This is our check on the five-year base. If the base lags behind changes in production costs, the index will make up the difference. The index will keep stabilization legislation current in the

March 14, 1975
Agricultural Stabilization Act
same way as the cost of living index keeps a pensioner's cheque current. In the debate many members chose to overlook this index. Well, I will tell you one thing: if you overlook the index you are overlooking what farmers feel is the most important part of this bill. Farm organizations presented briefs to us in which they asked for this index. Think about that. What they want has been incorporated in this legislation.
Some hon. members of the opposition have charged that this bill has nothing new in it. If you want to know how off-base these charges are, ask a farmer. I will give you an example to prove my point. Say the bottom falls out of the price of farm produce X. The base price over the previous five years was $2, but the index shows the costs of production are $1 higher than during the base period. What does that mean to the farmer? It means that the supply price will be 90 per cent of $2, which is $1.80, plus $1 to keep stabilization in line with today's production costs. That totals $2.80 a unit. That is the minimum under the new bill. Under the law we now have the farmer would only be guaranteed $1.30 if the average price over the 10 years was $1.63.
On the farm there is a big difference between a floor price of $2.80 and a floor price of $1.30. Some members can say that is nothing. But farmers would again disagree. A price of $2.80 is 215 per cent of $1.30. Three factors lead to that 215 per cent increase. One is the five-year base period. The second is the index. The third is also important. The named commodities under this new bill cannot be supported at less than 90 per cent of the base price. That is up from 80 per cent. This 10 per cent increase has been belittled by many people as a petty change. In terms of cash in farmers' hands, it is far from petty. Some hon. members insist that the old legislation is able to cope with today's demands. That legislation went on the books in 1958. I have already explained that we need up-to-date legislation so that what we can do what must be done to meet the changing needs of society. The example I have just given you is proof that the legislation we already have is not good enough.
Some hon. members point out that the current act has no ceiling, so that we can shelve our new bill and merely raise support prices whenever we need them. There are two purposes to stabilization legislation. One is to give farmers a floor price that will protect them from ruin. If the floor price is high enough, the legislation also serves another purpose. It gives farmers the security they need to invest in land, buildings, equipment and stock. Farmers want a realistic support guarantee written into the law. Using the old bill would probably mean less cash in their hands. It would also definitely not give them as much security to invest in their farming futures. It would not give enough security if they want to borrow from a credit union or bank.
One of the criticisms hurled at this bill is that it balkan-izes the country. It allows top loading. In short, this means that provincial governments and/or producers can pay the cost of boosting the base price about 90 per cent. The federal support will not give advantage to producers in one province over another.
The charges of balkanizing could be true if the government of one province raised the base price to 95 per cent or

100 per cent of the five-year average, while the level stayed at 90 per cent in the province next door. This could give one province's producers a competitive advantage over producers in another province. That is why any top loading of a product sold across Canada will have to be uniform in all provinces.
Say two provincial governments wanted to pay the cost of increasing the base price for hogs to 100 per cent and the other eight provinces only wanted to increase it to 95 per cent. If the two provinces would not agree on 95 per cent, then the federal government would have no choice. It would have to withdraw all federal money form the stabilization of that commodity in those two provinces. That is wielding a big stick, but we will use it to prevent federal money from being used to give one province an undue advantage over another. I am sure the provinces will respect this power.
The only exception is where the legislation provides for regional supports. This only applies where there are distinctly different regional markets in Canada for one commodity. Potatoes are a good example. Potatoes raised in the Maritimes sell in one market. Potatoes grown in the west sell in another. Few potatoes cross from one market to the other. So a regional stabilization plan in potatoes would not pit one region's producers against another's. It could work very well. But none of these plans for support will work unless there is a production agreement and a market for the production. I am not going to spend taxpayers' money on production so large that it would come out of people's ears, or on production which cannot be sold. That would waste our production capacities and waste energy and resources.
Some of you have called for the support level to be changed every six months. Some want it changed every three. Whether you know it or not, that is not criticizing Bill C-50. It can be done. But think for a minute, and you will find that it makes a lot more sense for some commodities than it does for others. Grain crops come off once a year. Because they can be sold in orderly fashion throughout the year there is no need to shorten the stabilization period. Where a shorter period may do a good job is in seasonal crops. When you ask for stabilization price periods to be shortened, there is one over-riding fact you must be aware of, and that is that every time you change the support level you risk disrupting the normal marketing patterns.
There has been a lot of dispute about the list of named commodities. I want to explain this. Cattle, hogs, sheep, industrial milk and cream, corn and soybeans, plus oats and barley produced outside the Canadian Wheat Board area are automatically covered under the new bill. And there is a good reason for this. These commodities, plus the prairie grains covered by the western grain stabilization bill, add up to more than 88 per cent of the total value of Canada's farm production.
No commodity is excluded from protection. I think I should repeat that. No commodity is excluded from stabilization protection. Butter and cheese are no longer named commodities because they are now covered by the Canadian Dairy Commission Act. The CDC receives money for its
March 14, 1975

support programs from the agricultural commodities stabilization account. Therefore, it is simply good housekeeping to strike them from the list of named commodities.
Eggs have also been dropped as a named commodity because the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency has the power to manage supply. They talk about more power. I think they are going to be given it because they are meeting at the present time, and will be meeting again next week. If CEMA is well run there should be no need to use stabilization legislation. Yet, as I said, no commodity is excluded. Eggs could come under the bill. The governor in council can select any product for stabilization if it is needed. Bill C-19 already guarantees a floor price for wheat grown outside the Canadian Wheat Board area.
There is one important part of the bill that has been poked at by members of the opposition. Some obviously do not understand how the deficiency payment works. Say the support price is $45 per hundredweight. However, farmers only got an average weighted price of $43 that year from the marketplace. What deficiency payment will the farmer get? He will be paid $2 on every hundredweight he marketed during that bad year.
That $2 is a flat rate. That is what the farmer who sold his animal for $46 per hundredweight will get. It is also what the farmer who sold his animal for $40 will get. The reason behind this is important, and it needs to be understood. Producers should not rely on a deficiency payment to make up for sloppy marketing, even in bad times. The way this legislation is written, a farmer who sells his product wisely and gets the top price will come out ahead. The farmer who does not market his product as wisely will be paid less. This way it is always in the farmer's best interest to bargain well and market wisely.
I resent people saying that this government did not put the legislation that is now on the books to its full use. That is hogwash. Between 1958-59 and 1962-63, the government spent a total of $220 million in stabilization. That worked out to about $44 million each year. Then the Liberal government came in. Listen to this. From then until the end of the fiscal year 1974-75 we spent $l*/2 billion. That works out to about $133 million each year, so do not say we do not do anything. Just think what you did not do with that good legislation you passed in 1958.
It is simply not true to accuse this government of not making the best use of the stabilization legislation we have had. In 1974-75 alone $318 million will be paid out in stabilization cheques, and that does not include the consumer milk subsidy or the two-price wheat support price.
Recently this House gave second reading to Bill C-34, amending the Farm Credit Act. The aim of the credit bill is to make more low-interest mortgage credit available to young farmers. This stabilization legislation we have before us goes hand-in-hand with Bill C-34. There is no way that young men and women should be encouraged to buy a farm without the protection of this stabilization legislation.
These are two planks in this government's farm policy. They are both part of the legislative framework that farmers need in the future. It is most important we have that.
This new legislation will let us do a lot more in stabilization. That's the plain truth. Some hon. members have
Agricultural Stabilization Act
charged that this is not the truth. They point out that because the main estimates for stabilization payments in 1975-76 are less than we paid out in 1974-75, this new legislation is backward, is not progressive.
They are wrong. The fact is that the main estimates in the Blue Book are for known expenses only. These are expenses that can be accurately measured for the coming year. The Blue Book estimates are, in fact, a minimum. In each year since we have had stabilization legislation we have spent more money than we budgeted in the main estimates-yes, in every single year. When the bottom drops out of the market for a farm commodity we need to be able to act right then. If we were pinned to the estimates in the Blue Book, how could we possibly respond to farmers' needs? Answer me that. When we need more money than the main estimates provide, we get supplementary estimates. Our Stabilization Act needs this kind of flexibility. If anyone wants to read the annual report they will see this happened for the past ten years.
Some have implied that we paid our stabilization payments with money from hidden sources. How can they possibly say that? Supplementary estimates are voted on, and each member knows it. Every dollar and cent spent on stabilization is on the public record. It is dishonest for any member of the House to suggest anything to the contrary.
Let us look at the figures the hon. member for Windsor West attacked. He points out that we spent $301 million on stabilization in 1974-75 but that the main estimates for this year are only $261 million. Therefore he concludes that we would make less use of stabilization legislation than we have in the past. As I said, that is not true. Remember that the main budget for 1974-75 was only $129 Vi million. We ended up spending more than twice that.


An hon. Member:: Not so fast.


Eugene Whelan: I only have a minute to go.
As a matter of fact, and I think it is worth repeating, we have spent more than the Blue Book estimates in every single year that we have had stabilization legislation. Two years ago we spent $31 million more than was allocated in the main estimates.
Now let us take a realistic look at the Blue Book estimates for 1975-76. Sure, the main estimates of $261 million for this year are a lot less than we spent last year. But remember this includes no funds, not one cent, for two on-going programs. Neither the cow stabilization nor the beef stabilization legislation are included in these estimates.
There are many more things I could say, Madam Speaker, but I, too, would like to have second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask the minister a question in the one minute remaining before four o'clock? Will the minister explain why calves were not supported during the last year under the Stabilization Act when cattle, of which calves are a part, are a designated product? I am curious as to why calves were not supported when that industry is in

March 14, 1975
Holidays Act
such serious difficulty, particularly because of provincial government intervention.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we discussed all the pros and cons of establishing a possible program. I think this needs to be explained, and I will be glad to do that in greater detail before the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is general agreement to take the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), Bill C-231, to amend the Holidays Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the bills standing previous to this bill be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is agreement, Madam Speaker, but I hope that one day soon the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) will present his Bill C-208. We have jumped over it quite a few times. If we do not deal with it soon, another Heritage Day will be missed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Harold Thomas Herbert: that Bill C-231, to amend the Holidays Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, I do not propose to take the time of the House for very long. The purpose of the bill, as stated in the explanatory note, is to discontinue the use of the word Dominion in the Holidays Act and to eliminate the divisiveness caused by this word, so that all Canadians can celebrate their national holiday with pride and pleasure.

There may be some disposition on the part of the House to refer the subject matter of the bill to a committee, in which case the bill could be discharged. The committee discussion would be of assistance to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) who will be bringing down at some future date-I hope in the early future-a measure to amend the Holidays Act, and this will embrace the general content of the bill now before us. If this should be the will of the House I would be happy to move that the subject matter of Bill C-231 be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody else will have to move it.


Donald W. Munro: Is that a point of
order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not rise, it is true, but I suppose what I said was a point of order. I would have no objection to what was suggested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), but since he is the mover of the motion for second reading he would have to get one of his hon. friends to move the motion to which he referred. On the other hand, if he would just allow the bill to be debated, it might be passed.


Gerald William Baldwin: No!


Mr. Francis:: I am prepared to so move.


Donald W. Munro: I am a little confused about what is going on. I understand it is now the subject matter of the bill which is to be referred to the committee. What we are being asked to do is, essentially, to change the name by which this holiday has so far been known, Dominion Day, to another name which has been gathering a certain amount of recognition through customary use, though it still flies in the face of tradition that we should sanction such a change. The tradition upon which the name of our national day rests is to be found in line three of the preamble to the British North America Act.


Thomas Lefebvre: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member but I think the amendment to which reference has been made ought to be proposed and accepted in the House before we discuss the subject along the lines the hon. member wishes to pursue. I understand the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is ready to do this. We cannot have an orderly discussion before the motion is put.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I would remind hon. members that we now have before us the second reading of Bill C-231. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is speaking to that motion.


Thomas Lefebvre: Yes, Madam Speaker, he is speaking on the bill, but did you recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) who wished to move a further motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you have it in writing?

March 14, 1975


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: When the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has finished, the hon. member for Ottawa West can put his motion.


Donald W. Munro: I am quite prepared to defer to the rules and allow the hon. member for Ottawa West to move his motion and speak to it later, if that is the recognized procedure. I am in the hands of the Chair.


Thomas Lefebvre: That's right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It doesn't matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The recognized procedure is to allow the hon. member who has the floor to take part in the discussion of this motion.


Donald W. Munro: I presume I may now address myself to the matters raised by Bill C-231. If I am out of order I will again defer, but since there seems to be general agreement that I can continue along these lines, I shall do so. I should like to cite the basis of tradition upon which the name of our national day rests and remind hon. members, if they need any reminder, that the day on which we celebrate our national day is July 1-I have celebrated this day in many countries of the world, I have always done so proudly, and I shall go on doing so.
In the opening phrases of the preamble of the act which brought our country into being, we find the following words:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion-
So we find the words "Canada" and "Dominion" in the first three lines of that preamble. The suggestion in the bill before us today is that we eliminate one of those words and replace it by another. Madam Speaker, we are forgetting our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: The Canadas, according to our history, were Upper and Lower Canada. We have now come to accept the Dominion of Canada as incorporating the Canadas, and, at that time in 1867, the colonies which had enjoyed responsible government for many years, indeed, the first responsible government on this continent-Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Those four jurisdictions came together in the Dominion of Canada. The BNA Act was, of course, proclaimed on July 1, 1867, having been submitted on March 19 of the same year. It is on July 1 that we celebrate this gathering together, this federal unity in one dominion under the Crown of Great Britain, etc. We have used this particular form, and all the symbolism related thereto, throughout our history. I do not believe we should cast this tradition aside in favour of a formula which reminds me a little of "Air Canada" and similar expressions, but not quite.
The hon. member's suggestion is "Canada Day". I submit that "Dominion Day", the title under which we presently celebrate our national festival to commemorate the coming together of those four original sections of our country, to which was subsequently added the other six
Holidays Act
and, later, the Northwest Territories, is still perfectly satisfactory.
The proposer of the bill claims that the word dominion engendered divisiveness. I submit that divisiveness in this particular instance is in the eye of the beholder. I do not see it. The word dominion is a respectable word, one that stands on its own feet. It has a very impressive heritage. I could probably quote from any dictionary, but the one I have chosen is the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which I obtained from the Library. I would just remind the House that this particular word reaches us in its present form via the old French "dominion," from the medieval Latin "dominium", meaning "property", and also from "dominus" meaning "lord, master".
I think all of these are reputable concepts, bearing in mind that they are interpreted in a democratic way. When we speak of dominion we are not talking about the feudal times through which this particular word was developed, but are referring to its modern sense in which it is a respectable word that need cause no divisiveness and which should give us nothing but pride in retaining.
The first definition of dominion given by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is "The power or right of governing and controlling". I think that is a worthy concept, one of governance, the state of being governed. We have to be in our particular society. We would not be the dominion of Canada if we did not have the discipline within ourselves to be governed and to accept being governed. The second definition is "sovereign authority". There is nothing the matter with that. That, too, is a worthy concept and should be preserved within the symbolism of our festivals and our parliaments. The definition also includes "sovereignty, rule, control". I submit to the proposer of this bill that these are words that need cause no divisiveness; indeed, they should be given the respect necessary to live in a modern society, one organized in such a way as to accord respect to other people. For this reason the notion being put forward in this particular bill does not gain my support.
There is one other aspect regarding the change of this word that I should draw to the attention of the House. There was brief mention in the preamble to the act which brought our country into being, and of which we have just cause to be proud, that there was a union of the Canadas. In other words there were two Canadas, an Upper Canada and a Lower Canada, before Canada as we know it today came into being. We must remember that this is part of our history. By transposing words from, if you like, our colonial past into the modern sense, let us not provide symbols around which people can become divided and say, "Well, this applies only to the other part of Canada, one of the Canadas, not to this part of Canada". The one word that covers all of Canada, the umbrella under which we all live, is dominion. That is the word, the symbol, to which we submit voluntarily and gratefully, and it is the concept to which I adhere.
So, Madam Speaker, in view of the reputable family from which the word dominion comes and which I will not see denigrated in the manner I have just heard, and because there were two Canadas before there was a

March 14, 1975
Holidays Act
Canada, I suggest we stay with the word dominion and refuse to recognize the change put forward in Bill C-231. With those few remarks about the manner in which we describe our national festivals and holidays, Madam Speaker, I will take my seat.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson):
That Bill C-231 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak for a few brief moments on this bill which now seems to be subject to amendment in the House. I should like to make a few brief remarks in regard to Dominion Day, and I now understand it is up to us to decide whether or not the subject matter of the bill will be sent to a committee.
While dealing with the subject matter, my lack of knowledge of the other official language has made me rather curious. In the French translation of the bill the last line reads "under the name of 'Canada Day' ''.whereas in the French it is "fete du Canada". I had always been under the impression that "fete" meant holiday, and that "jour" is the literal translation of "day". However, this is a small point which may get ironed out in committee if the bill does in fact get to committee.
I am pleased it has been decided to refer only the subject matter to the committee, on the clear understanding that there is another bill somewhere in the works which is going to have something to say about Dominion Day. I understand the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) is planning to introduce such a bill later in the session. It is not unusual in our history to have bills concerning the first day of July. A rather interesting comment was made about it some time ago, on April 17, 1879, a date to which I will refer a little later in my remarks. If we examine Hansard for that date, the question at that time was a bill to bring about Dominion Day, and Mr. Holton said:
-as the hon. gentleman had appealed to him, he would say that Bills from the Senate were treated precisely like Bills originating in this House.
There was some question about dealing with those which originated in the Senate. This goes on to state:
They went through the same stages, and were also subject to rejection very frequently. There could be no objection, therefore, in point of form. He thought there was a great deal of force in the suggestion of the hon. the Minister of Justice, that this proposal rested on an entirely different footing from the proposal of the hon. member for King's (Mr. Domville).
Mr. Mills then replied:
-he did not exactly see what was intended to be accomplished by this Bill.
Later it is reported:
He did not think this House had the right to say to a man in the employment of another man that he was discharged from any obligation to work on a particular day. Dominion Day was, he believed, universally kept as a holiday, at least, it was in Western Canada, but it was not kept under the authority of any Act of Parliament.
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).l
I just quoted that passage from Hansard to show that the tradition of Dominion Day in western Canada goes back considerably further than it does in eastern Canada, and it was always observed in western Canada under the name of Dominion Day. It is part of the heritage of western Canadians that the 1st day of July shall be considered as the day the Canadian provinces joined to become a country.
As we were speaking of holidays I thought I should dig out a list of all public statutory holidays in Canada which
is:
DOMINION OF CANADA-in accordance with the provisions of the Interpretation Act, the Bills of Exchange Act, the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations, the Victoria Day Act as amended, the Dominion Day Act, and the Remembrance Day Act, the holidays to be observed throughout Canada are as follows:



BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT

[Stage Direction]
"(a) is the provinces of Canada. Sundays, New Year's Day, Good
Friday, Easter Monday, Victoria Day, Dominion Day, Labour Day,
Remembrance Day, Christmas Day.
I understand it was only the result of a misadventure in this House that we do not have a holiday called Heritage Day. While I am on my feet I might point out an injustice that is occurring in this country because of the failure of this parliament to pass a bill to establish Heritage Day.
A number of people working in Canada were sent back to work by parliament. Parliament forbade them to remain on strike and ordered them back to work, I believe about two years ago. These were the non-operating union railway workers. They were ordered back by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, and part of the arbitration award by Mr. Hall was that these people would get the Heritage Day holiday. As parliament failed to establish Heritage Day, that part of the settlement is not being observed, and in fact these people are being cheated out of a rightful holiday which was agreed to in the settlement which put them back to work.
I suggest that instead of bringing in froth like this, now would be an appropriate time to do something for these people in order to fulfil the contract on the basis of which they went back to work. We would be doing something then instead of considering the subject matter of spurious bills like this. I strongly recommend that the government get in touch with the railway companies through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), suggesting that the honourable thing would be to give these workers one extra day holiday this year and one more to make up for the one they lost last year.
According to the act of 1879, July 1 is the day it was decided we should celebrate Dominion Day. Whether this is right or not, this is the day on which we did become a dominion. If we want to have a Canada Day, an utter independence day, or a day of transition from our former status, proud though it may have been, we should take some other day than the 1st of July. July 1 is the day that Canada became a dominion with various provinces.
If we want a Canada Day there are other days that can be chosen. Perhaps when we move on to days of even more freedom we can adopt the date of the Treaty of Westminster, which made the basic change in the Commonwealth. Perhaps we should adopt the day that the Righ Hon. Sir Robert Borden prevailed upon our allies in World War I to
[Stage Direction]
give Canada a separate seat at the peace negotiations. That marked a real step forward for Canada toward full fledged nationhood. Canada Day might well be chosen as the day of Vimy Ridge, April 17, which strangely enough is the same date from which I quoted from Hansard when they were discussing Canada Day, which was some 40 years before.
There are many other days we could usefully celebrate on which Canada has taken a step forward in its progress toward full nationhood. The 1st of July was intended to be celebrated for one reason, and that was the day on which Canada effectively became a dominion. I understand that this parliament sat on that day for the first time, and there were great celebrations in Ottawa.
Stanley Howard Knowles: They didn't sit until November.


An hon. Member:: Don't tell us you were there, Stanley.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I do not see any reason for having a great deal of discussion on the subject matter of this bill. The bill is short and requires little discussion, perhaps just enough to straighten out its terminology. It might be well to obtain the feeling of the people throughout the country. It may well be their wish to change this old established holiday. I am not, nor are the people of my riding, among those who seem to think all change is progress. Surely there are some things we do not wish changed.
There are some things worth preserving. I should like to see a stop put to this constant ferreting out of anything traditional in order that it can be changed to something new and modern, with the result that none of us will eventually know where we came from even the day before yesterday.
I see that there are others who wish to speak on this matter. Let me conclude by saying that if the subject matter of this bill is referred to the committee, I hope it will have full and wide discussion and that the feelings of the people will be considered in the most meaningful fashion possible. This matter is of considerable importance to many constituents in western Canada who have lived with Dominion Day on the record for 96 years. For 96 years they have celebrated the 1st of July as Dominion Day, and they may well wish to continue doing so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, we certainly have no objection to the passing of this motion that will send the subject matter of this bill to the appropriate standing committee. That will be at least some progress in that the matter would receive further discussion. As a matter of fact, if the amendment had not been moved and we were dealing with second reading of the bill we would have been prepared to vote for the motion sending the bill itself to the committee.
A moment ago when I interjected by suggesting that the first parliament of Canada did not meet on July 1, 1867, but not until November of that year, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) wanted to know if I was here then. I was not, but I was here in the mid 1940's when we passed the bill changing the name "Dominion Day" to "Canada Day". As I recall, the sponsor of the bill was an
Holidays Act
hon. member for Matapedia, a Mr. Cote, I believe. The bill passed through all stages in this House, and people began to think we were going to start calling July 1 Canada Day. What happened? You guessed it; there were some in the other place who did not like to make that kind of change. So the bill did not become law.
As I say, I hope the motion to refer the subject matter of the bill to the committee will pass so that there can be further discussion of it. I hope at some point at least that much consideration will be given to two or three other bills on the order paper having to do with holidays. I have one in my name which asks for a ninth and tenth general holiday under the Canada Labour Code, one in February and one in August. I refer to Bill C-249. I also hope that some day the subject matter of that bill might go to the appropriate committee. I think the bill in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) calling for a Sir John A. Macdonald Day might receive similar treatment, and that its subject matter might go to a committee. I hope, and I am encouraged in that hope by what has just been said by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) in respect of the proposal for a Heritage Day, that we might get a holiday in February. The hon. member for Victoria spoke strongly in favour of this, and expressed regret that there was a slip of some sort which prevented us from getting it through a few weeks ago.
I have to remind the hon. member that it was his colleague, the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), who denied the consent which would have made it possible for the subject matter of that bill to have gone to the committee some time ago. So, because the hon. member for Palliser is not here today perhaps we could deal with that one also when we have Conservative support.
I was a little taken aback by the fine line of reasoning used by my friend from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who quoted from the British North America Act and suggested that Canada means just Upper and Lower Canada, Ontario and Quebec. The hon. member said that the name Canada applied to those two parts of this country.


Donald W. Munro: It did then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, they were Canada. The point I want to make is that as a person from Manitoba I think I live in Canada, and I think my friend from British Columbia lives in Canada. If he will read the British North America Act a little further he will find it says that, unless it is otherwise expressed or implied, the name Canada shall be taken to mean Canada as constituted under this act, this act at that time providing for four provinces.


Donald W. Munro: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think in all fairness in respect of the record it should be made clear that I was talking about the Canadas as they were in the beginning. If we might paraphrase or use broad parlance, as it was in the beginning there were Canadas, and as I said, clearly this concept of Canada and the Dominion of Canada put an umbrella over the Canadas, the two provinces which then

March 14, 1975
Holidays Act
existed. I think my words were quite clear at that time, but I want to make them doubly clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I do not object to that interjection. It does not seem to me that the hon. member changed the situation at all. He said there were two Canadas and that the phrase "Dominion of Canada" became an umbrella over those two Canadas, and the other two provinces. The name "Canada" was enacted as applying not just to the two Canadas that were there in the beginning but to the entire country constituted by this act. I submit that the name "Canada" applies across the country. If the hon. member were asking for July 1 to be known as Dominion of Canada day that might fit his argument, but to say that we cannot call it Canada Day and must call it Dominion Day because it was on that day we became a dominion I think is like, to quote his phrase, having it as it was in the beginning.
Now we are a country from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island and I do not think it is a venial or mortal sin to call July 1 Canada Day. As I say, a bill to this effect passed through the House I think in the parliament between 1945 and 1949, Canada's 20th parliament, but was turned down in the other place, and of course that puts me more on the side of it than I was even before. I hope the motion to refer this subject matter to the committee will be agreed to and that we will soon do something about Heritage Day and the other holidays that have been proposed.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who has just spoken made some comment to the effect that I should realize that the Conservative Party prevented his bill passing. The hon. gentleman sits a long way from me in the House, but my recollection on that day was that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had intended to put forward a private member's bill which was receiving fair consideration around the House, but instead the Liberals presented a bill. At that time I thought the NDP said no to the Liberal's bill and that the Liberals said no to the NDP bill. I could be mistaken because I sit at one end of the House and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre sits at the other end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member is aware that this is not a point of order but rather a point of debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to something at a time when motions under Standing Order 43 were moved. It was not my bill but Bill C-208 of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) which was before the House. When unanimous consent was asked for that bill to be referred to the committee, not only did the hon. member for Palliser say no but he also stood up and spoke against it and thus blocked it that day.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I simply want to say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is absolutely right. I was speaking of the day when the two conflicting bills came in under Standing Order 43.


Howard Earl Johnston: Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak about this particular motion as one who has a regard for words that have a ring to them, and words which seem to be leaving our vocabulary at an amazing rate and dropping out of our conversations and out of our life in a way which I think will leave us impoverished rather than enriched.
There are several of these words which have to do with the country and the way the people in this country see themselves and the country. One of them is dominion; one of them is realm; one of them is kingdom. All these expressions can be applied to this country of ours, and all of them have a fine ring to them which has been hallowed by tradition and which has a reference to the form of constitutional government we have. I contend that we add nothing whatsoever to our national life, to our patriotism or to our civic pride by eliminating or removing these words as references or in fact as titles of the land in which we live.
I do not think it is necessary to go back to the history of the reason why the word Dominion has been in the name of this country, but the source was of the highest if we can believe the story that has been told about the Father of Confederation who was struck by the line of scripture which refers to dominion from sea to sea. It was in that spirit that the word Canada was attached to the country. There was something higher, greater and above the mere earthly involvement.
It may be old fashioned, but I still think there is something to be said for the somewhat mystic approach to one's country, and if we ignore that, we lose. I know it is too late now even to talk about these things, but it seems to me that there was an advantage to being a British subject that is not found in being a citizen. Perhaps that is an argument for another debate and it is one that I will not develop now, but in the concept of being a subject there was a promise of regard, protection and provision, for that was the basis of a very ancient system of government that provided certain guarantees to every subject in the land.
The whole problem with the idea of being a citizen is that we find that citizens disagree, and the people who run the show tend to be the ones who are in power at the moment, whereas the older idea of a monarchy-because this country is still a monarchy-suggested that there were rights for all individuals and that it did not really matter who was in power at the time because there was a relationship between subject and monarch that could not be broken.
Now we find that in this country there is an increasing tendency to cease using all such fine sounding words as dominion, realm and kingdom, and I suggest that if we let them go, in a very short time we will be confronted with actions that will move us to the next stage along the way to a form of government that is not Canadian, that is foreign to Canada.
Our history has always been the history of a monarchy, whether it was through the French regime or through the continuation of the British regime.


Mr. Prud'homme:: The Canadian regime.
March 14, 1975


Gerald William Baldwin: Now it is imperial.


Howard Earl Johnston: The hon. member across the way cannot ignore the history and the evolution of government in this country that has taken place from 1608 onwards. I suspect in a way that it has been considerably more rapid in the years of the British regime. Of course we moved along to that remarkable invention of responsible government which we borrowed from the Mother of Parliaments. We owe an enormous debt and great freedom to the parliamentary tradition which we have borrowed. We tamper with it at our risk.
I suggest also that there is something about the term "Dominion Day" that enriches this country, this domain- another word which is related very closely. Domain is a word that has dropped out of our current speech, as almost all these other words have.


Donald W. Munro: It is still used in French.


Howard Earl Johnston: We are left with nothing at all to refer to the type and kind of country we have. We have the name of the country, but I think we still need an indication of the kind of country we have.
I am proud of the traditions that have come to us. I think that our form of government is the best guarantee of democracy to be found anywhere in the world. I made that statement some years ago to a well known sociologist at the University of British Columbia, Lionel Tiger, who has written many books. I wrote to him in response to a talk that he had given on CBC, and he wrote back to me. He was critical about what I had to say about the monarchy at that time. I was reading his book called "The Imperial Animal" which he wrote in conjunction with Robin Fox, and as I looked through the book I discovered the statement that the best guarantee of democracy to be found in this world was in the constitutional monarchy. I realized that through the years he had come to my way of thinking.
There was a footnote to the statement, and I hurried to see if in the footnote he had given me credit for the original thought. Unfortunately, he had not, he credited some learned academic from the United States for the comment. But I still feel that I had planted the original thought in his mind.
I hope that in these few remarks this afternoon I have planted some thoughts that may be considered through the years. I urge the mover of this motion, and anyone else who thinks in terms of dropping the descriptive designation of this land of ours, to think again and realize that in that action there is a loss and nothing is presented to replace it.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I surely did not intend to take part in the debate this afternoon, but the comments of hon. members opposite prompt me to make a few short remarks. I would like to reassure them. I see that my colleague agrees when I say that I will speak briefly, but it could be dangerous.
Madam Speaker, I have never understood certain things stated by previous speakers. I have been sitting in the House now for over 11 years. I was a student at the Ottawa
Holidays Act
University for six years from 1953 to 1959. I used to come here, but I never did understand why each time a Frenchspeaking or an English-speaking member-

-independently of your country of origin. I say again that I could never understand exactly why people refuse to look forward to what unites us all here in the House, that is, the creation of true Canadianism through respect for the past. I share the views of my colleague who spoke before me when he spoke of respect for the past, but I would like to add that respect for the past must not stop us from creating what we have been elected to do, that is to create true Canadianism.
I have great respect for the French regime of Canada which was replaced by the British regime. I like to live under the British parliamentary system, and I say so openly. That system gave us a lot in this country. But what is wrong in having true Canadianism? Every small step that can be taken in this House toward that goal should receive the unanimous consent of the House. When one is abroad and Dominion Day approaches, if one says that one must go back to Canada because it is Dominion Day, it does not mean as much as if one said-and that does not mean a lack of respect for the past-that one is going back because there are great celebrations taking place on Canada Day.

I would like to know, Madam Speaker, why changing the name Dominion Day to Canada Day would show disrespect for our old institutions.
We must remember one thing, Madam Speaker, that Canada is one of the very few countries that has known Canadianism through evolution and not through revolution. A country that was under the Indians and Eskimos became a French colony and then a British colony. We have known, slowly, a great deal of independence. We have stopped going to the Privy Council in Great Britain for civil torts and criminal matters.
I participated in the debate with my colleagues on the Canadian flag. I see some members on the other side who are still here who said then, "No Canadian flag because it is going to divide". They said "This Canadian flag will divide the country forever," yet today, only ten years after, people in all parts of Canada are proud to fly the Canadian flag.
This is a Canadian debate, we are having evolution and are proud to use the word "Canada" as much as possible- one flag and one country and two official languages. All of us together will celebrate next July 1, our great day. I do not see why we should have that long a debate. Regardless of the country of your origin, you should be proud to use the word Canada as often as possible. I use it anywhere in the province of Quebec and I like to use it everywhere-in western Canada-with the same intonation.

-the Canadian experience, Constitution, flag, and Parliament, and I think it is fair and normal that we should have a holiday called "Canada day".

March 14, 1975
Holidays Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Francis) agreed to, and subject matter of bill referred to Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

Consequently, the subject matter of the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Is it agreed we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hour provided for consideration of private members' bills has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 17, 1973