1975-12-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[English ]

Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the Department of Manpower and Immigration in the city of Toronto and, in particular, the activities of an employee of that department, Mr. Frank Horsefield. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration conduct an immediate investigation of Canada Manpower division office located at 200 Jarvis Street, Toronto with particular reference to the activities of Mr. Frank Horsefield who has been indicted and bound over for trial as a result of investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on five counts of forgery and five counts of taking moneys involving those without landed immigrant status with approximately 30 witnesses to be subpoenaed by the prosecution and specifically that the minister advise the House why this individual, pending the taking place of the customary legal process, instead of being suspended or transferred to duties unconnected with Manpower and Immigration, has instead been appointed to a position as a supervisor located at the Canada Manpower and Immigration regional office, 2180 Yonge Street, Toronto.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PROPOSED CLARIFICATION OF INTERPRETATION OF PROVISION RELATING TO HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises from the cabinet's overturning of the Anti-Inflation Board's decision on the postal workers contract and in particular the board's complete distortion of the purpose of "historical relationship" as found on page 23 of the white paper on inflation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the government to ensure that regulations pertaining to historical relationships between groups of workers relate to what is said in the white paper on this subject and not to what was decided by the Anti-Inflation Board and published in its communique of November 7.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important issue.
Since social stability in Canada is deeply undermined by some anti-inflation government measures rejected by the workers who have no confidence in the government statements on price controls, and since it is urgent not only to control but to reduce prices to enable consumers to buy available products, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House consider as soon as possible the opportunity of applying a compensated discount to consumer prices, which discount would cover all essential products and would be based on the difference between purchasing power and production value, thereby ending inflation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

December 12, 1975
Oral Questions


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH ASBESTOS-RELATED DISEASES PROTECTION BUREAU-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of recent evidence concerning the alarming number of deaths of workers due to asbestos-related diseases, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the government consider the immediate establishment in the Department of National Health and Welfare of an asbestos-related diseases protection bureau similar in purpose to the already existing radiation protection bureau and that the government be urged to place before the ongoing conference of deputy ministers of health the proposal that uniform exposure standards for asbestos fibres be made a high priority for federal-provincial negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to section 19 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada 1970, to lay upon the table of the House a certified copy of the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick, 1975.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. The government having obviously applied a different standard in supporting the contract between itself and CUPW from that which the Anti-Inflation Board applied in its opinion of that contract, and is applying to disputes between other Canadians, what does the government intend to do to restore consistency to its control program and assure Canadians equality before this law?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: The reasons the government did not accept the opinion or the ruling of the Anti-Inflation Board on the settlement with the postal workers were set out very clearly in a statement issued late last night. We do not believe that our action in this respect does in any way undermine the anti-inflation program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: it is our belief that in this interim period there will be many very difficult problems to deal with and that there must be a degree of flexibility throughout this period as we pass from contracts entered into before October 14 to those which are entered into thereafter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, O what crimes are going to be committed in the interest of flexibility!


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Like your 180 degree turn.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Crouse:: Look who's talking about a 180 degree turn!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Ignore those dishonest charges. Never mind that minor figure on the Canadian scene, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, ignoring the necessity of the Minister of Finance to resort to dishonest charges-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister cannot possibly believe that the decision last night, in light of the positions previously taken by the Anti-Inflation Board, has not destroyed the credibility and moral authority of that Board. If he does believe that, he is the only Canadian who does. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister what steps the government proposes to take to restore the credibility of the Board so that its rulings can be accepted by the Canadian people?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I simply do not agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said about the Anti-Inflation Board. If I may say this to the Leader of the Opposition, I think Canadians generally, as well as most members of the House, will want the Anti-Inflation Board to err on the side of restraint. That is what they did in this particular case; if it was an error at all. Certainly, if they are going to bring out decisions, we want them to be in favour of restraint. In this particular case we felt that the circumstances affecting the negotiations with the postal workers were of such a character that it would not be in the public interest to reopen the contract, and I would be surprised if the Leader of the Opposition believes otherwise.
December 12, 1975


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, that comment by the Acting Prime Minister can only be described as pitiful in the circumstances. Are we to take it from what the Acting Prime Minister has said here today, and from the arrogant behaviour of the Minister of Finance, that there is going to be one law for the government and another law for the Canadian people?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is a simple no.


REQUEST FOR GUIDELINES ON INTERPRETATIONS OF THE GUIDELINES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if I might pursue this interesting subject, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister this. Now that it has been disclosed that the machinery of the anti-inflation process was only set up as a lightning conductor to draw the wrath away from the government, and the government having made it quite plain that it intends, within and without the act, to remain the final arbitrator and to act in a political, capricious or arbitrary nature at any time that it sees fit in dealings that it has with this problem, would the government, for the benefit of the public, now publish guidelines as to how it intends to interpret the guidelines from time to time?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is our expectation that Bill C-73 will receive royal assent on Monday. Shortly thereafter the regulations will be published which will help to clarify the guidelines and assist in their application. I want to repeat what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, that this government is determined to exercise restraint. It is determined to put into effect the machinery that will encourage restraint, and I hope we will have the support of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Gerald William Baldwin: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I might gently draw the Acting Prime Minister back to the subject of the question I asked, once the regulations have been published, and since it is now indicated that the government feels free to disregard them as it sees fit, would the government indicate publicly, by declaration or otherwise, the view it intends to take regarding the interpretation of the guidelines, having in mind that any resemblance between the guidelines and the government's interpretation of them may be only coincidental?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government's interpretation of the guidelines will be set out in the regulations to be published pursuant to the Anti-Inflation Act. It will be clear and it will be an expression of the government's view.


ALLEGED MISINTERPRETATION BY BOARD OF HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP PROVISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the statement issued by the Prime Minister's office this morning in explanation of the Cabinet's decision to
Oral Questions
turn down the recommendation of the Anti-Inflation Board takes three pages to say that they just differ in the meaning and interpretation of the phrase "historical relationship", I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government agrees that the basic mistake was made by the board back on November 7 when it contradicted what is explicitly in the white paper on the use and interpretation of that phrase "historical relationship" and, if so, has the government made that clear to the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government that the Anti-Inflation Board should be an independent board and not subject to pressure from the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought that was a position which would be supported by my hon. friend. The government has set out four reasons for its belief that it should not re-open the CUPW contract.


An hon. Member:: Four excuses.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think my hon. friend agrees with this. I thought the Leader of the Opposition would not want to re-open the postal contract.


An hon. Member:: You are a chicken hearted
government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: That is even more pitiful than the earlier answer. Would the Minister of Finance inform the House whether he is checking the recent decisions by the Anti-Inflation Board in respect of the teachers in Hamilton and the teachers in Toronto, and then the postal workers? Is the minister in agreement that the board has consistently misinterpreted the phrase used in the white paper "historical relationship"? Is the government in accord with its rulings, because if the government is, it will be in persistent difficulty as a court for settling labour disputes during the next 12 months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have said to the hon. gentleman before, and I repeat, we feel the board should go ahead and make its decisions, and it would not be useful to be issuing interpretations of the wording the board may use from time to time.


SUGGESTION CHAIRMAN BE ASKED TO RESIGN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question, and I would refer back to the point made by the Leader of the Opposition about having consistency in the Canadian law. I should like to ask either the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, given the persistent failure of this board from the day it was first established to establish credibility in the sense of having consistency in the law, is it not time that the government asked for the resignation of Mr. Pepin and put a competent person in there?
9960

December 12, 1975
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No,
Sir.


An hon. Member:: He may give it to you anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Armand Caouette: Your Honour will no doubt allow me, before asking my question, to congratulate most sincerely, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, the newly elected government of British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Considering that, in late November, the Quebec Department of Social Welfare carried out a series of tests in the Matagami and Lebel-sur-Quevillon area to ascertain the extent of the effects of mercury poisoning on Indians, could the minister advise the House whether he has had conversations with the provincial authorities about this and whether his department is co-operating in any way with the Quebec Department of Social Affairs in the research on this problem?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Minister of the Environment has just arrived.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat my question to the minister?
Considering that, in late November, the Quebec Department of Social Welfare carried out a series of tests in the Matagami and Lebel-sur-Quevillon area to ascertain the extent of the effects of mercury poisoning on Indians, could the minister advise the House whether he has had conversations with the provincial authorities about this and whether his department is co-operating in any way with the Quebec Department of Social Affairs in the research on this problem?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize for my absence. I was precisely seeking some information concerning one hon. member's question.
As a matter of fact, the officials of the Department of the Environment are working in close co-operation with those of the province of Quebec. The problem involved is within the jurisdiction of several departments which work in co-operation.


AVAILABILITY OF RESULTS OF STUDY OF MERCURY POISONING TO HOSPITALS
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

Can the minister tell the House whether the studies undertaken by the federal government on the possibility that some Indians are being poisoned by mercury have been made available to hospital centres in northwestern Quebec, that they might have a thorough knowledge of them?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to answer that part of the question since it falls within the jurisdiction of my department? I must say that all surveys are available to every institution that is interested in obtaining them; with regard to specific cases, tests are made on private individuals and their results belong to the person concerned. It has never been the policy of hospitals or doctors to place specific diagnoses on individuals at the disposal of the public generally, or even special institutions; but as far as the general analyses and the surveys are concerned, they will be available as soon as they have been completed.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INTERPRETATION OF HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP PROVISION BY BOARD
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. When the Acting Prime Minister says that the board erred in its decision I think we have a duty to probe the obvious difference between the cabinet policy and the Anti-Inflation Board policy. My question to the acting Prime Minister is simply, does the government agree or not agree with the Anti-Inflation Board policy that where a union has a historical relationship with another bargaining unit this would not justify an exemption from the wage and price and salary guidelines.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the particular case we are looking at of the postal workers is a negotiation that was under way before the October 14 date, and was still under way, and the guidelines spoke about special consideration for special cases. The question of historical relationship is one of the factors that should be part of the special consideration which relates to those contracts which were in a transitional stage.
The question as to what part the historical relationship should have in general in respect of contracts that are not of this very special kind is a judgment that will have to be exercised by the board. In the case of the postal workers it is not the historical relationship that was at issue. It was the fact that this was a case which required special consideration because the negotiations were under way on October 14.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There was obviously a very specific indication that historical relationship played a great part in the board's decision. Presumably if the board erred, and the Acting Prime Minister said it did, is it now the position of the government, yes or no, that there cannot and should
December 12, 1975

not be any restraint where there is such a historical relationship. How much more simply can I state it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has misrepresented the guidelines.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: No; you have misrepresented them.


DATE OF SUBMISSION OF POSTAL WORKERS' CONTRACT TO BOARD
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In order to put in proper perspective the events leading up to the government's scuttling of its own anti-inflation program, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, in view of the statement made by the Anti-Inflation Board on November 7 that other considerations would have to be taken into account such as credibility of the program apart from historical relationship, at what time did the government submit for adjudication to the Anti-Inflation Board its final wage offer to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I am correct in saying that my colleague was in touch with the board during the course of the last week and had received some indication of what the board's intentions were, but the government did not know in advance of the approach of the Anti-Inflation Board to the settlement recommended in the Moisan report. As the hon. gentleman knows, the offer was made prior to the entry into the restraint program on October 14, so the offer was already in existence and outstanding when the program came into effect.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the position that the government is now taking in setting itself up as the final arbiter in these cases, may I ask the minister if it is his view that the provinces should now follow the same course, which would of course destroy what is left of the program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: would say no, and I suggest that in the special circumstances of this case of the offer and the conciliation board report pre-dating the program, the government's commitment to it pre-dating the program and the fact that we have just come through a 43 day strike, we felt that it would be in the broader national interest for the country not to be submitted to that again.


An hon. Member:: Chickenhearted!
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-INQUIRY WHETHER REGULATIONS WILL CONTAIN PROVISION ALLOWING CABINET TO REVERSE DECISION OF BOARD
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the particular case to which reference has been made, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the regulations will contain provisions that whenever the government decides that the Anti-Inflation Board was wrong, it could reverse that decision? Is that the situation today? Because if it is-and it is apparently so- the board has been emasculated completely and has no more authority.


An hon. Member:: To match the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: The situation at present is that the Anti-Inflation Board is operating under the Inquiries Act and there is a specific provision that reference could be made to the governor in council. After the new act becomes law, which I hope will be so on Monday, there will be quite a different procedure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Then, the board will act through the administrator. There is in the end the power of intervention by the governor in council or there may be an appeal to the governor in council. I just say this because the hon. member does not seem to have read the bill.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD POSSIBLE COMPLAINT FROM CHAIRMAN ABOUT GOVERNMENT ACTION ON POSTAL WORKERS' CONTRACT
John George Diefenbaker: All I can
say to the minister is that he has made the confusion more compounded by the answers he has given today.
I should like to ask him this: In view of the fact that Mr. Pepin and his board have completely dissociated themselves from the decision of the government of Canada, being contrary to what the board thought was right, has the minister had any complaint yet from Mr. Pepin on any interpretation or intervention that was made by the Prime Minister as to the views of Mr. Pepin concerning his rights and that of the board?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Can the minister inform the House of the result of the meeting he had with the representatives of the Association
9962

December 12, 1975
Oral Questions
des gens de Fair and, on the one hand, whether he is prepared to go to Montreal to meet the controllers who have been suspended and, on the other hand, whether he agrees to reconsider or at least reduce the suspensions imposed on two French-speaking controllers, Mr. Buisson and Mr. Cormier?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there was a good meeting between the representatives of l'Association des gens de Fair yesterday with my officials who reaffirmed to them the government's objective of implementing bilingual air communications progressively in the province of Quebec. I think the atmosphere was improved when we reassured them that we fully appreciated the aspirations of the French speaking members of the aviation community, to use their own language, and that with the co-operation of all concerned we believe that we could make rapid progress toward meeting these aspirations while at the same time respecting the requirements of safety and making sure of an orderly transition. The suspension, of course, was for a breach of the rules and we have to re-emphasize the importance of adhering to the rules throughout the whole period of study. I note the hon. member's suggestion of some attenuation. I will look at that, particularly in view of what seems to be a possible improvement in the spirit of working together toward the right and proper results.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister in his remarks last night admitted that after Bill C-73 comes into effect, although the arrangements will be different, in that an order of the administrator instead of the opinion of the board will have to be considered, appeals to the governor in council will still be in order as provided in clause 24 of the bill, and in view of the fact that equality before the law is a principal in this country-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It used to be so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -will the government announce guidelines or arrangements under which other aggrieved groups can get their appeals before the governor in council in the same way that the postal workers had their case reconsidered?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the law itself does set out the provisions. Either the governor in council may intervene, if it wants to take the initiative, or there is provision for an appeal to be made to the governor in council.


An hon. Member:: How?


Mitchell William Sharp: Under Bill C-73 when it comes into effect as the Anti-Inflation Act. That is provided for, as the hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. We will, of course, be publishing regulations which will spell out the guidelines, and in general the governor in council will follow its own laws.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the desire that things be clear, will the government include in these regulations details as to how cases will be brought before the governor in council? While I am asking that question may I ask if, in the same way that the Postmaster General brought the case of the postal workers to the cabinet will the Minister of Labour bring the case of the pulp workers to the cabinet and will the Minister of Finance bring the case of the Toronto high school teachers to the cabinet?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am quite sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also may want to take initiatives from time to time.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Walter David Baker: I want to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of something he said in answer to the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the government was going to err on the side of restraint. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell us, on the basis of that and on the basis of the sheer cost of the relocating of government buildings, installations and structures of new departments outside the national capital at this time, how that can possibly be justified in terms of the restraint program to which this government seems to be paying only lip service now?


Mitchell William Sharp: I expect that my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, will be putting forward some proposals for restraint in government spending, which will certainly not be altogether acceptable to my hon. friend because it will involve cuts that will affect many people in this country in the interests of restraint.


EFFECT OF PROGRAM OF DECENTRALIZATION ON CREDIBILITY OF RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Walter David Baker: Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether or not, with respect to this program and its relationship to restraint, the continuation of the relocation would not have the effect of only badly wounding the credibility of the restraint program, even more than it has been by the government's own action of last night?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the relocation program has two purposes, first, the suppression of the heavy concentration that may occur in the national capital area and, second, the provision of services to groups living in areas which they consider far from the central government. Such purposes will
December 12, 1975

be achieved not through a short term program but through a long term program which will have no negative effects on the federal government's restraint program.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the acting chairman of Air Canada has indicated in a statement that Air Canada has already adopted some of Mr. Justice Estey's proposals, I should like to ask the minister what proposals the acting chairman was talking about and if the minister would inform the House of the proposals now.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the events involved in the Estey inquiry came to the attention of management-and some of this was before the actual appointment of the commissioner-management took some steps to correct some procedures and to improve a variety of other procedures to better ensure that any incident which had not come to the attention of management would do so in future. There were certain other changes made as well in general accounting and financial control procedures. It was changes along these lines, I believe, to which the acting chairman was referring.


Jack Burnett Murta: The minister has not stated anything more than the acting chairman stated in his press release. Since a request from the Transport Committee to the Minister of Transport that Air Canada appear before it early in the New Year has been made, I should like to ask the minister if he is prepared to assure the House that the Transport Committee may have Air Canada before it when it is deemed expedient for both Air Canada and the committee, so that we may ask Air Canada directly a good many questions which we have been asking the minister in the House, to which we have not been receiving very many answers.


Otto Emil Lang: That is exactly where these kinds of questions should be put and if the hon. member will refer to my previous anwer, I did indicate my willingness to co-operate, as the Department of Transport and ministers of transport have done generally with the committee, to ensure a maximum investigation.


An hon. Member:: Two years is too long.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


DATE OF REOPENING OF FISH HATCHERY NEAR CALEDONIA, NOVA SCOTIA
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In view of the need for additional trout and salmon fingerlings to stock Nova Scotia's lakes and streams, will the minister inform the House whether the fungus infection which brought about the closing this spring of the Kejimkujik Fish hatchery near Caledonia, Queens County, has been cleaned up, and if so, in the interest of our tourist industry and our high unemployment rate in Nova Scotia, when can we expect steps to be taken to reopen this hatchery?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having the courtesy to give me notice of this question. There was a fungus problem. In addition, the hatchery was one of our less efficient hatcheries. There are no plans for reopening now. We are looking at our whole hatchery program. This was a hatchery area where the superintendent retired and there should be a minimum of dislocation. I would much prefer not to close hatcheries or anything down, but we are trying to make them more efficient and we are reorganizing that part of our program.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the terminal facilities at Ottawa international airport. Considering the propensity of the government to spend large sums of money on Canada's airports, particularly Mirabel and the proposal at Pickering, I wonder if the minister has given thought to redirecting some of the funds originally earmarked for Pickering to upgrading and improving the terminal facilities at Ottawa international airport. The facilities there seem to have fallen far behind Canadian standards, in my view too far for a nation's capital.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the hon. member should make up his mind whether he is proud of the standards set when a great airport like Mirabel is built.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: It should be difficult for him to criticize improvements on the one hand and ask for them on the other hand in another place. The question of improved services is one which is before us at all times. It is not a matter of saying that there is money available because Pickering is not going ahead. The question is one of overall governmental priorities, as to what can be justified in the way of expenditures in this period of restraint. I think hon. members will find that we will be doing less in the way of improvement than we otherwise would have done.

December 12, 1975
Oral Questions
but I am glad to have the specific suggestion of the hon. member.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister does not have to lecture me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I can very well appreciate that he is trying to hide behind the facade of a restraint program. I simply ask whether Ottawa will receive consideration similar to the consideration given to other airports in this country. I think it is a shame that Canada's national capital does not have facilities which are comparable at least to other capital cities in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I still think if the hon. member looks back at his earlier question he will see some contradiction about whether he is in favour of great, medium or mediocre facilities. I did indicate to the hon. member that every city and every area in this country is given the same kind of examination by the Department of Transport in trying to determine what next should be done in relation to the construction of airport facilities. We will continue to do that, and naturally we will be giving full and fair consideration to Ottawa as well.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Prime Minister to make a national tour to explain the distinction between the decision made last evening with regard to the postal workers and the position taken by the Anti-Inflation Board in other respects, and to convince as many of the Canadian people as possible of the consistency of this program. Particularly, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to start off with the school board and the teachers in Hamilton and Toronto?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope our Prime Minister does find time for national tours. Wherever he goes he receives the approval of the people of this country for the leadership he has given.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: On recent tours on behalf of the anti-inflation program the Prime Minister has had a profound effect on public opinion. I hope he continues in this way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I make a very earnest plea that the right hon. gentleman do this at the very first opportunity?


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. gentleman returns from a

proposed national tour, would he come to the House and explain?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will pass on to the Prime Minister the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that he go on a national tour. I had not thought it particularly necessary, but I hope he takes the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question with regard to restraint. The national accounts indicate that the seasonally adjusted expenditures of all levels of government for the second quarter of 1975 are running at an annual rate of more than 50 per cent of the gross national product. This represents a dramatic upswing in governmental participation from a level of 43 per cent in 1973. Is the minister aware of this trend toward government sector dominance of the gross national product, and does this lack of restraint concern him?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That is why we have proposed setting specific limits with regard to the levels of compensation in the public service and, indeed, that is why my colleague the President of the Treasury Board will be making an announcement this coming week about very substantial cuts in federal estimates for 1976-77.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Considering the alarming increase in government involvement in the economy, can the minister tell the House whether he has a ceiling in mind for maximum public sector involvement beyond which he would not tolerate further government expansion, and if so, what is it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman seems to be assuming that I have some control over the provincial governments and the municipal level as well.


Walter David Baker: You have no control over your own government.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member should recognize the fallacy of his question. In so far as the federal government is concerned, certainly we will be making every effort to restrain the impact federal expenditures have on the possible increase in the rate of inflation in Canada.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if I might disturb him for a moment. While no one will criticize arrangements made by his department, as recently
December 12, 1975

announced, to have January pension cheques arrive before Christmas rather than the usual end of the month time, could the minister tell the House what entitled him to print, at public expense, his own personal Christmas greetings to the pensioners of Canada and to circulate them with the December pension cheques?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, those inserts and greetings are sent regularly, on a monthly basis, to all pensioners and family allowance recipients. They cover a wide range of matters concerning government activities. While informing pensioners that pension cheques will be raised as of January, I thought it would be appropriate to offer them our best wishes on behalf of the government, and I am glad to do so, once again, here in the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare prepared to make public the cost to taxpayers of this use of public funds, which, obviously, has created the situation in which he is trying to make it appear that Santa Claus really is the Liberal party?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if I remember well, I have already given this information to the House in answering written questions from hon. members. However, if the hon. member wishes to ask another question, I shall be very pleased to supply him with the requested answer. I wish to point out that all details pertaining to the cost of inserts enclosed with family allowance and old age pension cheques have previously been made available to the House on several occasions.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST FOR ACTION ON PRICES-SUGGESTED PUBLICATION OF FOOD PRICES IN FORCE BEFORE AND AFTER OCTOBER 14
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the Anti-Inflation Board has, so far, publicized only those decisions affecting wages, such as the cases in Toronto and Hamilton and that involving the postal Workers, when will the board decide to cut back prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I know that both the chairman and vice chairman of the board have expressed concern about this area, particularly food prices. I anticipate that there will be some early decisions and action by the board for restraint in this area as well.
Oral Questions


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister drawn the board's attention to the desire of members of the House to make public the price lists of food companies in force immediately before, and after, the Prime Minister's statement on Thanksgiving Day? Has the board decided to require food distribution chains to make these price lists available, and will they be made public when they are available?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire if the board has made that decision.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs.
Can he tell us, in reference to the federal park which is supposed to be located in the lower Saguenay area, what is the result of the negotiations taking place with the Quebec government and, more specifically, whether or not the government has decided to open up a national park in the lower Saguenay?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's wish to see a park created in the Saguenay area. Negotiations have been going on and we are making headway, with the active assistance of the President of the Treasury Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh!


Walter David Baker: There goes your good old restraint.


J. Judd Buchanan: The matter is being discussed this week at the cabinet meeting of the provincial government. Mr. Simard, the minister of tourism, hunting and fishing, has been trying to reach me-and vice versa-since the meeting. I am optimistic that things are in good shape.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I am sorry I did not have the opportunity to give him notice. Will the minister review the 20 per cent freight rate increase imposed in August this year, and particularly the 18.5 per cent increase to be imposed on January 1 next, on the transportation of woodchips in New Brunswick, as this situation has apparently brought about the potential closing of at least one mill at Deersdale, New Brunswick? Will

Oral Questions
the minister keep close watch on these rates and make sure that increases do not exceed the price restraint guidelines?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we intend to ask the appropriate regulatory agencies to examine freight rate increases, in connection with the guidelines. We shall specifically ask the CTC to do this, in order to report to the administrator if there appears to be any exceeding of the guidelines.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister confirm whether the air traffic controller who was suspended without pay this week at Dorval was suspended on grounds that he does not speak French, although Dorval airport is not a designated area for bilingual air traffic control? Is this a reflection of government policy?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not the reason for suspension.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the results of the provincial election held in British Columbia yesterday, will the minister consider declaring the NDP endangered species, particularly in B.C.?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Because of the comparative advantage we enjoy in the ceramics industry in Canada, will the minister, together with the Minister of Supply and Services and Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, assure this industry that government contracts will specify the use of available Canadian ceramic products and that we will not follow the practice followed in the case of the new Calgary airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government observes some broad rules in connection with Canadian materials. I do not know if they apply in the particular case in question, or to a specific tendering operation, but I will look into the matter.
[Mr. Howie.)


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has the department okayed the DREE loan or grant to Crocus Foods of Manitoba?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to make available to the public a decision which was made by myself and my department until the interested parties are ready to disclose the content of this decision.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Now that the shipping season at Churchill has closed and will not re-open for at least seven months, are arrangements under way to ship 30 million bushels of wheat through the port of Churchill next year? The shipping season began 21 days late, but we still shipped 22 million bushels. Are arrangements under way to increase the amount shipped next year to 30 million bushels?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is always the object of the Wheat Board to ship as much grain as possible through Churchill. The kinds of difficulties which occurred this year, inasmuch as many vessels expected earlier in the season did not present themselves, put some limitation on the volume which can be shipped through the port. But the ongoing efforts of the Wheat Board will certainly continue next year. Its object will be to make maximum use of the port for shipments of wheat and barley.


MANPOWER
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the shocking and tragic unemployment on Cape Breton Island, where workers have been laid off in the steel industry, and coal industry, where an automobile plant has closed and CN cut back its operations-Mr. Speaker, you name it, and it's happened-may I ask the minister, as general manager of this country's employment service, what plans the government has to put people back to work on the island?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
December 12, 1975

and we have discussed this privately, substantial funds are devoted to direct employment in that area, as well as others. We have no additional funds to put into that particular program at present. I am conscious of the problem, as other representations have been made to me as well. I will be glad to re-examine it, in co-operation with my colleagues, to see what may be done, although recognizing that there are no magic wands we can wave to eliminate that problem.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, after the usual Thursday question concerning business of the House, the government House leader answered. I made a careful note of his comments, and nowhere did he refer to Bill C-77, the National Housing Act amendments. Since the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs met for four separate sessions yesterday, totalling ten hours, which ended at 10.30 last night, I wonder if the minister would inform the House when that important piece of legislation will be called before the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I was dealing with House business yesterday, I was dealing with the bills I was calling for Thursday, Friday and Monday. I was not quite sure how long Bill C-69 would take. It is our intention, however, to call more bills, including Bill C-77, Bill C-58 and others that may come out of committee in the meantime, or one that has already come out of committee. It is our intention to proceed with Bill C-77 until it is completed.


HEALTH, WELFARE AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Corbin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I appeal to Your Honour, as the guardian of the rights of members of this House, and I hope you can indicate to me some remedy that may be applicable in this case. I shall be very brief.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Last night, after the House rose and after the polls closed in British Columbia, a press release or statement containing some very major elements of government policy was issued by the government. I understand it was issued in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). There was frequent reference to it this morning. I feel very deeply and most sincerely that my rights and privileges as a member of this House to know what that statement and declaration of policy may or may not be have been transgressed. The statement should have been made this morning in this House at the earliest opportunity for a minister to stand, on behalf of the ministry, and make a statement on motions.
I believe my rights and those of all hon. members have been transgressed. This action is in contempt of all members of this House. I appeal to Your Honour to indicate if there is any remedy available to force such a statement to be given for the official record of this House and at the proper time in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege. Last evening it had been the intention of the government, if it had reached a decision and had been able to complete the drafting of this statement, to appear in the House and make the statement then. Unfortunately, because of circumstances that I explained last night and shall not repeat, that was not possible. We completed the drafting of our reply just before 11 o'clock last evening. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a brief statement to the press before the television cameras as he left the cabinet room. Later in the evening, getting on toward midnight, the statement was released in the two official languages.
If the House is agreeable, I will be quite happy to table the statement that was made last night. Under our procedure, of course, we have had a very extensive cross-examination on the basis of a statement that I made sure was distributed to all members before the opening of the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I shall deal first with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). It is, of course, not a matter of the procedure of this House or, therefore, a matter of privilege, whether a minister at any given time decides to make a statement of any sort during routine proceedings.
On the second question, namely, the request of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that he have the consent of the House for the tabling of these documents, I am not aware of the nature of the documents or whether this requires the unanimous consent of the House. In any case, the President of the Privy Council seeks consent to table them. I presume that consent is forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
9968

December 12, 1975
Order Paper Questions PROCEDURE AND ORGANIZATION


CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mitchell William Sharp: that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House on Wednesday, December 10, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,366, 3,103, 3,305, 3,339, 3,611, 3,629, 3,657 and 3,665.


Mr. Robinson: What is the breakdown by nationality of the 18,884 aliens who became landed immigrants in Canada through Orders in Council during 1974?


Robert Knight Andras: See table following.
note: The following list represents 13,619 persons whose particulars appear in our statistical records as having been landed in 1974 through the use of the Order-in-Council procedure. The difference of 5,265 persons between Order-in-Council authorization and landing is accounted for by such things as, persons for whom it was necessary to waive more than one prohibition therefore receiving more than one Order-in-Council authorization. Persons who do not proceed to Canada, or leave Canada voluntarily after Order-in-Council had been obtained, etc.
Malta
The Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland


[Stage Direction]
Yugoslavia
Turkey
Bulgaria
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Romania
Egypt
Zambia
Rhodesia
South Africa
Tanzania
Algeria
Kenya
Morocco
Tunisia
Uganda
Lesotho
Burundi
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guinea
Liberia
Malagasy Republic
Mauritania
Nigeria
Senegal
Somali Republic Sudan
Africa N.E.S.
Sri Lanka
People's Republic of China
Formosa
India
Israel
48
189
1,182
19
16
41
1
26
41 3 1
60 27 5 19 14 12 44 1 2 7 3 2 11 2 1 1 1
42 1 1
3
163
371
Country of Citizenship	Number Landed through Orders-in-Council during 1974	Japan Lebanon Pakistan Syria	64 48 54 13Britain	1,592	Bangladesh	11Austria	18	Cyprus	28Belgium	20	Indonesia	18Czechosolvakia	11	Iran	53Denmark	27	Iraq	7Estonia	2	Jordan	6Latvia	2	Phillipines	46Finland	15	Burma	3France	198	Malaysia	32Federal Republic of Germany	139	Singapore	15Greece	653	Afghanistan	3Hungary	54	Brunei	2Republic of Ireland	33	Khmer Republic	2Italy 	568	
December 12, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Number Landed through Orders-
Country of Citizenship	in-Council d
Korea, People's Republic	1
Korea, South	18
Laos	1
Thailand	6
Vietnam, North	1
Vietnam, South	59
Yemen	3
Australia	102
New Zealand	23
Australasia N ILS.	6
U.S.A.	3,961
Mexico	199
Costa Rica	4
El Salvador	31
Guatemala	38
Honduras	7
Nicaragua	6
Panama	1
Jamaica	875
Trinidad and Tobago	322
Barbados	62
Anguilla	1
Antigua	3
Dominica	4
Grenada	15
St. Kitts	2
St. Lucia	8
St. Vincent	12
Cuba	6
Dominican Republic	14
Haiti	186
Argentina	118
Brazil	42
Guyana	272
Chile	26
Colombia	125
Peru	31
Uruguay	54
Venezuela	20
Bolivia	4
Ecuador	252
Paraguay	12
Fiji	16
Mauritius	2
Stateless	267
Total	13,619
Mr. Jones: 1.	Is the establishment of French language radio stations outside Quebec based on the 1971 census figures for the number of persons in various areas who were reported as able to speak French, including bilinguals for whom French is a second language?
2.	Has Statistics Canada informed CBC that the number of Frenchspeaking persons outside Quebec was inflated in the original figures published for the 1971 census and, if so, which areas that would have
Order Paper Questions
had French radio under the original figures have been taken from the list as a consequence of the correction?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission, Statistics Canada and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. It is assumed that the question refers to the CBC Accelerated Coverage Plan under which five applications have to date been submitted to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission for the establishment of CBC French language radio stations in locations outside the province of Quebec. These applications indicate that the population figures shown therein are 1971 figures.
2. (a) See part 4 of Question No. 3,102, tabled in the House of Commons on November 26, 1975. (b) No deletions were made since the results of the edit were incorporated into the official published figures, which were the ones used by the CBC.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the President of the Treasury Board aware of the statements in the press attributed to the President of Panarctic Oil during the week of October 20 to 24, 1975 indicating the possibility that Panarctic Oil will purchase three Scandinavian crude oil tankers for transport of Arctic oil to market should that be feasible?
2.	Is the Minister aware of the extent of participation in Panarctic Oil by the government and its agents and, if so, to what extent is this participation?
3.	Has the Minister examined the implications of going outside Canada for such vessels in terms of the long-term viability and health of the Canadian ship-building industry and trade balance and (a) if so, what conclusions have been reached (b) if not, for what reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.	Yes.
2.	45 per cent.
3.	The Advisory Committee on Industrial Benefits from Natural Resource Development will be meeting with Panarctic Oils in the immediate future to discuss the implications of the announced oil discovery, including marine transport implications.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	How much money was spent by Information Canada in (a) 1974 (b) the first six months of 1975?
2.	How much money is to be allotted to Information Canada for (a) 1976 (b) 1977?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: In so far as
Information Canada is concerned, the answers are as follows: 1. (a) $9,002,821.34. (b) $4,408,640.73.
2. (a) 1975-76 Main Estimates $9,562,000. Supplementary Estimates "A" $732,747. (b) Unknown.
21130-10'/2

December 12, 1975
Order Paper Questions


M. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,164, can the Minister of Supply and Services advise what are the special features of the toboggan purchased by the government that the cost was over $200?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: In so far as DSS is concerned, the toboggan is of a special DND design and is used as a lightweight, air droppable, 200 lb. capacity, cargo carrying device in Arctic regions. The toboggan is boat-shaped, manufactured from magnesium in order to minimize weight, has plastic runners, and is specially reinforced for strength and ruggedness. Other features include a cargo pack kit which is a nylon enclosure to contain and protect the supplies being transported, a special magnesium handle for pulling the toboggan, and various ropes, straps and cleats to adapt the toboggan to its various functions. The toboggan is used primarily for transporting supplies on field trips in the Arctic, but is also used as a parachute drop platform, and as a litter.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Unemployment Insurance Commission during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: 1. 1973-Ian H. Stewart, Hallatt, Stewart & Gow, 850 Fort Street, Victoria, B.C.; 1974, J. Michael Hutchison, Sullivan, Smith & Bigelow, 505 The Yarrow Building, 645 Fort Street, Victoria, B.C.
2. 1973, $284.68; 1974, $75.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette): For April, May, June, July, August and September 1974 and 1975, what (a) were the entrance figures (b) amount was received in entrance fees at Riding Mountain National Park?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a)	1974	1975April	32,905	28,697May	80,099	75,243June	133,142	114,996July	212,312	179,572August	201,273	157,231September	55,341	41,488(b)	1974	1975April	$ 2,918	$ 4,915May	8,403	27,267June	8,387	22,398July	18,392	59,390August	11,828	34,403September	3,176	10,114


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development aware of a statement made by Mr. James Christakis of Parks Canada to a public meeting at Rockport, Ontario on or about Thursday, November 20, 1975 to the effect that the Province of Ontario was aware of the federal government's plan to expand the St. Lawrence Islands National Park and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development met with his provincial counterpart before the announcement was made last May?
2.	Did the Minister meet with provincial officers and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what location (c) what were the names of the provincial representatives?
3.	Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development aware that a member of the Cabinet of the Province of Ontario advised the public meeting at Escott, Ontario on Saturday, November 28, 1975 that the provincial government was not aware in advance of the plans for expansion of St. Lawrence Islands National Park by the federal government?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. (a) January 30, 1975. (b) Ottawa, (c) Hon. Leo Bernier and his Deputy Mr. A. Herridge.
3.	Yes.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,317?


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	On what dates in 1975 were (a) crosswalk (b) parking (c) similar markings painted on Parliament Hill roads?
2.	(a) Who authorized such work (b) on what date (c) at what cost?
3.	On what dates in 1975 was resurfacing work carried out on Parliament Hill roads?
4.	(a) Who authorized such work (b) on what date (c) at what cost?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to replace in 1975 any crosswalk, parking and similar markings that were covered over by the resurfacing of Parliament Hill roads and, if so (a) on what dates (b) what is the estimated cost?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 3,317 is as follows: 1. Repainting of all such markings was carried out during the month of July.
2. (a) This work was requested jointly by the R.C.M.P., the Sgt. at Arms and the Black Rod and was authorized by the Department of Public Works' on-site building manager.

December 12, 1975

(b) The work was authorized on June 11, 1975. (c) The cost of the work performed by D.P.W. trades staff amounted to $1,032.74.
3.	Resurfacing work was carried out between October 23 and 27, 1975.
4.	(a) National Capital Operations of D.P.W. as a result of public tender-call, (b) The overall contract was awarded on September 30, 1975. (c) The cost of resurfacing was $19,725.00.
5.	(a) Parking-line marking was completed on October 30th under the contract, (b) Cost of line marking valued at $220.00 was included in contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Upon agreement with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), I deleted 80 questions that were on the order paper and put on ten others to allow the government to answer quickly. The government seems to be afraid to answer my questions. I believe I have been very patient. If these questions are not answered before we come back after the Christmas recess, I will have no alternative but to put back on the order paper the 80 questions which I deleted. I would also like to add that we on this side of the House believe in co-operation. We would like promises to be kept on the other side.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Les Benjamin. (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at adjournment last night I was attempting to analyse the minister's statement of December 4, 1974, in terms of what he said about the four objectives of Bill C-41. I want to deal now with objective No. 3 which he cited in that statement, namely, that Bill C-41 would be complementary to the development of the livestock industry. It is difficult for me to understand what, if anything, it will do for the development of the livestock industry.
Grain Stabilization
We can all generally agree that recurring booms and busts in grain markets have a disruptive influence on the livestock industry. Because the grains stabilization plan purposely avoids interfering with the market forces which the minister mentioned in his statement, the plan will do nothing to protect the livestock industry from those disruptive influences. Stabilization payments made at a time when grain prices tumble and markets are glutted will not change the fact that the low-priced grain is there to be diverted into the feeding of additional livestock. When basic market forces dictate that grain prices are high because of scarcity, the livestock producers suffer. We have seen this cycle repeated time after time to the detriment of both the grain and the livestock industries. I therefore submit it is wrong to say that a plan which leaves the basic market forces intact will contribute to the development of the livestock industry.
The fourth and final objective the minister listed in his statement of December 4 was that the grain stabilization plan would be based on a set of principles consistent with general objectives for agriculture which could be applied to other commodity groups. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that has to be the most incomprehensible statement ever made on the proposed grain stabilization plan. I challenge any hon. member to find any other example among the long list of private or public insurance or social security programs in this country which is based on a set of principles similar to that proposed in the grain stabilization plan.
In fact, Bill C-41 has its priorities backwards. The authors of the plan have adopted as principles what are considered to be beneficial side-effects of other programs to protect individuals or groups against uncertainties and vagaries inherent in our economic and social system. It is well known that programs designed to protect individuals and groups against financial losses resulting from accident, illness, unemployment, old age, and so on, have the beneficial side-effect of preventing a sharp decline in spending. Because such programs tend to prevent the economy going into a tailspin in that they maintain aggregate spending, economists have dubbed them "built-in stabilizers". The primary purpose of the program is the protection of individuals. The factor of economic stabilization is a side-effect. The proposed grain stabilization plan, however, has as its primary purpose the aggregate stabilization of the cash flow from grain sales. Protection of individual farmers would be a side-effect of the plan and is by no means assured. This is why we submit that Bill C-41 has its priorities backwards.
It is ironic that the statement should be made that Bill C-41 is based on a set of principles consistent with the general objectives of agriculture which could be applied to other commodity groups. If this were so, why did the government see fit to put through the two-price wheat act and introduce Bill C-50, an act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act? If the principles on which Bill C-41 are based are so sound, why not apply them to cattle, hogs and sheep, industrial milk, industrial cream, corn and soy beans? Those commodities are not governed on the basis of the principles the minister has embodied in this bill.

December 12, 1975
Grain Stabilization
I think it should be made abundantly clear that the government of Manitoba does not support the principles upon which the proposed grain stabilization plan are based. The government of Saskatchewan does not support them. Neither do members of the official opposition or members of my party. Farmers, by the thousands, do not support them. The farm organizations which the minister feels are supporting his legislation are, in fact, so fed up with waiting to get some meaningful stabilization legislation that they are throwing their hands up and saying, "Well, it is better than nothing." How the minister can consider this as amounting to wholehearted support for Bill C-41 is beyond me.
We cannot support the principle that the maintenance of an aggregate cash flow is an important public objective while the provision of basic security to individual producers is merely incidental. We have endeavoured to persuade the government to adopt a number of amendments, but the government has refused to accept any but a couple of minor ones. Even if the amendments we proposed had been accepted, the legislation would have remained deficient. Surely the provision of basic security to the individual producer must come first. Everything else is incidental.
Let me illustrate the degree to which the legislation is unfair in other areas. The minister did come around to our point of view, expressed four years ago, that any income stabilization program should be based on net income, not on gross income. He has come at least part of the way by basing pay-outs on the net cash flow. This means that the farmers real and legitimate costs of production have to be taken into account in order to arrive at their net income. Although we tried in committee and during the report stage to persuade the government that it is excluding legitimate costs of production in the most arbitrary and unfair manner, in terms of arriving at the point at which a pay-out had to be made from the fund, our efforts were unsuccessful.
Mr. Speaker, in every kind of business, under present accounting practice items such as depreciation on farm buildings, farm machinery and equipment are considered to form part of the cost of production. But this is not recognized in the bill before us. If Your Honour has had any dealings with grain producers you will know that depreciation of farm machinery and equipment is a major item each year. Even more unfairly, the bill in no way specifies that interest charges on buildings, machinery and equipment may be considered a legitimate expense in computing a farmer's net income from grain sales.
The parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), tried to persuade me in the House during the report stage that the legislation could be construed as meaning that interest charges would be covered. I still cannot find support for his contention after reading the bill. I believe the hon. member is wrong and if die legislation passes, interest payments by farmers on buildings, machinery and equipment will not be allowed as a cost of production.
I now turn to the 2 per cent levy which farmers will have to pay. Everyone I have talked to has concluded that this levy is a premium which has to be paid in order to secure coverage under the plan. But the minister says this levy
(Mr. Benjamin.]
cannot be counted as a cost of production. The premiums a farmer pays for the insurance of his property, crop insurance, and so on, are allowed as legitimate deductions for income tax purposes. They are included in the cost of production. This is a practice accepted under all normal accounting procedures, it is followed by farm management clubs, and so on, but not under the proposed grain stabilization act. The cost of this premium can amount to $500 a year and it is, of course, a cash expense. The minister talks about cash flow. If the payment of interest on farm buildings and machinery is not a cash flow out, I do not know what is. The 2 per cent deduction for the levy is a cash expense that affects the grain producer's cash flow, but it is not covered by Bill C-41.
Let me talk for a moment or two about how this legislation is going to be unfair to producers because it covers all grain producers, not grain producers as individuals. There is an instance occurring right now along a branch line in my constituency where the CPR has not run a train for two weeks and says it is not going to run one for several more weeks. I had telephone calls from three producers along that line last night-one of them lives half a mile from his elevator and has a malting barley permit-and these producers have a total of four carloads anc( have to deliver to the next branch line, an additional haul of 30 to 40 miles for each of them. The additional hauling costs will use up the premium on the malting barley.
Those producers are unable to deliver their grain to the delivery point because the CPR says they are not going to run any more trains over that track for a few weeks. I hope the minister is making a note of this because I will phone his office about it later today. On this particular branch line somewhere in the order of 10 of 20 carloads of malting barley will have to be delivered to another branch line, meaning an additional haul of 20 to 50 miles for each producer. If the grain stabilization plan were in effect and those farmers were unable to make their deliveries, their effect and those farmers were unable to make their deliveries, their income would drop. Their cash flow would drop, to use the minister's term. But they will not be protected under this program unless every grain producer's cash income drops.
The province of Manitoba, in its submissions to the committee, and also the submissions of the Manitoba crop insurance board to the Senate committee, made not only what I consider most practical and proper proposals for a grain incomes stabilization plan but also offered to administer the plan for the government with only a small increase in the staff of the crop insurance board already in place. They offered to administer it on an individual basis so that farmers could pay their premiums and would know what coverage they were buying. They would be protected against losses due to economic circumstances over which they have no control.
In other words, our grain income stabilization program would be integrated and meshed with crop insurance so that the farmer would have complete protection against natural hazards under crop insurance and against the hazards of the marketplace and prices, whether they be domestic or international. The farmer would have individual coverage, and that is the only way this kind of
December 12, 1975

legislation would be fair and proper. I agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and other members of the official opposition. We have taken the same position, that the program should be on an individual basis. It can be on an individual basis, and why the minister insists on an aggregate basis is beyond me. It betrays the whole principle of income insurance, income protection, income stabilization or whatever you want to call it.
Take the case of producers of grain, rapeseed, and so on, in northern Saskatchewan. They could have a good yield, which would mean they had no coverage under crop insurance. But the yield could be of poor quality, consisting of low protein wheat or barley not fit for malting, for which there is no market. On the other hand, grain producers in the rest of the region might have a good yield of high quality grain and they can make large deliveries. The Canadian Wheat Board and purchasers of non-board grains will buy the higher quality crops. I am sure the honourable member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) can verify that the income of farmers in that area would drop because they make low deliveries due to economic circumstances over which they have no control, and under this legislation they will not be protected.
The only way these producers would get a pay-out is if the total net income of the entire Wheat Board region falls below the previous five-year average. Under this legislation you could have 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 grain producers whose income drops through no fault of their own. If this drop in income is not due to natural hazards, they are not covered. Surely that is the wrong kind of stabilization program to have.
This bill needs to go back to committee and the minister should agree to make fundamental changes in the legislation. Once the legislation is in place, Mr. Speaker, we all know that no matter how unfair it is and how badly it is working, it will take years to get such fundamental changes as this made. The province of Saskatchewan has expressed support for the position taken by the province of Manitoba, and I am confident that the province of Alberta will do likewise.
This program should be integrated with the crop insurance program and farmers should be protected on an individual basis. Then they will know what they are buying, what protection they will get and against what hazards they are covered. They will not have to wait until the entire region suffers before getting protection. The minister can hand over administration of this program to the crop insurance boards of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and also British Columbia because the Peace River district is in the designated area.
I and my colleagues are unable to support this legislation in its present form, and I regret that very much. The minister has made some changes from the legislation of 1971. He did learn his lesson a little then, but he still retreats from the kind of income stabilization program that is needed. He still refuses to depart from the nineteenth century concepts about the free play of the open market, and so on, and protecting the grain producer or any other producer from the hazards and fluctuations of so-called basic market forces. I do not want to be party to legislation that is designed to reinforce systems that continually get
Grain Stabilization
grain producers or livestock producers into difficulties with boom and bust cycles. The grain stabilization program of the minister will not level out and protect the incomes of individual grain producers in times of boom and bust. Indeed, the legislation is deliberately designed not to do so.
I see my time is almost up, so I would urge the minister to reconsider the legislation. Let him take it back to the drawing board and re-examine the submissions of the government of Manitoba, supported by many other submissions and by the province of Saskatchewan. I am confident that Alberta would also support it if the minister discussed it with them. Let him redraft the legislation and implement a grain stabilization program that covers farmers on an individual basis and is administered in conjunction with crop insurance. It would then be welcomed by members on all sides of the House, by individual producers and by all farm organizations.
If the minister fails to do this, he should not be surprised if there is lack of urgency on my part and on the part of many other members of the House to deal with this legislation. In fact, if the legislation does not see the light of day it will not hurt my feelings, and my impression is that it will not hurt the feelings of the grain producers in western Canada. Indeed, they are yawning over it. They are bored by it. They cannot understand it. It is too complicated for the minister to explain, and it is certainly beyond me. If you read some of the provisions of the bill you will end up talking to yourself. To accept that and to try to explain it to grain producers in order that they will be interested in taking part in the program is an exercise in frustration.
The history of the grain stabilization program has been well noted for this House. For years the grain producers, provincial governments and farm organizations have been asking for income protection in relation to prices and markets, as well as in relation to natural hazards. One would think the minister would finally realize that this is the kind of stabilization program these people want, rather than the proposal contained in this legislation.
I hope other members of the House will take part in this debate in order to bring these things to the minister's attention in a last-ditch effort to persuade him that the legislation should not pass in this form but, rather, should be sent back to the standing committee to be redrafted in line with the proposal made by the province of Manitoba. The minister would find that such a proposal would be acceptable to the members of the three opposition parties and to the provincial governments and, most important, acceptable to the individual grain producers in western Canada.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on third reading of the western grain stabilization bill. Initially, we were told by the minister the urgency of this legislation and that the producers in western Canada were clamouring for its passage. I checked the record this morning, and it is interesting to note that first reading was given on December 4, 1974-over a year ago. Second reading was not given until April 28, 1975. Finally, yesterday,

December 12, 1975
Grain Stabilization
December 11, we reached third reading stage. It is over one year since this bill was first introduced.


Mr. Peters:: They just throw it in when they have nothing else to discuss.


Douglas Charles Neil: That is right. It seems to me the minister has been too busy with some of his other portfolios to take a real interest in piloting this bill through the House.
I go along with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) when he said yesterday that agriculture should be under the purview of one minister rather than being the subject of divided responsibility, as is the case today. Only if we have one minister in charge of agriculture can we have the co-ordination and co-operation necessary to make agriculture really go in this country.
First of all, we should consider what this bill does Let me make it clear at the outset that it does not provide stability of income to the individual producer. What it does is attempt to stabilize the over-all economy of western Canada and make a relatively table tax base for the government. This is not what the producer in western Canada is interested in or wants.
When the bill was tabled for first reading, I obtained a number of copies and mailed them to various farm organizations in my constituency, as well as to the reeves and secretary-treasurers of the municipalities, and asked them to let me have their comments. I received one reply asking for further information. I made some inquiries later during the summer of those individuals and organizations in an attempt to find out why I had not heard from them. Their answers were very simple. The bill was such a complex and complicated piece of legislation that they could not understand it; therefore, they were not in a position to ask questions or to make comments. How can one comment on a bill that cannot be understood?
In June of this year the Standing Committee on Agriculture travelled to western Canada and visited the major cities in the three prairie provinces. Prior to that visit we requested farm organizations and individuals to make presentations. Some 18 organizations and representatives from the departments of agriculture for the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan made presentations. Without exception, their first comment was about the complexity of the legislation. All these organizations and representatives of wheat pools and the National Farmers' Union said they really could not discuss the bill with their grass-roots members because of its complexity. This was after representatives of the Department of Agriculture had travelled throughout the west making presentations as to how the bill would work and how it would affect the prairie farmer. A similar presentation was made to our committee, during the course of its hearings, which included a series of charts and figures. Those charts and figures did not explain the bill.
Time will not permit me to mention all the points that concerned the groups which made representations to the committee. Other speakers have already touched upon some of them, but I should like to mention one or two. The first matter involves the question of including depreciation as an expense. The minister and his parliamentary secretary attempted to give an explanation of why depreciation (Mr. Neil.)
should not be included. Farmers in western Canada will tell you that depreciation of their equipment and buildings is a major expense of carrying on farming operations. Briefs also touched on the suggestion that interest should be included as an expense of carrying on operations. They did not ask that interest on land be included as an expense but, rather, the interest on their capital investment for machinery and on their borrowings from the banks for their day to day operations. The minister has not seen fit to include these items as expenses.
The minister has spoken of voluntary compliance with the plan. As the plan stands, farmers are included unless they opt out. They can opt out and in only once, and then they are in for all time. This is something that concerns producers in the prairie region. They like a voluntary plan, and do not like to be forced to participate in something they do not like and do not understand. The majority of those who made presentations were concerned about the global aspect of the plan, as well as the fact that pay-outs under the plan are only triggered when the average cash flow in the entire Canadian Wheat Pool area is less than the previous five-year average. The majority of the representatives of these organizations spoke of a regional basis on which to trigger the payments. Almost without exception, when questioned each organization and each individual indicated that an ideal plan is one based on individual participation.
I should like to refer to the minutes of the meetings held, one in Saskatoon and one in Winnipeg. I shall refer to issue No. 53 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, dated Friday, June 20, 1975. This is a presentation by the Manitoba Farm Bureau. It reads in part:
In discussions with grain producers it often becomes evident that there is some tendency to reject the idea of participation in the plan because as it stands it does not provide for application of it on a regional basis.
A little later in the same issue, at page 81, in a presentation made by Mr. Otto Fielman who is a grain producer from the area of Rosenfeld, Manitoba, and also a director of the Manitoba Wheat Pool, we find this statement:
Farmers are independent business operators that want a stabilization plan to fill their individual needs, and not a lottery type chance of payment which has no connection with their own operation.
In issue No. 52 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, at page 42 Mr. Lemon, a representative of the National Farmers' Union, local 611, had this to say:
To average the entire Wheat Board area appears to be ridiculous as a protection for individuals or localized areas.
Mr. Speaker, the bill covers six different grains-wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and rapeseed. As I mentioned before, payment is triggered when the net cash flow in the entire Canadian Wheat Board area in a particular year is less than the previous five-year average. But consider the situation of the various producers in the prairies. There are many who specialize in producing a particular type of grain, depending on the area in which their farm is located.
December 12, 1975

There are areas where people specialize in the growing of rapeseed or feed grains or flax. Let us suppose a farmer specializes in one of these particular crops and in one year or, perhaps in two or three years, the volume of sales is low and the price of the particular grain is low, yet the price of the other five grains remains high and the volume of sales is high. Under those circumstances, the average net cash flow in the entire Wheat Board area would exceed the five-year average and there would be no payment out. In other words, there would be producers who, because they specialized in producing a particular type of grain, would not be able to receive benefits under the plan.
If it worked on a regional basis, there would still be problems similar to those if we used the entire Canadian Wheat Board area. Many members here, and most producers, will recall PFAA legislation, which I understand started on a global basis and then worked down to a regional basis. With the PFAA program on a regional basis there were many situations in which particular farmers who were just across the border from the area where a PFAA payment was being made did not receive a cent. A farmer across the road may have a much better crops than them, but because they were in a particular region they were not able to receive payments.
What I am saying is that the utilization of a regional basis is not a fair way to operate a plan. Our party and most producers in western Canada feel that an individual plan is the only basis on which we should be stabilizing income. The minister, of course, would not accept this concept. He suggested that we should put the bill through as it is and then we could make changes. But why put through a bad bill? Why put through a bill that is not acceptable to the producers, the people who will be participating in the program? The producers in western Canada do not want a bill they do not understand. It seems to me the function of any committee is to consider legislation, to listen to representations by interested people and to take heed of what they say. We heard many representations. I think we, as members of the committee, heeded the representations but the minister did not.
This bill is drafted in such a manner that it is impossible to amend it. The minister should have withdrawn the bill and submitted a new one. He cannot use the excuse that time was important because, as I said at the outset, this bill has been before the House off and on, for over a year. So there has been plenty of time for him to consider withdrawing the bill and bringing in a new one. I am sure that if he had done so, the bill would have been passed quite a long time ago.
It is intersting to examine the figures that were presented to members of the committee by representatives of the Department of Agriculture. I am referring to a historical review which covers the period 1954 to 1974 based on actual production and the assumption that this plan was in existence during that time. During that 20-year period, producers in the Canadian Wheat Board area, had this plan been in existence, would have contributed in the order of $441.6 million.
However, if we look further at the chart we find it would have been necessary for the government to lend money to the fund from time to time. It would have been lent at varying rates. In the period 1954 to 1959 the rate would
Grain Stabilization
have been 4 per cent; in the period 1960 to 1969 the rate would have been 5 per cent; and in the period 1970 to 1974 the rate would have been 7 per cent. What do we find? We find that during the same period the producers would have been called upon to pay interest of $210.1 million to the government. In other words, their contribution to the fund would have been $441.6 million and they would have had to pay interest of $210.1 million.
Almost half of the producers' levy would have been used to pay interest to the government, leaving only $221.5 million of the producers' money to be used for stabilization. Granted, the contributions of the producers drew interest which totalled $7.4 million. The average amount that would have been paid into the plan annually by the government during that period was $43.5 million. During this period, of course, the plan was not in operation, but under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, under PFAA and under some other schemes, the government has contributed some $70 million annually. These schemes have all been phased out or cancelled. On a historical average, using the stabilization bill, the government would be contributing some $43.5 million annually.
As I stated earlier, this program should be administered on an individual basis. There are several ways in which this could be accomplished . I will mention only two. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) will be presenting a third plan later this afternoon. The first alternative I am suggesting is based upon a 2 per cent contribution by the producer and a 4 per cent contribution by the government, but the producers' and the government's contributions would be put into the individual account of the producer and to that account would be added the accrued interest as it built up. We are suggesting, as well, that gross sales would be up to $35,000. If you use that basis, at the end of the first year the producers' levy would be $700 and the government's levy would be $1,400. At the end of the first year the producer would have in his account $2,100 plus interest. At the end of the second year the producer would have in his account, assuming there were no withdrawals, up to $1,400 and the government's levy would be $2,800, for a total of up to $4,200, plus interest.
The operation of the plan would be based on income insurance. The producer would receive a payment from the plan under the following circumstances. At the beginning of the crop year, when the Canadian Wheat Board establishes its initial price, the Department of Agriculture would fix a maximum insurable price for the six different grains based on the five-year average price and the cost of production. The producer, based on the contributions in his account, could insure for the amount per bushel up to a maximum being the difference between the initial price announced by the Canadian Wheat Board and the maximum insurable price fixed by the Department of Agriculture. The producer would then be entitled to receive payment of an amount per bushel equal to the difference between the maximum insurable price and the final realized CWB price per bushel or the amount for which he insured.
Let me give an example. Using crop insurance statistics, if the average yield in the crop district for wheat is, say, 25 bushels per acre, and if the initial price fixed by CWB in

December 12, 1975
Grain Stabilization
the spring is $2.25 a bushel, if the Department of Agriculture fixes the maximum insurable price at $3 a bushel the producer could insure for the amount per bushel up to a maximum difference between the maximum insurable price and the initial price; in other words, $3 minus $2.25, or 75 cents a bushel. In his first year of coverage, the producer would have a maximum coverage on 2,800 bushels, or 107 acres at 26 bushels an acre. If the final realized CWB price were $2.50 a bushel, the producer would receive 2,800 bushels at 50 cents, or $1,400.
According to the second alternative, a separate account would be set up as before, but rather than using Statistics Canada officials to wander from farm to farm picking up statistics, certain colour coded income tax returns could be used and the Department of National Revenue could inject these figures from the returns into a computer and get an accurate figure on the aggregate net income and the expenses. Payment under this program would be triggered, first of all, when the aggregate net income or the net cash flow in the entire CWB area was less than the five-year average, or if the net income of the individual for the particular year was less than his five-year average. The producer would have the right to elect whether to apply for a payment under the program and he could do so when he filled his income tax return each year. On his retirement, whatever remained in his account, plus interest, would be returned to him, less the benefits he had received.
Neither system would involve government loans. Such a program would be actuarially sound, it would save millions of dollars in interest, and I am sure it would be acceptable. These are only two of a number of possible individual programs. They would be understandable to the producer. I plead with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to give serious consideration to accepting one or other of these plans in substitution of the plan which is before us. I suggest that he withdraw the bill and bring in another one some time in the near future which would be more acceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: 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.
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us attempts to stabilize the net proceeds of grain farmers in western Canada. I disagree with the fundamental principle of the bill, which is an aggregate pay-out as opposed to individual compensation. It seems to me that Bill C-41 is just a means which the government is using to try to replace some of the legislation which has been taken off the statute books. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) said, the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and deficiency payments amounted to about $70 million per year.
(Mr. Neil.)
Federal assistance is certainly warranted, in view of the importance of the western grain industry to Canada and to the world. I suggest that we need a list of priorities for the western grain industry, but surely Bill C-41 is a long way down the list. As we travelled across the prairies last summer, it was said many times that no one really understands this bill. That is because of its language. With regard to persons deemed not to be actual producers, clause 5(8) of the bill reads as follows:
Where an actual producer who is not eligible to participate under this act makes an application for a permit book together with an eligible actual producer, the actual producer who is not eligible shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be a producer who is not an actual producer.
Is it any wonder farmers threw up their hands when they were asked to comment on this very complicated bill? The minister has compared this bill with fire insurance. The only difference is that if a house burns down, its owner is paid for it; but under this bill, if a farmer loses a crop he will not necessarily receive any money. We have had many years' experience with the Prairie Farm Assistance Act and over the years the act was brought closer and closer to an individual basis. With the experience the government has had of administering that act, I suggest it could well bring this grain stabilization bill toward an individual basis such as we have with crop insurance. It works very successfully in western Canada.
It is hard to overemphasize the importance of western grain to this country. I am looking at the daily Thunder Bay outward traffic report for December 6, 1975. There were 1,170 cars. For the same day, in Vancouver there were 511. There are about 1,700 cars of grain per day being unloaded. Of course, this year everything is moving well. It will not be a record year, but exports will probably be 600 million bushels with another 200 million moving within the country by rail for domestic purposes.
Recent world trends in grain stocks underscore the extent of Canada's food power. Supplies in the world are steadily declining, and for the first time the United States has established a national grain export policy in place of the free rein which was allowed commercial grain exporters in the past. We see the Americans, who are our main competitors in grain exports, negotiating long-term agreements with our good customers, Russia, Japan and Poland. These deals indicate how eager foreign countries are to nail down the world's grain supplies. They are buying fixed volumes in an orderly fashion.
I suggest the Canadian government could do much more for this country along that line. Canada and the United States now account for 70 per cent of the world export of grains. I indicated how much grain was moving for export right now; some 1,700 cars a day are being unloaded. This is going to mean something over $3 billion in exports for Canada. This is over 10 per cent of our total exports. When you consider the multiplier effect of grain sales in this country, one can see that the federal government could well afford to put more money back into the industry. In a world of growing scarcity, Canadians must be made aware of the great power of their grain industry. When ministers of this government go abroad with a little wheat in their pockets, doors are opened to them. Wheat, more than anything else we possess, will open doors for our ministers. The United States ability to produce food has regained for
December 12, 1975

that country much of the diplomatic clout it lost over the Viet Nam war.
Our country is going the stabilization-supply management route. This scheme, like other stabilization schemes, must inevitably lead to border restrictions. As the United States scales down its so-called give-away programs under public law 480, new opportunities will open for Canada. New cash customers will look to Canada for the kind of grain we grow. Saskatchewan is by far the largest grain producer in Canada. I shall, therefore, put on record part of the telex communication Mr. Kaeding, the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan, sent to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. He said:
The Saskatchewan government believes that the whole philosophy behind Bill C-41 is subject to serious question since it does not relate payments under the program to need but rather to historical price levels ...
The plan does not provide individual, commodity or regional stability. It neglects the geographic and climatic factors which influence the production of various grains throughout the prairies. The implicit assumption is that the prairies are a homogeneous area. This assumption is not valid . ..
If present levels of support for livestock production remain in effect once Bill C-41 is passed, the excessive shifting of resources between livestock and grain production will continue.
He then said:
Interest depreciation and labour cost must be included in any reasonable computation of costs for producers.
This matter was mentioned in the agriculture committee hearings. The communication went on to say:
The use of the Income Tax Department as an administration mechanism should be examined since it could be more efficient and reduce administration costs-
Right now, western resources and resourceful westerners are keeping this country afloat. As I said before, grain export sales this year will amount to over $3.5 billion, or 10 per cent of Canada's exports. If anything interrupts or shuts down the flow of this commodity, the Canadian dollar would be devalued overnight. The word I hear from agricultural producers in my constituency is, "Please do not help us any more with government stabilization plans because they do not seem to have served any useful purpose in western Canada." Actually, since the government introduced its so-called stabilization plan we have seen more violent fluctuations in cattle prices than ever before.
Very simply, grain producers need some means, in years of high income, of deferring tax-free money to an individual, registered stabilization fund. This money could be withdrawn in years of low income. Grain producers already are given the privilege of deferring grain sales from one year to the next. I suggest that this program could well be expanded and money paid to farmers on their deferred grain sales should earn interest. There is a need, in the agricultural industry of Canada from coast to coast, for a type of vehicle through which individuals or corporations whose primary business is that of agriculture can be encouraged to save funds, avoid incurring an income tax liability of abnormal proportions in good years and defer those liabilities to bad years. The present system of taxation permits some relief to this end but does not go far enough. As well, it gives an inducement to save. At
Grain Stabilization
present, if the individual has a bad year he is allowed to back-average and thus obtain some relief. The problem with this is purely a matter of timing. By the time the individual has received the effect of the carry-back, he may well be through his next year.
We need a plan which would allow an individual to build up a cash reserve, through an individual, registered stabilization fund, which would allow him to have an even flow of cash income and taxable income over the years. The plan would be a self-administered, to be set up within existing government regulations, namely tax legislation, and would not require any red-tape commission to administer it. The government should allow an individual or corporation whose primary business is that of farming to acquire a deposit certificate at any chartered bank, credit union, trust company or treasury branch. The amount of the individual fund deposit should not be greater than 75 per cent of the gross sales of agricultural products, grain, cattle, etc., for the year in question.
The advantages of this type of self-administered program would be these. Producers would save dollars and increase the reserves in our banking system. Producers would spend dollars on a more systematic basis. The program would cause the feast or famine syndrome afflicting farmers to vanish. Finally, the program could be set up at no cost to the taxpayer. Such a program would help to smooth out the economic situation of farmers and the feast or famine situation of the entire Canadian economy, in which I include farm equipment manufacturing, and so on.
The strength of our grain exports is no illusion. These exports are a real and growing force in international relations. They must be used with skill to establish a healthy trading relationship between Canada and the rest of the world. Instead of continually dealing with symptoms, the government should put much more effort into this particular area of endeavour. I have put forward one proposal and the hon. member for Moose Jaw made two others. I hope the government will consider them seriously.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed stabilization a number of times in the House in the last five years, always with the hope that we could develop a system which would stabilize the income of farmers producing a certain commodity and allow them at least to regain their costs of production plus a reasonable return. Canadian farmers have watched with keen interest the machinations of federal and provincial governments with respect to stabilization. Last week the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said that the government had introduced stabilization legislation this year to cover specific commodities. He went on to say:
Stability for the producer will be reflected in stable production and stable prices for consumers. There are many ways, some major and some minor, to bring about this stability. One major advance was the recently passed amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Effective stabilization legislation encourages rational production decisions. A prairie grain market insurance plan will also help.
His statement is undated, but I think it is safe to assume he made it before the agriculture committee last Tuesday. The bill before us is not a grain marketing insurance plan.

December 12, 1975
Grain Stabilization
It is complex and is not well understood by most. It will, at best, produce a levelling-off of losses that may flow from the cash flow position of farmers when there is a decrease in certain categories of the grain production industry in western Canada. This bill is difficult to understand. I pointed this out to my colleague who is very interested in the English language. He often refers to the fact that when I first came here I used long sentences.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: They began, went off at an angle and came back to the original thought. I thought they were in fact clauses which were at least related to the subject. I will read just one sentence from the bill in order to show the difficulty of the farmer. I trust this is not in conflict with the rules.
(4) For the purpose of determining the adjusted marketing to production ratio referred to in paragraph (1) (b) for a year under review, the minister shall
(a)	make the following calculation in respect of each of wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax seed and rapeseed:
(i)	divide the actual aggregate number of bushels of such grain produced in the designated area and sold by all producers in the year under review by the number of bushels per acre of such grain that is the average yield for such grain for the five years immediately preceding the year under review;
(ii)	divide the difference obtained by subtracting
(A)	the opening inventory, in bushels, of farm stocks of such grain for the year under review, determined as being the closing inventory, in bushels, of farm stocks of such grain for the year immediately preceding the year under review, determined in December of that immediately preceding year,
from
(B)	the closing inventory, in bushels, of farm stocks of such grain determined in December of the year under review,
by the number of bushels per acre of such grain that is the average yield of such grain for the five years immediately preceding the year under review;
(iii)	multiply the number of acres on which such grain is seeded in the designated area in the year under review by the difference obtained by subtracting
(A)	the number of bushels per acre of such grain that is the average yield for such grain for the year under review
from
(B)	the number of bushels per acre of such grain that is the average yield for such grain for the five years immediately preceding the year under review,
and divide the product so obtained in respect of such grain by the number of bushels per acre of such grain that is the average yield for such grain for the five years immediately preceding the year under review;
(b)	add the eighteen quotients obtained pursuant to subparagraphs (a) (i), (ii) and (iii); and
(c)	divide the sum obtained pursuant to paragraph (b) by the number of acres on which grain is seeded in the designated area in the year under review.
That is one sentence, Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain it. Possibly Your Honour might like to interpret what it means. In any event, there will be some difficulty. That sentence is not going to help the average farmer in this country to use the average over the five years, and so on. The average farmer is interested in two things. He would like to ascertain how much production he should have, how much acreage he should sow, and wheth-
er he should go with one commodity or another. Second, he wants to know what the market price will be.
For him to be successful in meeting his commitment both to this nation and to the consumers of this nation, he has to produce enough to cover any disaster that may occur from year to year, something that is not covered under the umbrella of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act of which we are disposing. He will have to take into consideration the weather, yield and protein quotient in his production. He must do this knowing that he will be able to pay for the production expenses that he incurs. Secondly, when he reaps his harvest he wants to be assured of a relatively stable market and a price that will pay for his production and provide him and his family with a decent standard of living. That is fairly simple.
We are not asking for very much. Agriculture is a very important part of our production and export market. As stated by other ministers, Canada must be committed to helping those parts of the world which do not have enough production to feed themselves. The Canadian grain market has an immense role to play, and this can only be done when there is stability. Anyone the least bit interested in food production is aware of the need to establish a market price that will pay for the cost of production. Second, we must meet the commitment that we make as a nation to export to those countries not able to produce the required amounts of protein.
Everyone agrees that we must have some stability. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said that during the recession in 1961 it was western grain production that enabled Canada to get back on the road to recovery. By exporting large quantities of grain we were able to bring in hard cash. Hon. members will recall that many sales were made to countries not normally within our wheat trading bloc, such as Russia, and payments were made in gold. That currency was desperately needed at the time. It played a major role in our recovery in that recession.
There is likely to be little disagreement among farmers and Canadians in general that food production, cereal grains in particular, must play an important and ever-increasing role in Canadian agriculture. In order for that to be possible, we have to ensure that we will be able to sell our products at reasonable prices. It is my feeling that if we were to add the commodities which come under the Wheat Board to those which already come under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and put the whole thing back under the control of the Minister of Agriculture as it used to be, we would find that the farmers in western Canada would receive a much more reasonable return for their money than they are likely to receive from the legislation before us today.
The reason the government has not acted along these lines is simple. Income stabilization plans have the potential of costing a lot of money, especially if we cannot ensure that production is related to sales prospects. The government might well be placed in a position of having to act as a buying agency at 80 per cent of the average price in the preceding five years. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this might not be a bad idea. I have for years been interest-
December 12, 1975

ed in the Biblical parable, or maybe it was a Biblical historical fact-my knowledge of the Bible is not that good but I remember the story-or I could certainly consult some of my hon. friends; we have them from all faiths, Baptists, Anglicans, Catholics-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the originals and the aboriginals.


William Arnold Peters: And the originals and the aboriginals, in the theological sense. But it would seem to me that the story of Egypt, where they prepared for ten bad years by collecting the harvest of ten good years, was not more applicable in Egypt than it is today in the modern world of 1975. We have been lucky in Canada, but they have not been so lucky in other parts of the world. There is a surplus in Canada of many cereal commodities and the price is such that many Canadians overeat, particularly in the field of cereals. At the same time, there are others across the world who are badly in need of the protein in our cereal products but who are unable to get it.
I see nothing wrong with the establishment by the Government of Canada of a granary which would provide for the needs both of this country and for our commitments to the rest of the world over a ten-year period. To accomplish this we would have to store grain, though not, as now, at the expense of the farmer. The farmer is already doing this to some extent. If he depended for storage on the Wheat Board and the grain commissioners, we would be disappointed; we would find that there is very little grain stored in the elevators. There is no grain held in the federally-controlled elevators at Moose Jaw and Lethbridge-they are trying to give away those facilities. Most of the grain presently in storage is held either on the farm or in private grain elevators. I presume there is less than a year's supply. Yet we have done nothing as a nation to provide a world food bank to demonstrate in a practical way our wish to help the hungry people of the world.
I suggest that if we were to substitute for the bill before us an agricultural stabilization bill, we would find, in paying 80 per cent of the five-year average, that we might in the foreseeable future be buying stocks of grain and building up a reserve sufficient to establish a barrier against disasters which might occur not only here but in countries abroad.
It seems to me that in any measures taken to stabilize agriculture we must keep in mind the moral commitment made by the Minister of Agriculture at the international food and agriculture organization. We are under a moral obligation to provide the facilities necessary to maintain basic supplies of commodities which we grow in great abundance. No one, it seems to me, disagrees with the idea of stabilizing farm income. If farm income is not stable, it is likely to be difficult to keep people on the farm.
Some hon. members on the other side seem to think the farmers of western Canada are very well off. Some of them think they all have planes and Cadillacs, or both. That really is not true. We have seen many economic disasters in western Canada, and laws have been passed to protect the farmers so that the mortgage holders do not walk off with the actual facilities for agricultural production. We have had our ups and downs. Weather conditions have been severe, and though they have not been so severe in
Grain Stabilization
the past few years in Canada, that is not the case as far as the rest of the world is concerned. So there is no argument that stabilization is necessary.
The bill which is now before us has been presented on a number of other occasions in slightly different forms. It has been called Bill C-74-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The old number was C-71.


William Arnold Peters: One simple proposition would be to refer this measure to the farmers and find out what they think of it. When the committee went to the farmers with this bill there was no support for it in any of the provinces affected. It is true that in some of the provinces there was not much objection, but that was because farmers really did not think it would make much difference one way or the other.
I suggest that the formula being used is so complicated that farmers cannot reasonably be asked to decide whether they are in favour of the bill or not. It is for this reason farmers have been slow in making up their minds whether or not they want to participate in the scheme.
As the minister says, you can check into it or you can check out of it. There are some restrictions, of course, and there have to be otherwise big farmers would take advantage of the scheme by entering when the cost was not high and taking the benefit when the cost was high. It is very doubtful whether there will be widespread and continued support for the legislation. My recommendation is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who is piloting the legislation through the House, should be prepared to discuss the matter with the farmers at the Outlook Conference being held in Ottawa next week. He should be prepared to make this a major topic. I have seen the agenda, and it is not on the agenda. If the Federation of Agriculture and representative of other farm organizations who will be attending the conference agree that should certain changes be made they are prepared to support these proposals, then I would not be opposed to the passage of the legislation. The last time the Federation of Agriculture discussed this question they put forward a couple of very important suggestions. These are as follows:
1.	An assessment be made of the position of the sector by the Stabilization Board and discussed in depth with producer representatives for that sector. It should be required that part of this assessment be an examination of production costs in the industry. The development of the necessary statistics and information, and conceptual basis, for such an examination of cost of production should be subject producers.
2.	Following producer consultation, the government be required to issue a statement of its plans and programs for the stabilization of the industry, both for the production period immediately ahead and in an intermediate term context. This announcement should include an assessment of the industry position and outlook, relating this assessment to the stabilization program and plan in terms of the adequacy of that program to ensure stability and a fair level of producer returns. In such a statement stabilization policy per se should be related to other policies and programs, federal and provincial. The stabilization program and plans should contain within it, provisions for necessary adjustments in the target level of returns in the program in response to increases in producer costs and the rates of inflation in the economy, during the production period.
These producer consultations on a commodity basis should be preceded by at least one intensive and comprehensive producer-government

December 12, 1975
Grain Stabilization
examination of the state of the industry, involving provincial governments as well as producers, in which commodity inter-relationships could be examined and the industry situation discussed in relation to an over-all look at trade developments, the general state of the economy and any other relevant considerations.
Stabilization policy should, in short, be handled in such a way that first of all its central focus should be the income adequacy objective. Moreover the planning of stabilization policy should be integrated into an over-all process of improved industry organization and planning (whether such plans be detailed and regulatory, or broad and directional only).
What that says, Mr. Speaker, is that the farmers, the farm organizations, the provincial governments and the federal government should examine stabilization and develop realistic policies to determine how much of any given commodity should be produced, how the costs of the commodity are divided, and the regional difference in cost due to size of production, distance from market and so on, is split. We must then reassess the needs of the industry in terms of production quotas. Then, and only then, can we establish some long-term and short-term directives to deal with the immediate situation as well as the long term.
Anyone who knows anything at all about agriculture will know that during recent months much attention has been focused on the egg marketing legislation. Consumers and consumers' representatives have been making a lot of fuss about producers asking for too much for their eggs. The argument rages between whether his costs are shortterm or he has to lengthen the period of time for which he sets his price, ignoring some of the temporary ups and downs so far as production costs are concerned.
Consumers' representatives have been saying that their costs should be reflected immediately in consumer prices. The producer argues that he is not able to do this on a short-term basis. We have all witnessed the fighting that has gone on between Mrs. Plumptre of the Food Prices Review Board and the Minister of Agriculture. She was questioning the increase of a cent a dozen the same week that the international market for feed grains was dropping. Actually, the price has now dropped and the price of feed grains is fluctuating from day to day, so it may well be that the board will not be able to equalize production costs over the short term.
There are both short-term and long-term objectives to be considered, but it seems to me that in order to eliminate this kind of fluctuation we should first of all keep a healthy, stable agricultural industry in place, we should provide the Canadian public with first-class agricultural commodities at reasonable prices, and we should begin to meet our commitments to those in the international community who are experiencing shortages of both protein and cereals. We have not faced up to our obligation in this regard, and we have not done so for the simple reason that we have not established the capacity to store Canadian grain for future sale.
Once more we have a surplus of powdered milk. At the same time there is a shortage of cheese, butter and fluid milk in Canada. As far as the dairy industry is concerned, the best way it can contribute to the international demand for food is by supplying milk powder, which can be easily transported, distributed without refrigeration and does not need special care. What is more, it does not cost countries less fortunate than we are very much to buy it. This
|Mr. Peters.]
surplus in powdered milk has caused the price of industrial milk to drop.
A few years ago the Minister of Transport introduced a program that paid the farmers to take land out of production. The LIFT program lifted agricultural land out of production because we said that we did not need it. After but one year the price of grain went from $1.75 for No. 1 Northern wheat to $5.95. This suggests to me that the statistics on which the minister has based this legislation are totally inadequate. The government is not setting the right criteria or being of much value in bringing about stability of supply of any given commodity.
We should establish, first of all, how much of our land in this country is suitable for agricultural production. Surely without much difficulty we can stabilize the two standards of land values being used in this country. In Ontario we start with number one land as the best for agricultural production, and as I understand it you could not possibly farm anything less than about number five land in western Canada. It seems they start out backwards to us, or perhaps the other way around. In any event, it seems very simple for the agricultural department to provide one set of standards to be used in Ontario and in all other parts of Canada. In that event, land valued as number five in Saskatchewan would be the same as land valued as number five in Ontario.
My understanding is that something less than one-seventh of the land in Canada is arable, and only about one-fifth is suitable for agricultural production. Perhaps we should have a new land survey in order to determine the exact amount of land in Canada that is suitable for agricultural purposes. The minister of agriculture in the days when ARDA was first brought in, now the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), suggested at the time that we should catalogue or assess the value of land in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) rises on a point of order.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I raise this point only to call the hon. member's attention to the fact he may unintentionally be misleading the House by his statement in respect of standardized land values. These lands are standardized all across the country under the Canada land inventory. I fully agree with the hon. member's main point, but I know he would not want to leave us with the impression that number one land in Ontario does not have the same standard as number one land out west. The standards are common to the whole country.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's point is well taken, but we had quite a discussion with some of the western members the other day about land values and some of them indicated that number five land in western Canada has a potential for agricultural production, but number five land in Ontario is rocky and will produce nothing but trees. I am told that the best land in western Canada is rated as number nine or number ten. In Ontario this is the reverse, and number one is the best land.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: It is the same out west.
December 12, 1975


William Arnold Peters: If that is the case, then some of the western farmers were confused.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


William Arnold Peters: During that discussion I understood we were not talking about the same thing because of different designations. The only point I was making is that the federal government should standardize in respect of land values so that everyone will be talking about the same thing. The situation now confuses the general public as to what kind of land is available. The general public is confused as to the agricultural potential. We, as Canadians, have always said that we can double or triple our agricultural production by doing all sorts of things. I am not sure that we cannot, but I am not sure how far we can go.
Ontario has been referred to as a leader in the field of developing new crops and improving old ones. We in Ontario have been able to develop strains of cereal grains that require a growing season of only 80 days, compared to the old growing season in the range of 105 to 110 days. I understand that some grains require an even shorter growing season. We have done a very good job in developing new strains, which may result in doubling the amount of land suitable for agricultural production. I sometimes think that we in this country have to be convinced that we need a heathy agricultural industry. Once we have been convinced, we should then know how much the land will produce and how much subsidization this production requires. Agriculture in every country in the world is subsidized to some degree.
Our crops take a great deal out of the land and this has to be put back before additional crops can be produced. We only follow that procedure if the price of the crop is sufficient to provide a reasonable return, while covering the cost of fertilizers that put back the minerals and the other necessary things into the land. So far we are only doing this when the price is high. When the price is not high enough to cover the cost of production, these essential ingredients are not returned to the soil. Some lands in Canada are entirely dependent for production on the fertilizers and other things that are put back into them. It is fine for the Minister of Agriculture to travel to the World Food Agency in Rome, making the statement that we will give a certain value in agricultural commodities to the world. We can do this, but only if we know how much we can produce. It seems that we can only do this if prices are such that we can afford to continue putting back into the land what we take out. In this way we can make the maximum use of land available. Once we are able to do that we will be able to meet these commitments.
I disagree with the legislation before us because it contains the phrase "stabilization of income," and starts out by saying it will stabilize net proceeds from the production and sale of western grains, and then refers to certain amendments to statutes as a consequence. Most farmers do not believe this bill will meet net proceeds. This whole thing involves a very complicated production formula which cannot be applied, as this bill intends, to very large areas. Agricultural production in western Canada has historically shown that the net proceeds in one township can vary vastly from the net proceeds in the next township. This has been true in areas where there are such things as
Grain Stabilization
hail, grasshoppers and other natural disasters. Often one township is affected and the next one is not.
My colleague pointed out how ridiculous this proposal may be when related to a total drop in one large area. Let us say there was some difficulty in an area, perhaps not in the way of a natural disaster but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may only continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: I would not want to take advantage of the generosity of hon. members in this way, Mr. Speaker, as I know I would not be given the extra time if I asked for it. I do not wish to abuse their courtesy. I would conclude by saying that the farmers and the provinces have not been consulted. The opportunity is available to the government on December 17 at the Outlook Conference to be held in Ottawa to explain this proposal. Representatives of the provinces will be together at that conference, as will farm representatives and representatives from all segments of the economy.
It seems to me that stabilization is not just a western problem, but a problem that affects all Canadians. This affects all our food sources and, more important, it affects the agricultural industry whether in the production of grain or something else.
It has been suggested by some persons recently that farmers should go into the production of pigs. I shudder every time I hear an official make a statement that we should move into something that we are not in now when there appears to be a shortage. That was the case in respect of the cow-calf situation. The producers could not obtain enough money from the calf to keep the cow for a year. There now is a suggestion that they should go into the production of pork.
Every housewife knows that the price of bacon and pork is increasing very rapidly. If producers went into the production of pork they would find themselves in a great deal of trouble. If they went into the production of pork today they would be victims of the fluctuations in the grain market, which are quite sizeable and regular. Anyone who went into this on the basis of the price of pork today, I think would find that as the number of pigs increases the market will not be there. The price normally is 50 per cent of the price of beef. I do not think anyone in this country who really looks at the situation would be stupid enough to believe that one could produce pork today at half the price of beef.
All segments are being affected by the stabilization in any one field. I would suggest to the Minister of Transport responsible for this bill that he not stand on his principle, but rather look at the economics of the proposition he is putting forward. I think he should ask for the advice of the farmers and should discuss this matter at the Outlook conference. Then perhaps we would come back in the next session and find that this bill would have a different number and be a different bill, under which it would be

December 12, 1975
Government Annuities
easier to operate, and which would be easier to understand.
I would hope then we would have a bill which would go much further toward developing stability of the net income of producers and which would go some way in helping develop a national and international market for Canadians in respect of a product which I think can have increased production, and which would undoubtedly have a major impact on our economy.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, there has been the usual consultation through the usual channels and at this time I would propose to move the adjournment of the debate in the hope that, after dealing with relatively noncontentious bills, we might be able to return to Bill C-41. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay):
That the debate be now adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the order in which we propose to deal with the bills would be first Bill C-75, second Bill C-78, third Bill C-28, and fourth Bill-21.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is
this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES IMPROVEMENT ACT
Robert Knight Andras: that Bill C-75, an act to increase the rate of return on government annuity contracts, to increase their flexibility and to discontinue future sales thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Robert Knight Andras: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take very much time on this matter. As we all know this is a non-controversial bill but I think I should commend the government for bringing in this legislation. The government, of course, should be criticized for the length of time it took in awakening to the problems that have been encountered as a result of the low rate of interest.
I think this bill serves three purposes. It attempts to solve the problem related to the low rate of interest. Second, I think it adds flexibility in that the governor in

council can either lower or raise the rate of return. I understand it does not move in terms of allowing the rate to be lower than that which was originally applicable. The third matter involves the discontinuance of sales because the government, in its wisdom believes that the sales of these annuities has served its purpose. The government believes that the annuities have been superseded by retirement plans in the private sector.
Dealing with the first point I am amazed that the rate of interest encompassed by the legislation is only 7 per cent when we are talking now of an inflationary rate of around 11 per cent. One can see that the purchasing power has been eroded by some 3 per cent or 4 per cent. I am not talking about indexing in this bill, but I am saying that the government should have appreciated the circumstances which exist in terms of hardship when we look at a 7 per cent rate in respect of this bill compared to the inflation rate of 11 per cent.
My second point concerns the discontinuance of sales. The act was first introduced in 1908. The House leader of the New Democratic Party says that the bill was born at the same time he was. I think that is a commendable situation. It shows how long that member has been in and around this House and that since birth he has been interested in pension schemes. He still is. In terms of reviewing his concern in this area may I say that the bill was brought in primarily to give people the idea that thrift is a necessity in our way of life and that they should put something away for their old age. If those principles are still applicable the government should accept that.
Perhaps these sales have to be discontinued because there has not been sufficient promotion and because the rate of return is simply disgraceful. I respectfully submit that the private sector has not in fact taken over the necessary pension schemes that workers should have in Canada. The latest statistics in this area, taken in 1970, indicate that almost 7 per cent of the people employed by private companies are not receiving coverage. Therefore I take a very dim view of the government indicating that we will now get rid of this annuity contract, which in effect is a pension scheme, because the private sector has taken it over in a satisfactory way.
These are the only comments I have. My colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), will be our only speaker following me with respect to this matter. We appreciate the fact that the government has brought in this bill and we appreciate the thinking behind it, but at the same time we say the government should be chastised for taking so long to realize that such a step was required.
In its recent report the Canadian Council on Social Development criticized the attitude taken by the government in stating, that the private sector has taken over in this respect. It stated that the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec pension plan have been downgraded so that the private sector could carry on, and it has reached the conclusion that there has been a dismal failure in that regard.
The Montreal Gazette of November 27 reported the following in an article:
December 12, 1975

The Canada and Quebec plans should be given the central role in the over-all pension system, it argues. They are popular, straightforward, universal, portable, secure, looked upon as faithful friends by many workers and have the "tremendous advantage" of being indexed upward with the cost of living.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although the answers we received when we were in the standing committee on this bill did not completely satisfy us, the fact is that we did get our questions answered. I think it is appropriate for me to say that we had a very good discussion of this bill at that stage. Accordingly I do not think it is necessary for us to extend the debate at third reading. Indeed we are prepared to give our endorsation to the bill.
I would be less than human if I did not thank the hon. member who has preceded me for referring to the fact that the act itself was debated in the House of Commons on the very day that I was born. So I suppose my interest in matters relating to pensions can be identified as a lifelong interest.
It is true that we would like to have seen improvements of even a better one, particularly with respect to a greater rate of interest, and there are one or two other things that might have been done, but on the whole we think it is a good bill. I may say that the amendments that were made in the committee at the instigation of the government also improved the bill.
My only other comment is in the same area in which comments were made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), namely, with respect to the old age security picture as a whole. I think it is timely that the Canadian Council on Social Development produced its voluminous report a short while ago on the state of retirement pensions in this country, and I think it is particularly relevant that in that report emphasis is placed on the need to extend the role of the Canada Pension Plan in the retirement security of our people.
I had to say in the committee that I did not agree with the statement made in the name of the minister that private pension plans have taken over the role of extra security for our people. The fact that so few contracts under the government annuity system are now being purchased is due, I think, more to the fact that we have the Old Age Security Act, and the Canada Pension Plan now, which of course had not even been thought of when this legislation was introduced back in 1908.
But the report to which both the previous speaker and I have referred is, in my view, dead on when it urges a review of our whole retirement policy, and particularly in its urging that the Canada Pension Plan be enlarged so that adequate security will really be available to all our people, not just to those who can purchase supplemental benefits, whether from government or private sources. This is a measure of the progress that we made in these 67 years. All that parliament could do 67 years ago was to provide, under government auspices, a means whereby those who could afford it could do something about their old age. We have moved from that to the point where we realize that it is our social responsibility to see that something is done under the aegis of the government for the adequate retirement and adequate security of all our older people.
Government Annuities
One thing I do not like happening is to see something taken away before something else has been put in its place. The something else that should be in place of this plan is a greatly enlarged Canada Pension Plan which provides much more than the 25 per cent pension that it now provides.
I hope that this action, together with a study of the volume produced by the Canadian Council on Social Development, will lead to early legislation along the lines suggested in that document. For the moment, however, we are prepared to give our support to the passing of this bill.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief comment on the government annuity bill, C-75, at its third reading. As the two members who have preceded me indicated, I feel it is a very worthwhile bill. My particular interest stems from the fact that I happen to be one of those contract holders, and have been for quite a number of years, although not nearly as far back as the first speaker, and I have a personal interest which provokes these remarks.
I am particularly concerned with the retroactive date of April, 1975, and I would like to suggest that the government has in fact admitted the inadequacy of its annuity policy by the very fact of bringing in this bill to which we are now giving third reading. I am critical only of the retroactive date, and I suggest that surely it could have been at least one year earlier, and I say this very sincerely. I raised this point in committee, and the chairman of the committee in response to my question stated that the only reason they did not make it go back to an earlier date was the cost, which would amount to $38 million for the year.
I suggest that when these contracts were taken out in the earlier days-in my case it was around 1940-they were considered a very good, solid, long-term investment. There was no high powered sales job done at that time to encourage people to buy government investments. They were considered a really good investment. Over the last few years I have received, as I am sure other members have, many complaints from constituents about the low rate of return on these contracts. I can appreciate the need to phase out this policy, but I think the government might have been a little more considerate of the people who bought a contract and supported the government in their own way, and who now have such a low rate of return.
I wanted to put those views on the record, but in spite of that I certainly support this type of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is seeking the floor at this time, and this being a third reading motion he can only speak with the unanimous consent of the House because of the fact that he has moved the motion. Does the minister have the consent of the House to seek the floor at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to express my appreciation to hon.

December 12, 1975
Halifax Relief Commission
members on all sides of the House for the co-operation they have offered and displayed in getting this important and rather happy piece of legislation through so expeditiously.
I particularly want to thank my parliamentary secretary for appearing for me before the standing committee, and I was glad to hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the answers to the questions, if not totally satisfactory, were sincerely and forthrightly given. Again I wish to thank the House for its co-operation in this matter.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


HALIFAX RELIEF COMMISSION ACT
Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-78, to repeal an act respecting the Halifax Relief Commission and to authorize the continuation of pensions, grants or allowances paid by the Halifax Relief Commission, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, it may seem strange to most hon. members that before this parliament winds up its normal course in a couple of years time, the great explosion which shook the city of Halifax will at that time have been 60 years in our past. At that time, with the present rate mortality among those receiving help under the Halifax Relief Commission, it is likely that there will still be some four dozen people benefiting from the activities of the commission.
I do not propose to detain the House long with my contribution. It represents the distillation of consultation between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), who is the hon. member for Halifax, and myself, on the few points we would like to make, and I think these are points which can usefully be answered in committee.
Four of these points actually come to my mind. The first is that under the new set up one should be alert to ensure that the pensions provide are adequate. Our understanding is that they are really based on the same circumstances as if these people had been injured in the front lines of the first world war, but whatever the formula it should certainly provide quick and adequate remedies for those who receive the pensions.
The second point is that upon this change being made there should be a review of the scale of pensions being offered.
The third point is that the machinery, which is going from a set-up where pensioners can march down the street, as it were, and deal with people they have known for a long period of time, and which no doubt will be replaced by something else, should be equally as humane and equally as accessible.
The fourth point is really an extension of the third, and that is that the minister should set up some special tele-

phone number or location to which the pensioners could write with their problems. I say this because the Canadian Pension Commission is probably too large a concept for these pensioners to deal with if they are trying to chase someone in the Halifax telephone book in that large section which deals with the Government of Canada. In other words, there should be some instantly accessible source to which these people can turn with their requests for the help the Halifax Relief Commission has afforded to them over the years.
Finally, when dealing with this issue it is always customary for public figures to ask what happens if there is any money left over when all the claims have been met and the last claimant has passed on. I note that the bill provides that if anything should be left over, it should go toward municipal works or municipal action in that part of Halifax which was devastated by the explosion. I have no quarrel with that concept, but I think there are too many people in Canada who have lost sight of the fact that if it had not been for the very generous contributions which came from Boston, Massachusetts, and other parts of New England, but particularly Boston-what we in the Mari-times call the Boston states-the Halifax Relief Commission would not have prospered so well over the years. The generosity of Americans to the city of Halifax in its greatest hour of need is something I personally will never forget, and I hope others will never forget either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), I believe this bill can be dealt with quickly at this stage, and I am sure it will have the support of the House. Even so, there are one or two things I should like to say, and there is one particular question I wish to pose in the hope that it can be answered at some stage. As a matter of fact if it were possible to receive the answer to the question I have in mind here on the floor, I would not object if an attempt were made to take the bill into committee of the whole house.
However, the officials who were in the gallery have disappeared, so I suppose getting an answer to my question may not-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where is everybody?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope I am not interrupting an important conversation.


Mr. Hees:: We are trying to find a minister.


Mr. Fairweather:: We are trying to help.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank my hon. friends who are trying to get attention to what I am saying.
Before I get to my specific question I wish to emphasize, as the previous speaker has done, that although the Halifax explosion of December 6, 1917, took place a long time ago, there are still 50 or 60 persons who are drawing pensions or assistance of one kind or another. I believe the total number of persons killed in the explosion was in the
December 12, 1975

order of 1,800 and during the years some 1,250 persons have been on pensions of one kind or another.
The problem which still obtains for survivors I think is well set out in a letter which I have before me, from a correspondent of mine who was four years old when the explosion took place. That would make him about one year older than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Although I was nine years old at the time, I remember hearing about the explosion, even away out on the west coast where we were living. I have this letter from this man who is now 62 years old and has been blind for the 58 years since the explosion took place. He says in part:
In discussing the events of the Halifax explosion most people find it incredible that so much suffering did occur in many of the north end Halifax families. In my immediate family my grandfather and his oldest son were killed, my grandmother lost her sight, one daughter lost her hearing plus the sight of one eye, another daughter lost a foot and the youngest son lost his sight. In my family I lost my sight and forty-six of my father's relatives, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles, were killed.
Later in the letter he says:
Most people regard the Halifax explosion as ancient history but to me it is still very real.
The difficulty of this correspondent is that although he has been paid a pension from that fund for many years, the pension has not been increased to keep pace with the rising cost of living or the rising standard of living. It is his concern today that he should be granted a pension similar to what would have been granted, as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants suggested, if he had been a person hurt in the front line of war. That has been the theory and rationale behind the fund, but many survivors feel that it has not been carried out. I hope that the transfer of these funds and responsibilities from the Halifax Relief Commission to the Canadian Pension Commission will not result in the books being closed.
That brings me to some particular questions I should like to hear answered in specific terms. Bill C-78 provides for the money in the fund to be turned over to the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and for the administration of the fund to be undertaken by the Canadian Pension Commission, which also deals with the disability pensions of those who served in war. The language of the preamble includes the following words:
. .. and the Canadian Pension Commission to continue the payment of pensions, grants or allowances to those who suffered as a result of the explosion;...
Clause 3(2) of the bill empowers the Canadian Pension Commission to:
pay a pension, a grant or an allowance to any person who the Canadian Pension Commission determines is eligible to receive a pension, a grant or an allowance in respect of death or injury sustained in the explosion at Halifax in 1917.
What I wish to know is this: does that authority merely mean that the Canadian Pension Commission can continue to pay what has already been authorized, or will the commission be given these two other elements of authority? Will it be able to escalate pensions now being received and increase those payments where they have fallen far behind the rise in the cost of living? Second, will the Canadian
Halifax Relief Commission
Pension Commission have authority to pay a new pension or new pensions? Even after all these years, one or more of the survivors might demonstrate that there should be such a provision.
In addition, we must consider what happens to the survivors of the survivors. In the meantime, these people have married, raised families, and so on. Are they to be regarded as though they were in the front line at the time of the Halifax explosion in 1917? Will they be given that sort of treatment?
The idea of winding up the commission seems sensible. I notice that there is provision for the pensions of those who have worked on this commission. Also the idea of turning the administration over to the Canadian Pension Commission makes sense. Actually, I have received representations asking this to be done. But I want to know if the Canadian Pension Commission will simply be a bookkeeping office that carries on what has already been set out, or will it be authorized to make increases, or even, if this is called for, to provide for new pension payments.
The other point I make in passing is one to which the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants referred. What will be done with the money when the need for it ends? It seems reasonable to propose that it should then be turned back to an appropriate authority in Halifax, for the continued rehabilitation of the area of the city damaged in the 1917 Halifax explosion. As I say, I was a boy of nine at the time. I mention this, so that hon. members will not think that I am older than I really am. My family had come from Nova Scotia, but we were away on the west coast when this tragedy took place, and we were concerned.
I think it is appropriate that, many years later, we should spend this afternoon in the House of Commons recalling the suffering of those affected by the explosion and recalling, as the previous speaker did, the contributions which came in from all over Canada, New England and the United Kingdom, to help the people of Halifax in their time of need.
We support this bill gladly; if I could get an assurance that my questions will be answered I would not mind if the House went into committee of the whole to deal with the bill. But if we must send the bill to a standing committee, to get answers to questions the previous speaker and I have raised, then of course, we shall agree to that being done.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for participating in the debate and approving the intent of the bill. I share their concern for those people who have suffered these many years. As indicated earlier, some 65 people are still receiving compensation. That number, although not large, has received help from the relief fund. Over the years, hundreds have been helped. Numbers alone do not indicate the extent of the suffering of those directly involved, and of their families, for many years.
I share the concern expressed both by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre over the matter of pensions. Both hon. members were absolutely right in saying that there is to be a

December 12, 1975
Animal Contagious Diseases
transfer of money and responsibility to the Minister of Finance and the Canadian Pension Commission. But nowhere in the bill do I find language suggesting the possibility of escalation or new payments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was particularly concerned about that point, although the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants would also like to see the matter of pensions reviewed. I am wondering if this bill would permit such a review, or the inclusion of new people who are still suffering and are seeking some consideration. From my reading of the bill I am not aware of such possibilities. However, this point can best be raised in committee.
At present I cannot satisfactorily answer questions hon. members asked. I think we can address ourselves to those particular points once the bill is in committee. I therefore ask hon. members to give this bill second reading and send it to committee, where points of concern to hon. members can be resolved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-28, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few comments to the House at this time on third reading of this bill to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. I wish to say at the outset that I do so on behalf of the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), who is unable to be here today. I mention that because of the very excellent background work the hon. member performed which helped all members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture when they were considering this bill. Because of his background as a veterinarian I think it is appropriate that I mention the work which he did on this particular bill.
We on this side, as I am sure do most members of the House, support the bill. The only critical comment I can make is that it took the government so long to bring it to this final stage. First reading took place on October 21, 1974, well over a year ago. It is perhaps appropriate to note that this is fairly typical of the low priority given to new agricultural legislation. Perhaps we fail to appreciate the

genuine importance and value of agriculture in Canada today.
The members of the standing committee certainly appreciated the work done by, and the co-operation received from the various branches of the Department of Agriculture. I mention in particular the Health of Animals Branch. This bill amends an act which is over 100 years old. By the very nature of the Contagious Diseases Act, the Health of Animals Branch must be very closely involved.
I speak with some knowledge of various cattlemen's associations across Canada. They too had the co-operation of the Health of Animals Branch with regard to the many representations they made to the department on this bill. I am sure the same applies to other branches of the Department of Agriculture.
I wish to refer to the concern of cattlemen with regard to the shipment of calves from western Canada to Ontario and points east of Montreal. After many years, this legislation will now make it legal to ship calves a little faster from western Canada by way of Winnipeg and Toronto to their final destinations, mostly in Ontario. For many years there has been an obstruction in getting calves shipped here quicker and, consequently, getting them here in a healthier condition.
At one time trainloads of cattle had to be stopped every 36 hours for a feed and rest period. Through mutual understanding, and I stress that as it involves the co-operation of the humane societies, it is now recognized that if calves can travel faster and without unnecessary stops, they can go for periods of 42 to 58 hours, and perhaps longer. The theory is that the quicker they get to their final destination, even when longer hauls are required, the better the health of the cattle will be. This legislation makes this possible. It takes the authority for those regulations out of the Department of Justice and gives it to the Department of Agriculture where it belongs.
This bill will update considerably the amount of compensation for animals that fall down on the brucellosis test. This is a very timely topic. We have heard a lot in this House and across the country about brucellosis over the past two or three years, particularly the past six months. Questions asked in the House clearly indicate there have been some problems with brucellosis.
It was reassuring to hear from the representatives of the Health of Animals Branch who appeared before the committee that progress is indeed being made. I believe more progress will be made, and possibly there will be a complete eradication of brucellosis. As this bill provides higher compensation to cattle producers, hopefully there will be better co-operation. After all, when the compensation is not very high there is a tendency not to advise the proper authorities that there may be brucellosis in the herd. Therefore this is a very forward step.
I hope this spirit of co-operation between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the various branches of his department will continue when the regulations are being drawn up. They will of course be very detailed and involved. I am sure that many agricultural commodity groups will want the opportunity to take part in a continuing discussion when the regulations are being drawn up.
December 12, 1975

With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that we in the official opposition clearly support this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that there is not much time to discuss the bill before us because I think it is a very important one.
Canadians should be very proud of what we have been able to do in the one hundred years this legislation has been in existence in terms of eradicating animal diseases from the Canadian scene. I suppose it is possible to say that if Dr. Ken Wells, Veterinary Surgeon-General, had been in charge of medicine in this country over the last number of years we would have eradicated many diseases rather than having just found methods of treating them. I presume some of our major diseases would by now have come under test procedures which would enable us to discover and eliminate diseases early. I do not know whether he would have been able to arrive at suitable compensation if his work involved human beings in the same way he has been able to do it with animals. But he certainly has been successful, Mr. Speaker, and maybe we should be looking at that method of getting rid of some of the-


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: You
realize what he is saying, don't you?


William Arnold Peters: I am aware of what is being said. I just think that we have been able to solve the problems of animals one hell of a lot better than we have with people, and it may be that it involves selective eradication rather than some of the treatment we have had.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know some politicians who are worth more dead than alive.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, much of this bill is involved with compensation, and I suppose that if we were looking at eradication in any field that would be a factor. But I approve the suggestions which have been made and the major decision which has been made with regard to brucellosis, bearing in mind that vaccination has the unfortunate side effect of creating carriers and the knowledge that under vaccination the eradication of brucellosis will not be entirely possible. Eradication will hopefully allow us to establish completely free zones in Canada which will enable us to continue the same degree of export as has been possible over the years simply because of our control of the disease. We have controlled brucellosis, tuberculosis, and many other diseases in this way and I am pleased to see the department has now taken a look at some of the other factors which have developed involving the health of animals.
One of the major problems affecting animals has been that of safe and humane transportation. Stories have appeared in the newspapers over the last few years of cattle arriving at destinations in a very unsatisfactory condition; quite often a number had died. This matter, I believe, is to be looked after by suitable controls which are to be established.
Two other segments have been added which will put the Veterinary Surgeon-General in a position of looking after
Business of the House
the health of human beings as well. You know, with the very poor rates of benefit being paid to some senior citizens some have felt the need to conserve their money to the extent that they have been eating food designated for animal pets, and there have been abuses of the regulations which have been in force over the years in that field. Now new regulations will be made to control that situation, not only for pets but for others who may find it more advantageous to buy pet food for human consumption than to do without entirely. The controls we are putting into the animal food compartment raise many problems that are related to this bill, but the initiative being shown by the veterinary staff in their willingness to supervise animal plant food, is to be commended.
The controls which have been extended to the rendering plants also is in the same field, since it affects human beings. There have been cases where food designated for pet food factories and rendering plants has been made into other products such as fertilizer, meal, etc. Those are now being controlled by the department and it seems to me this may eliminate, in provinces where there is no provincial control, the danger of some of the meat finding its way into human consumption. The Veterinary Surgeon-General may find himself the largest supervisor in the Olympics when he looks after the hamburger and hot dog fields. Any control which assures to Canadians that meat designated for disposal otherwise than for human consumption stays exactly in that field, which has not been the case in the past few years, is most welcome.
I concede therefore by repeating that this is a very worth-while bill'. I would like to congratulate the veterinary service on the work they have done in controlling animal diseases in Canada. We have an enviable reputation, and extending their supervision into those fields where abuses have taken place in the past is worthy of support, and we certainly like to give praise where it is due.
The veterinary staff has been very competent in doing a good job on behalf of Canadians and by giving them this bill, and the increases that are made in compensation, we may ensure that progress wherever possible can be made in the control of contagious diseases. This is a field into which they themselves did not want to get, but no other national agency is controlling the rendering and pet food industry. Control will certainly be welcome there also.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I wonder whether the House would give unanimous consent to the consideration at this point of Bill C-21? I believe we could handle it in three or four minutes.

December 12, 1975
Agricultural Products Marketing Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we do not see the clock and proceed immediately to the consideration of Bill C-21?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING ACT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT FIXING OF INITIAL PRICE FOR PRODUCTS
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that Bill C-21, to amend the Agricultural Products Co-Operative Marketing Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I can comply with the stipulation of the hon. member in regard to the three or four minutes, but I do want to raise one matter concerning the bill.
During the committee hearings on the bill we asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for assurances that any product that might be marketed under this act with the benefit of guaranteed loans from the government of Canada should have a price established on the basis that any provincial subsidies that might be paid by the province on the commodity in question would be deducted. The purpose, of course, was that if a producer received a loan guaranteed under the act and at the same time obtained assistance from the province in which the product was grown, it would put the producer and the co-operative associated with the producer and his product at a very distinct advantage in relation to other producers who might not get assistance for their product.
The minister gave us a clear assurance that in such cases if there were provincial assistance for the commodity in question there would be a deduction-to cite a prime example, if subsidies were paid on fertilizer. In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture would the cabinet minister now responsible be prepared to confirm the statement of the Minister of Agriculture as government policy, and will he give the assurance that the act will be administered in this way, either as announced policy or by regulation, or by whatever means necessary? Since there is only one minister on the front bench, I guess I will have to ask him for that assurance.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I am not on the front bench.


Fred Alward McCain: I did, of course, mean the very front bench, if I may reassure the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Are you on the front bench?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Unfortunately not, Mr. Speaker. The best reply that I can give the hon. member is that we will bring his representations to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. We cannot answer his point now. Unfortunately this is the position in which we find ourselves at the moment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I think it would satisfy the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) if one member of the committee stood up and stated that he had heard the minister make that statement in committee. That would be on the record, and I think it is the type of assurance that the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte would find acceptable.


Mr, Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record that the minister, in answering the hon. member's question in committee, did say that this would certainly be taken into consideration and that such a move would be made.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, notices of motions, private bills.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I had been scheduled to proceed with a bill standing in my name under public bills, but I wonder whether there is consent in the House to deal instead with private members' private bills. If so, I would then deal with S-30, an act to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, standing in my name as well.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be difficult but I did have a discussion with the hon. member, and as I recollect it our discussions certainly did not deal with the Continental Bank. We talked about another matter. Perhaps the hon. member could clarify this and I can consent. I did give him certain undertakings, but not with respect to the Continental Bank.


John Mercer Reid: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The proposal I spoke to the hon. member about was the IAC bank. IAC is converting itself into the Continental Bank, and the title of the bill to which I referred is "An act to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada".


Walter David Baker: Then that satisfies me. I just wanted to make sure.
December 12, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) that instead of proceeding with public bills, specifically a bill under his name, Bill C-204, the House by unanimous consent proceed to consideration of a private bill appearing in his name, S-30, an act to incorporate the Continental Bank of Canada. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE BILLS
John Mercer Reid: that Bill S-30, to incorporate the Continental Bank of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the House for allowing me to proceed with this bill this afternoon; it is a courtesy I appreciate very much.
The bill before us is a complicated one, one that I believe the House and its committee will want to look at very closely. In fact as sponsor of the bill I would advise members of that committee to examine it under a very powerful microscope. The reason is that the bill takes an already existing financial institution incorporated under the various provincial laws and incorporates it into a bank, a somewhat different institution.
To my knowledge this is the first time that a retail sales finance company has attempted to convert itself into a bank. Indeed, to my knowledge, it is the first time that any other financial institution has attempted to convert itself into a bank. Consequently, because we are taking an existing business and converting it into something else, the bill provides for a series of transitional periods and alters a number of very important aspects of the Bank Act in order to transform an existing business into something else.
I do not want to describe to the House all of the exceptions that are contained in the bill, but I do want to give some brief history of the company and to indicate what are some of the changes proposed in the bill in order to convert the IAC into a chartered bank.
First of all I think it important to indicate that IAC is a Canadian institution. At one time, when it first originated, it was an American institution, but 50 years ago the American owners pulled out and a group of Canadians took it over. Under their leadership the company has prospered. At the present time some 12,000 Canadians own 96 per cent of the common shares of the company, amounting to approximately 13.5 million shares.
The business of the company is extensive. Some 65 percent is in business financing, 16 per cent in sales financing, 10 per cent in consumer loans, and 9 per cent in residential mortgages. I think it important to recognize that a substantial portion of IAC's present business is in areas covered
Continental Bank
by chartered banks at the present time. In point of fact 70 per cent of the assets of IAC result from activities which are normally considered to be the preserve of the chartered banks in Canada.
It is also important to realize that IAC is a financial institution of substantial size. According to the figures I have here IAC with assets of $2,139.5 million ranks 11th in size among Canadian financial institutions, with an equity base of $203.6 million. When one is looking at institutions that are larger one finds names such as the Royal Bank of Canada, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Montreal, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Toronto-Dominion Bank.Banque Canadienne Nationale, the Royal Trust Company, Banque Provinciale du Canada, the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation, and the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation, then followed by IAC, with the 12th on the list being General Motors Acceptance Corporation of Canada, Limited, which has its indebtedness guaranteed by U.S. parent corporations.
When we are dealing with IAC we are dealing with an organization that is indeed of some considerable size. It is quite clear that if the bank does obtain its charter it will have a substantial chance of being able to provide services across the country. IAC carries on business now at 270 locations in all ten provinces and the Yukon. It employs 2,800 people at those locations, and has four divisional headquarters at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.
There are a number of changes or exceptions to the Bank Act which are being proposed under this bill. I think it only fair to indicate to the House what some of those exceptions are; exceptions which I am sure the House will want to examine. For example, Section 7(3) allows a period of two years for full compliance with Section 18 of the Bank Act prescribing qualifications of directors. The Bank Act prohibits directors of banks, deposit-taking institutions and similar financial organizations from being directors of another bank. Ten out of the 19 directors of IAC fall into this category. For sound practical and financial reasons, IAC has requested this two-year period to permit the orderly phasing out of these ten directors. This is a question I think the committee will want to investigate quite carefully.
Another section the committee may want to look at is Section 15(4), which permits a four-year period within which shareholders holding more than the 10 per cent maximum permitted by the Bank Act would be allowed to continue to hold and vote their shares. At the present time there is only one shareholder who fits into this category, but again this is something that members may want to look at; that is, a means of easing the financial difficulties of transferring substantial numbers of shares from one shareholder to others.
There are also other questions I think the committee will want to look at, particularly Section 18(11) which deals with the relationship between the Continental Bank and IAC Limited during the transitional period. Both institutions would be in existence during this transitional period while Continental is being built up by the infusion of assets from IAC, and IAC in turn is being run down.

December 12, 1975
Continental Bank
I do not want to take more time going into the details of the bill except to indicate to hon. members in all fairness that it is most complex, dealing with a very complex subject. The details of the bill have been worked out by the company and by officials of the government, particularly those responsible for administering the Bank Act and for supervising the activities of banks.
I want to say one of the things that interests me about this project is the fact that it is complicated and that it will provide an opportunity for the House of Commons to look at the difficulties and the potential of banking financial institutions in Canada moving from one agency into another. This will allow the House of Commons to deal with this question of setting its own guidelines on the form it would like to see for such conversions in the future, if indeed the House makes that decision. I hope the committee will be able to give careful consideration to this proposal. It is a worth-while proposal, one which I commend to the House and the committee. I hope it will result in the development by the House of a policy to deal with situations like this in future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom).


Steve Eugene Paproski: You sure did well yesterday in Vancouver. Tell us about British Columbia, Lome.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) get up and tell us all about his new Social Credit membership card and his new party alliance. I would remind him that the Social Credit party will be holding a national leadership convention very soon and I am sure he would make an acceptable candidate for that job. In fact he would go over very well. He would fit right into the mainstream of that new, grand alliance in the province of British Columbia.
I would like to say a word or two about the bill before us today.


An hon. Member:: Get back to the heady, high financial aspects.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The idea occurred to me last night when I heard the results coming in about the new alliance in British Columbia that perhaps the day had come when the Liberal and Conservative parties in the House should move to make the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) the Prime Minister, formalizing the alliance federally as well as in the province of British Columbia.
The bill before us today is one that once again deals with banking. Let me comment at the outset that there are a lot of questions to be answered here that none of us can answer. As the parliamentary secretary has said, this is a new endeavour which is going in a new direction. This step will make the Industrial Acceptance Corporation, with assets of $2.1 billion, as referred to by the parliamentary secretary, the new Continental Bank.
I do not see the need for any more privately owned banks in this country, and I hesitate to change the rules of banking until we have had a chance to study the changes during the decennial review of the Bank Act in 1977. For reasons of that kind I do not really think we should be in a

hurry to get this bill through the House. I realize this bill is going to raise a lot of questions and, therefore, I have no opposition to referring it to the standing committee. I look forward to discussing the bill in the committee with the parliamentary secretary and other members. Hopefully we can learn a lot from that study and make some decisions that will help us in reviewing the Bank Act in 1977.
As I said yesterday, or the day before in the House, I would like to take a whole new look at financial institutions in terms of making them publicly owned institutions. To me the banks and financial institutions have a tremendous say in what happens in this country. They have an awful lot of economic clout. They work in many cases hand in hand with multi-national corporations, and they have objectives and priorities that are based along the same lines as those of large corporations. They are profit and corporate motivated, and I think that is wrong.
I would like to see a big bank in this country owned by all the people of Canada, operated as a public utility or a publicly owned institution. That is the direction I think we should be going. Therefore I do not feel any need to co-operate in the formation of a new bank.
I do not want at this time to hold up the bill. I should like to see it get to the committee in order that we might have a chance to ask a lot of questions, and a chance to offer some amendments. In this way we might have a real chance to find out the purpose of the Industrial Acceptance Corporation in wanting to make this move. There are a lot of questions to which I want answers. I want to know who the primary stockholders are; who owns the corporation, and who sits on the board of directors. I want to know what positions they hold with other banks and other financial institutions. In addition, I want to know who they have in the Senate; are there any senators who sit on the board of directors of this company?
Once again I note that this is a bill which originates in the other place. I have said in the House before, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said on many occasions, I do not see the need for the existence of the other place, and to me it is a slight to see a bill originating in or introduced by the other place. That is not a democratic institution, but one that we think should not exist. It is a place I think has many conflicts of interest, particularly when it comes to a financial bill or a bank bill. Many of those people sitting in the other place are sitting or have sat on the boards of directors of many financial institutions or banks, dealing with bills concerning banking. To me that is a gross conflict of interest. I think this House should deal with all bills that come before us in a public sense, particularly those that deal with banks and financial institutions.
As I say, I do not want to hold the bill up. I am looking forward to dealing with it in the committee, if it goes to the committee, as I look forward to dealing with similar bills involving banking and financial institutions that come before this House in the years ahead.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that it seems to be the view of the House that this bill should be sent to the committee.
December 12, 1975

I agree there are certain clauses of the bill which require careful scrutiny by the Committee. I also agree there should not be provisions in the bill if, as, and when it finally passes which I expect it will, which amount to exceptions to the Bank Act other than exceptions of a transitional nature demanded by the particular situation. I would agree that changes of a permanent nature in respect of the Bank Act should be made in the course of a review of that act.
Generally I favour incorporation of an additional bank. I would have to disagree with my hon. friend in the New Democratic Party who just spoke. I think the more competition there is in the banking business of this country the better. I think there should be more sources of financial credit available to Canadian individuals and Canadian businesses, large and small. The hon. member also indicated a desire that Canadian banks be publicly owned. I do not want to provoke an argument at this stage on Friday afternoon but I suggest to him that times have passed him by, that he has been by-passed by developments in advanced theory.
I think it is now pretty well agreed in most countries that ownership does not give control. I do not wish to push the argument too far, but I would ask the hon. gentleman to reflect on how much control there is by Canadians over the Bank of Canada or the Canadian National Railways. I understand, for example, that in Great Britain the government has been able to exercise virtually any degree of control it wishes over private enterprise but finds itself almost completely helpless in controlling or operating the enterprises it owns. I suggest it is high time there was a little re-thinking done about how the public maintains most effective control where it is necessary, and perhaps a little examination of whether it is not considerably a myth to think that ownership by a government as such really provides the people with any meaningful degree of control over large companies. However, I do not rise to provoke an argument. I am just trying to do my little bit in educating a younger member of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another younger member.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not informed long enough in advance that we would be considering this bill today; it was determined only this afternoon. I do not intend for my part to object to this bill being referred to committee for consideration. This bill I am sure deserves lengthy consideration. The Social Credit Party of Canada is reluctant with respect to the Canadian monetary system. That does not mean that we have something against banks or bank owners but we do have something against the legislation which allows banks to create and control credit in Canada. The leader of the opposition said earlier that having more chartered banks would allow a better control to be exercised. I wondered somewhat if he would not go as far as suggesting that we each have our own bank or piggybank. There would be a good opposition,
Continental Bank
and we could all have our own credit. I do not think it goes that far; I do not know exactly who are the shareholders. I do not know them myself but I think IAC is well known in Canada. It is precisely that company which wants to be incorporated as a bank to get a charter in Canada.
Well, Mr. Speaker, usually when a company or a group of men ask for a bank charter the appropriate bill is rather limited. Bill S-30 is indeed rather voluminous probably because it has to do with a company which already exists and wants a charter transfer. That is why we will have a lot of questions to ask the representatives of IAC when they appear before the committee of the House and we will certainly take that opportunity to voice our opinions on the way currency and credit should be created and controlled in Canada.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have just one short bit to add to this very interesting discussion. When the bill goes to the committee there should be a method whereby the promoters of this bank will be required to live up to their undertakings. I am sorry to say this has not been the case in respect of the most recent bank which came before this House. The promoters in that case gave undertakings which they have not lived up to. I think this is a contempt not only of parliament but also of the Inspector of Banks and so on. I hope when the bill gets to the committee the undertakings will be given and that the Inspector of Banks will be given the responsibility to see that the undertakings are lived up to after the seal of approval is given, if it is, by parliament. Otherwise a mockery will be made of our system. I for one regret that these undertakings were not fulfilled in the last instance.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak for just a moment. Generally I agree that the addition of further banking opportunities in this country is important in order to accelerate the degree of economic activity in the private sector. I share both the concern of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the development or the experience as pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You cannot sit on both sides.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not attempting to. I think it is exceedingly difficult to control these institutions in the traditional way in which an attempt has been made to control them through public ownership. I think a vital question we will have to face at the next revision of the Bank Act will be the degree of influence available concerning the transactions and general activity of the banks in this country. As was mentioned a moment ago, there is a concern about the degree to which investments are made in this country and whether there are pressures which exist from outside the country.
One final point I believe is vital in terms of the banking institutions of Canada. I refer to the degree to which these institutions adequately reflect the financial needs of the various parts of the country. I think we will have to look very carefully at the way in which the financial portfolios are dealt with by the major banks inasmuch as we still
21X30-11

December 12, 1975
Continental Bank
have the problem of making sufficient capital available in some of the underdeveloped regions of the country. If the banks have not yet found sufficient means of their own to achieve this, then I think some assistance and direction will have to be given. This is something that I hope will be kept in mind in the creation of the new Continental Bank of Canada.
I hope there is not some kind of irony in that the initials of this new bank will be the CBC, inasmuch as we are already spending a good deal of public funds through that particular agency. We want to be sure that the way in which this bank is operating will achieve some measure of economic stimulation and activity.
As a final point let me say that this week there has been a national meeting of two boards of directors of two national banks in this country with respect to their investment portfolios abroad. Very serious questions are being raised about the investment that takes place on the part of these banks in countries with which we have serious disagreements, such as South Africa. I think we do not want to encourage banks that will be investing the individual resources of the depositors of this country in areas where a measure of basic inequality has been maintained, based on something as unacceptable to the people of this country as racial division and separation.
With those few remarks, I look forward to further study of this proposal when it comes before the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed that we call it five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 4:35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 15, 1975