1975-05-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 which I hope will commend itself to the House.
In view of the failure of the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva to reach agreement on a 200-mile economic zone which is of vital importance to the survival of the fishing industry in the Atlantic provinces, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House supports the stand taken by the Minister of State for Fisheries at Geneva and calls upon the government to reaffirm its intention to take the necessary unilateral action in the absence of an agreement at Geneva.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FRENCH CANADA
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and in a spirit of solidarity that on this first day of May I request the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to move a very special motion concerning the survival of the French culture in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, 200 years ago today, the Quebec Act, which officially recognized the French language and culture in Canada, was proclaimed. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner):
That this House unanimously rejoice at this historical event and eagerly wish all French Canadians in this country happiness, long life and prosperity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is certainly an important question and a very good idea, but unfortunately it is not an urgent matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this government immediately set up a task force comprised at a minimum of an economist from the western region of Canada, the central region and the Atlantic region, to investigate the philosophy, politics and economic criteria of present federal wage policies as they relate to federal employees in these different regions of Canada and determine whether and to what extent the federal government is discriminating against any region by such policies.
The urgent and pressing necessity lies in the strains on the unity of the country which prevailing federal wage policies are causing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of pressing necessity.
As the textile and clothing industry in Quebec is now in great danger of declining or even disappearing because of the high rate of imports, and as the recommendations of the Canadian Textile Board have not been applied or have had very little effect, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) make, in the nearest future, a clear and comprehensive statement on

May 1, 1975
Oral Questions
the situation of the textile and clothing industry in Quebec and in Canada, which industry is now threatened by uncontrolled imports, and on what the government intends to do to protect the workers in that industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the speech made at the Law of the Sea Conference by the Minister of State (Fisheries). Does the contingency plan indicated by the minister represent the policy of this government? In general terms, what is this contingency plan? Does it relate to unilateral control of the fisheries extending out 200 miles or over the whole continental shelf?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of State (Fisheries) spoke, he of course spoke on behalf of the Canadian government. He went there as a delegate of Canada for this purpose. I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the text of what he said. Hence, I do not think it would be appropriate to comment on the particular point raised by the Leader of the Opposition at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Acting Prime Minister not find it a little extraordinary for him to give the assurance that the Minister of State (Fisheries) was stating government policy but he, the Acting Prime Minister, does not know what the policy was?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in our ministers to state government policy. All I was saying to the Leader of the Opposition was that I have not yet seen the text of the minister's speech and, therefore, I think it inappropriate to comment on it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs state that it is the policy of the government of Canada to exercise unilateral control of our fisheries over the continental shelf in the

absence of an international agreement? Is this the policy? If so, in general terms how does the government propose to implement it?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government on this point has been stated a number of times, namely that one of the policy options open to the government of Canada is unilateral action. However, in light of the continuing progress being made at the Law of the Sea Conference, we have not reached any conclusion as to the adoption of that particular option. It certainly would not be the intention of the government to consider any such option until the full results of the conference have been assessed by the government.


LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OUTLINING GOVERNMENT PLANS IF CONFERENCE FAILS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that several ministers have stated on a number of occasions that Canada would take unilateral action, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement on motions outlining the plan they will follow in the event the Law of the Sea Conference fails?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. member. It may be possible to make a statement at some time following the conclusion of the conference, which is not very far distant.


Jack Marshall: Should agreement at the Law of the Sea Conference not be reached, will bilateral discussions be held with any of those nations which agree to a 200-mile limit. If agreement is reached, would the government then take action along with the nations that want to extend the limit to 200 miles?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Any such decision would certainly be premature at this point. We certainly wish to wait to see the results of this conference; my information is that real progress has been made on each of the major policy issues in which Canada has a real interest. In my opinion it would be unwise to prejudge the results at this point.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Why does the Minister of the Environment prejudge them, then?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since this is International Women's Year, and taking into account the fact that today is May Day, a day which has important symbolic significance for those who believe in the notion of equality, may I ask the minister what steps he and his department are taking to reverse the trend which was revealed in the most recent report of the women's bureau
May 1, 1975

in his department to the effect that wage disparities between men and women in Canada are actually increasing rather decreasing?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The women's bureau in my department conducts these studies and brings these matters to the attention of the Canadian public generally. We then forward the findings to the various provincial jurisdictions in the hope that through legislative measures there, plus provisions in our own labour standards code, action can be taken on the basis of these facts. As the hon. member is aware, in terms of labour standards, the vast majority of the work force is under provincial jurisdiction. We shall be discussing this type of thing at the next federal-provincial conference of labour ministers.


PUBLIC SERVICE
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary for the President of the Treasury Board. Considering the fact that 10 per cent of the labour force in general, as well as the whole of the federal civil service, are the responsibility of the federal government, and since the latest report of the Public Service Commission points out that in the federal civil service 69 per cent of the women as opposed to only 20 per cent of the men earned less than $7,500, and considering that only one per cent of all the executive positions in the civil service are occupied by women, will the hon. gentleman tell us what concrete steps he is taking to change this situation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, a special section of the Public Service Commission is dealing with that problem. I think considerable progress has been achieved in recent years, but a continuing effort will have to be made to increase the number of women within the public service.


HUMAN RIGHTS
John Edward Broadbent: A question to the Acting Prime Minister. In the light of the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare last October to the effect that legislation establishing a human rights and interests commission which would be responsible, among other things, for enforcing non-discrimination on the basis of sex in terms of employment practices would be introduced before the end of 1974, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister why, at this point in 1975, such a measure has not even been brought forward for first reading?
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: The bill in draft form is now before cabinet. It is proving to be an extremely complicated measure, and this is the reason for the delay, not because the government is not anxious to introduce the legislation.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As a result of my recent interview with the minister last Tuesday concerning the problem created by air navigation at the Val-d'Or airport since the departure of the armed forces, could the minister tell us whether a radar will be set up again at that airport, as the problem is extremely urgent and must be settled as soon as possible for the security of air passengers?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I do not
know, Mr. Speaker, whether a new radar will be set up in Val-d'Or, but I know that my department is considering the opportunity of providing more modern equipment so that air navigation may be safer in that area.


Armand Caouette: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Following the minister's answer, since there is a danger of accident in foggy weather due to the lack of radar at the airport, could the minister tell us when the aforementioned aids will be set up?


Jean Marchand: The only thing I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that my department is investigating and will eventually report to me.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that which was asked a moment ago by the Leader of the Opposition, and I direct it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since the Law of the Sea Conference cannot succeed on any basis other than a convention founded on a concept of the economic zone coupled with that of the common heritage of mankind-and obviously this concept has not been accepted-is it the government's intention to wait until this matter is further debated at the next Law of the Sea Conference suggested for next year, or will bilateral discussions be held with the United States and other countries who approve of the economic zone concept in the hope that early unilateral action may be taken by Canada
5360

May 1, 1975
Oral Questions
to protect our marine and our mineral resources on our continental shelf?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret to advise the hon. member that I differ with the premise he has established, namely that all is lost at the conference. I do not take that attitude at this point. I believe there may be, and probably still is, some ability to cope with the problem that he has raised. Certainly the delegation is at work, and although I cannot say for certain it may be that there can be progress, particularly with respect to the continental margin.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the vital importance of Canada obtaining at least management rights to marine resources on the continental shelf, and in view of the apparent failure at Geneva, which I submit is due to lack of an aggressive stance by this government, have preliminary negotiations on a bilateral basis been held with a view to agreeing on quotas as a preliminary step to whatever unilateral action the government will eventually have to take?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian delegation is operating in good faith at the conference and it would certainly be in conflict with that position to commence bilateral deals which imply the collapse and failure of the conference.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the House whether or not the crisis which led us to sit all night to bring in legislation to end the strike at the three river ports has passed? I want specifically to ask the minister whether the concern that engaged us all that night, which was grain supplies to Quebec farm producers, has been remedied to the point where supplies are now sufficient to meet their needs, which apparently was not the case last week.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my information is that grain supplies are adequate to meat the need and that there is no interference with the movement of grain, as was not the case prior to this House passing the legislation. So that particular element which contributed finally to the emergency has by and large been removed. However, the very disturbing element of apparent defiance of the law is still there.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the House exactly what steps are being taken today, and what steps are proposed for the next few days to make sure that the law is going to be enforced?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Officials of the justice department are in Montreal examining

the facts of the situation, which hopefully will establish what I strongly suspect is defiance of the law, and we will take the appropriate legal remedies. Once having ascertained those facts, although I think this question might be more properly put to the Minister of Justice, I believe there will be an application for an injunction on Monday.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling the House that some days after the legislation has taken effect and the men are not back to work there is still a necessity to have officials gathering factual information of the situation, or is the minister saying that what the officials are doing is gathering the necessary evidence to make the necessary application?


John Carr Munro: That is essentially what I meant, Mr. Speaker. They are gathering the necessary evidence.


HARBOURS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport if he has a moment or two, but I would not want to interrupt anything. Can the minister now answer the question I put to him yesterday in respect of the level of loans that have been guaranteed by this government for a Canadian association of foreign interests, namely the Maritime Employers' Association? I would ask at the same time whether the minister has had any conversations with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, in respect of his conversations last night with officials of the Maritime Employers' Association and, if so, did he discuss whether the MEA is in a position to continue to honour its commitments to the bank, or will the government have to step in and exercise this guarantee?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is something I am discussing at the present time. The total amount of money loaned to the MEA, not by the government alone but by the banks and the government, is about $11 million. I think the government is guaranteeing $2.5 million, as well as loans from the National Harbours Board of $2.5 million. Those are the figures I remember.


J. Michael Forrestall: 
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the entire question of the financial situation of the MEA was not discussed at a meeting with me.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether the United States, other governments or international institutions have requested the Canadian government to accept a certain number of Vietnamese refugees with whom they are unable to cope and, if so, what is the government going to do about it?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: As of this morning, Mr. Speaker, the government has agreed to accept up to 2,000 Vietnamese refugees who have been airlifted to the United States or United States territories-this is in response to a request of the United States government-and up to 1,000 refugees who have gathered at points outside Viet Nam. I am thinking of places like Bangkok and Hong Kong. There are some people turning up there now who have escaped to Thailand and other countries.
I might say that this 3,000 is over and above the commitment we have made in respect of sponsored and nominated relatives of Canadian citizens or landed immigrants in Canada, although frankly and unfortunately in the latter case it is very doubtful that very many of these people in fact got out of Viet Nam and will be coming forward. I do have information now that there are some 82 at Guam and 10 at Wake Island. We are dispatching an immigration team with medical assistance to work in co-operation with Americans in these locations, particularly in respect of relatives of Canadians who have indicated they have arrived at these places.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the government of Canada has or will be approaching the new government in South Viet Nam with a request that the relatives of Canadian Vietnamese be allowed to come to Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would have to defer a response to that question to my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would he outline to the
Oral Questions
House whether he is presently attempting to recover the more than $37 million invested in Microsystems by the Canadian government?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we are making efforts to get repayment of the loan of nearly $7 million which was secured, but the balance of some $30 million involved conditional grants-that is, they were repayable out of profits. As the hon. member knows, the Microsystems Company lost some $45 million and it is very unlikely that we will ever obtain any part of that.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. In view of the fact that Northern Electric will, as it turns out, be picking up the assets and will not lose a penny on its investment in Microsystems, will the minister tell the House whether he hopes to recover any of the money from Northern Electric?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated I would expect to negotiate and obtain a substantial part, I hope all, of the outstanding loan of nearly $7 million.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge on a final supplementary.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the large sums of money that have been invested in this company and the rather disastrous way in which this money has been lost, I wonder whether the minister would investigate, or set up a committee to look into, the entire affairs of Microsystems and its relationship with Northern Electric, perhaps both as a way to find out why this money went down the drain and to make sure that this does not happen again.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have of course been in conversation with the officials of Northern Electric and Microsystems and have attempted to ensure that the Canadian public's interest will be fully secured. We are, of course, on a continuing basis trying to learn from this experience, but I think the hon. member will realize that when you are supporting an advance in technology you do so for two reasons, either because of the risk or the amount involved or both. In other words, the projects would not otherwise be undertaken by the Canadian private sector without government assistance. In companies of this size, heavy risks clearly are involved and you do not win them all.


NATURAL GAS-POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS WITH ALBERTA PRIOR TO PRICE INCREASE-EFFECT OF PRICE INCREASE ON NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Did the minister or any official of his department have a discussion with the Alberta government or the Energy Board in Alberta before the announced increase in the price of natural gas of about 70 per cent which came forward yesterday.
29557-64!/2

May 1, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that the decision was made by an arbitration tribunal appointed by the two private parties to the contract and not by the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board. The officials of the two governments did indeed meet a week ago and discussed the price of gas. This question will be discussed again, I hope, when I meet with the Minister of Energy for Alberta this coming week.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary again is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does this decision that was announced yesterday have in the minister's opinion any major ramifications for the settlement of the negotiations between the federal government and the provinces in respect of energy prices.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it gives a pretty clear indication that the most useful thing would be for the governments to arrive at a mutually acceptable price very much below the arbitration tribunal award.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of statements from some leading personalities at the Commonwealth Conference regarding proposals that would involve the Commonwealth in the affairs of non-Commonwealth countries such as Mozambique, Rhodesia and Southwest Africa, could the minister indicate what position Canada is adopting toward these proposals?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of more information on the exact nature of the proposals I have no comment to make. I have no doubt, however, that the question of southern Africa and the regimes existing there will be a matter of great concern to the Commonwealth leaders and on that point Canada will of course support strongly principles that would lead to majority rule and racial equality in all parts of Africa.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, considering the extent of our aid to various members of the Commonwealth, what steps then would Canada take to prevent the diversion of Canadian funds into questionable political and possibly military ventures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have aid programs with quite a number of countries. In the absence of specific details that funds are being diverted to military purposes I have no comment to make. I do not believe, nor have I any evidence to suggest, that such funds are being diverted for military purposes in any part of the world.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I apologize to him for not having given him notice. I attempted to get in touch with his office. In view of the treaty meeting in Geneva on May 6 based on the gap which exists between scientific and technological knowledge of the nuclear nations as opposed to the rest of the world, which is now proven by the advent of India into the nuclear club, I should like to ask the minister whether an alternative has been worked out and whether Canada is prepared to abide by this alternative and if necessary stop the sale of CANDU reactors?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question is quite complicated. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in December last announced the system of safeguards that would be required for the sale of nuclear materials to other countries.
These safeguards are in place and will be observed. In the case of India we are still conducting discussions with the Indian Government with a view to overcoming the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the exploding of a nuclear device in that country.



PUBLISHING


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State but in his absence and in the absence of his parliamentary secretary I would direct it to the Government Leader. A recent Canadian Press statement reports the minister as saying that a licensing system may be the next step to ensure that newsstands carry a certain amount of Canadian material. Could I ask the minister whether the guidelines of this proposal would be similar to those the government has suggested for Canadian periodicals which is 80 per cent Canadian content?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to my colleague.


Benno Friesen: He is not here.


Mitchell William Sharp: He was here yesterday and could have been asked the question at that time. He will be back in a few
days.
May 1, 1975



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the reported statement made outside the House by the Minister of Justice to the effect that he is not ordering a broad inquiry into the activities of the SIU but that there is enough evidence to form the basis for an inquiry under the Canada Labour Code to look into certain labour activities of the SIU, I wonder whether the Minister of Labour could tell us if he is ordering such an inquiry?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the statement made by the Minister of Justice. The material upon which he came to that conclusion has just very recently come into our possession. We are considering the possibilities the hon. member is suggesting. There are several possibilities under the Labour Code. There is the inquiry and, I believe, under section 196 we have another option in terms of conducting further examinations.


An hon. Member:: Snowball.


John Carr Munro: There is no suggestion of snowball here at all. We just received the material.


An hon. Member:: Stonewall.


John Carr Munro: There is no question of stonewall, either. We just received the information, and if that information justifies appropriate action being taken to correct abuses, we will take that action.



SUGGESTION CABINET COMMITTEE CONSIDER NEED FOR INQUIRY UNDER LABOUR CODE INTO ACTIVITIES OF SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION

Allan Frederick Lawrence: My
supplementary is to the Acting Prime Minister, and I want to put it as delicately as I can. In view of the relationship of the Minister of Labour in the past to the SIU, along with some of his cabinet colleagues, and in view of the fact that technically it falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour to call for such an inquiry, will the Acting Prime Minister consider the possibility of setting up a cabinet committee composed of colleagues who have not been involved with the SIU to consider this matter?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You won't get a quorum.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will answer as delicately as possible that I do not think my hon. friend would be satisfied with that sort of inquiry. I have confidence in the Minister of Labour, and I would suggest that questions of the kind which have been put which insinuate something wrongful are contrary to our rules.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



BEEF CATTLE-SUGGESTION MINISTER JUSTIFY STATEMENT QUOTAS WORTH $100 MILLION TO PRODUCERS

Mr. Bert Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. As the minister has been stating that the imposition of quotas on beef has been worth $100 million to producers, will he make public the calculation by which he arrives at these figures?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the secretary-manager of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, and he said-if I can use the word-that I was being rather conservative when I said they had gained $100 million by the program, and he can present figures which show that it was much more than $100 million.



BEEF CATTLE-ALLEGED REDUCTION IN SALES OF BREEDING STOCK

Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Is the minister aware of livestock sales on breeding stock in western Canada? Almost 50 per cent are going back home rather than going through sales. Is the minister aware of this?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I know is that all the sales of breeding stock, British breeds, held at Calgary and Regina have been better than they ever expected, and some of the best they have had for years. A vast majority of that stock from those purebred breed sales went to the United States of America.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: If the minister would check these figures, he would find that this average represents only the cattle that were sold, not the ones which went back to the farm.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moncton.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Leonard Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that at the present time there is no direct, regular air service from any point in the province of New Brunswick, and in particular, from the city of Moncton, to the nation's capital, resulting in a very unjust situation for New Brunswickers? Will the minister take immediate steps to rectify this situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will make an inquiry and tell the hon. member what we are doing about it.

May 1, 1975
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



TOMATOES-EFFECT OF IMPORTS ON CANADIAN GREENHOUSE TOMATO PRODUCERS

Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that the imports into the Canadian market of Florida field tomatoes and Cleveland greenhouse tomatoes have so far despressed the price on the Canadian market that Canadian greenhouse tomato producers are being forced to sell their produce, which is only now reaching the height of its season, at a price below the cost of production? If so, what steps is he taking to protect the Canadian greenhouse industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the fact that tomatoes from Mexico and the United States have been brought into Canada. There is no substantial increase in the amount of tomatoes which have come here. We think the present situation is temporary because of crop conditions in Mexico and Florida, and we think the market will alleviate itself of this problem.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the minister's statement last week with regard to the future Pickering airport noise disturbance that an offer has been made for those residents in Stouffville who want to leave to regard the government as purchaser of last resort, would the minister indicate when the offer was made, to whom it was extended and in what form? It now appears no one in Stouffville has heard of the offer, including the mayor of that town.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the indication I gave in the House was, perhaps, imprecise in that the details of the offer have not been worked out, but the government will be prepared, as a purchaser of last resort to offer to purchase houses from citizens who wish to move away by reason of noise levels.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Could the minister be more precise as to exactly when the government will be making this approach to the residents of Stouffville?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think perhaps more in the way of details and more in the way of knowledge as to possible noise levels in the future should be worked out before the offer is communicated. Those who wish to avail themselves of this will want to know against what kind of test they will be operating.



MANPOWER


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The Ontario Minor Hockey Association has instructed all its affiliates to instruct their minor league hockey players next year to obtain social insurance numbers. Some of these kids are only seven years of age. I would like to know the minister's rationale behind this situation and whether he will ask them to pay into the Canada Pension Plan, UIC and the others.


Robert Knight Andras: It would be pretty difficult for a minister to know the rationale. This is the first I have heard of this matter, so I will have to look into it and find out what is happening. I am not sure what they are up to.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. I would like to ask him if he took advantage of the recent visit to this city of Mr. McNamara and other members of his band to discuss with them the interesting question of dredging.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I did not take advantage of the recent visit of Mr. McNamara and his band to Ottawa to discuss the dredging question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



DREDGING-REQUEST FOR OUTLINE OF SAFEGUARDS BEING CONSIDERED FOR NEW CONTRACTS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Public Works. On April 22 and, I believe, again on April 29 the minister indicated that he is pursuing the awarding of dredging contracts, but prior to that time he would have to devise some standards in order to protect the public interest. Can the minister advise today whether those standards have been devised and have been submitted to cabinet for approval in order that the nation can know of them prior to entering into any contracts with dredging companies?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I undertook to make an announcement tomorrow, which I intend to do.



DREDGING-REASON MINISTER DID NOT CONSULT RCMP AND SOLICITOR GENERAL ON SAFEGUARDS FOR NEW CONTRACTS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the
May 1, 1975

matter, and I do not have to elaborate on that, why did the Minister of Public Works not take the ROMP and the Solicitor General into his confidence with respect to the procedure and safeguards which would be required, as was revealed this morning?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of this revelation this morning. I have been in close consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Justice, however.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will repeat it. Why did the minister not contact the Solicitor-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why did this minister not contact the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP in order to determine what type of safeguards would best serve the public interest? That is a simple question; may I have a short answer?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that the centre for knowledge in respect of these matters should be properly within the Department of Justice which maintains contact with police forces.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Parkdale. Can any statement be made in respect of the negotiations that have taken place between officials of the minister's department and officials of the United Nations, specifically the High Commissioner for Refugees, about whether there is any possibility of Vietnamese refugees being declared international refugees in order that the international community can place representations before either the PRG or Hanoi in respect of allowing those people who received exit visas, such as were given by Canada, to be reunited with their families?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision to declare an international refugee movement as a result of discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. When people are in a country other than their own as a result of the persecution of their country, they become refugees in the eyes of those countries that have signed the covenant, of which Canada is one, and are to be dealt with on an official basis.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees subscribes to this and at the moment is concentrating on potential moves to generally alleviate the situation within Viet Nam, whether it be north or south, on a day by day basis. We are in constant communication, and if there is a
Oral Questions
change in the decision we will be prepared to subscribe to the conditions. In answer to an earlier question about what we are doing on our own, I said that we would join in any movement the High Commissioner would be disposed to announce later.



INDUSTRY


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Given the serious situation of Quebec's textile and clothing industry, does he intend to make a statement soon in the House in order to set up a new national policy of textile and clothing in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have made a number of statements in respect of the government's response to reports of the Textile and Clothing Board. I am awaiting a report with respect to the recent hearings on apparel that took place in Montreal. I should advise the House that I have asked my department to conduct a review of the policy and the Textile Act and this has already begun.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In the process of review he has just announced, does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce intend to have consultations on the matter with the leaders and workers of that important industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: We will be consulting with both the management of the companies and the representatives of the workers, Mr. Speaker. I expect to meet with them very shortly, probably within the next couple of weeks.



HOUSING


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs which relates to the Lebreton flats housing project, within walking distance of this House. It is obvious that since we are in a period of rising unemployment and decreasing housing starts-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question would he please put it.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: -that this project is one of high priority. Yet despite the fact that the land is federally owned, the

May 1, 1975
Oral Questions
planning is in the hands of NCC and CMHC, both federal government agencies-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: -and has the approval of the mayor of the city of Ottawa, progress is too slow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question would he please put it now?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: I am at the question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise the House, in view of this concentration of authority and promised co-operation, that he will endeavour to advance the commencement of construction on this site in order to demonstrate that this government with this much support can move projects in an exemplary manner, provide much needed housing and reduce unemployment?


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Now that negotiations on the ratification of the recent contract with the Letter Carriers Union is reaching the critical stage, particularly in the Montreal area, can the minister bring the House up to date on the progress of those negotiations, particularly the steps he is taking to achieve their successful conclusion?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the House that the letter carriers who have been off work during the week were entitled to be because they are in a strike position. They went off work when the national executive insisted that the ratification vote be by secret ballot and placed the Montreal local in trusteeship. They are to be commended for this. In a positive vein, the letter carriers met this morning and agreed to go back to work, hopefully by tomorrow morning.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. In view of this obvious success under the new policy of close consultation and the responsibility displayed by both the National Letter Carriers Union and the majority of the employees, can the minister inform the House if these factors are at play in the negotiations under way with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it would be misleading the House to say that we have reached the same degree of consultation but we are

working at it and I must say the climate is much more positive than it was a week or two ago.



HARBOURS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs stonewalled a very reasonable request to have the minister appear to explain what happened to the Hamilton file from Councillor Campbell, would the minister repeat his earlier assurance to the House that he would be glad to appear at the committee and testify so that this particular aspect of the matter can be clarified.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say, although I was phrasing the question to the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion heard the question and knew what I was getting at. I will ask him the question that I asked almost a month ago. At that time the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion said that he would be only too glad to appear before the appropriate committee to clarify all uncertainties on the Hamilton harbour problem and the allegations in particular levelled by Councillor Campbell. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is seized with this matter and there was an interesting precedent when the Minister of Supply and Services volunteered to appear. Would the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion agree to appear to help clarify this matter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, once again I have to say that in answering that question I would be going against the ruling of the Chair, according to which I cannot be asked questions on this matter. I do not want to avoid the answer. There is a short, one word answer with regard to the substance of the question the hon. member asked me. It is this: I had no awareness of the matter in question and the matter, as far as I know, has been cleared up by the appearance before the committee of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Supply and Services. There is really nothing I can add to that.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-[DOT]


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre is recognized on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the serious substance of the
May 1, 1975

question I asked of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. He was about to answer. In view of the many powers he possesses and since the NCC, CMHC and the government own the land in question, why cannot we move quickly with the project alluded to? I submit that the minister was prepared to answer, and I rise, on a question of privilege, to ask that he be allowed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member realizes that the Chair exercises discretion, both as to the context of questions, the length of preamble and the nature of the answer which may be anticipated. On occasion the Chair may have to rule quickly that a question ought not to be answered and ought not take up the time of the question period in that particular form. That is the discretion the Chair exercised at that particular time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader about the business for this week and next week? While he is answering, could he tell me, now that Bill C-32 has almost passed through parliament, if he intends to set aside six days for a budget debate in the month of May?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I first deal with the immediate program which I suggest should come before the House. This afternoon we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C-41. That debate will continue tomorrow. If it is concluded either before or during tomorrow's session we will take Bill C-57. If we dispose of that bill, we will take Bill S-15 in the name of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As to the period beyond that, I should like to have consultations with the other House leaders to discuss the possibility of a budget debate and the claims this will make on our time, also the allotted supply days which have not yet been allocated but which we must allocate before the end of June.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring to Your Honour's attention the fact that while the House will be discussing Bill C-41 the Standing Committee on Agriculture will be meeting. This will prevent members involved in that committee participating in the debate in this House. I draw this to Your Honour's attention as it seems to be an infringement of the right of members to attend to the business of the House and participate in this debate on agriculture. I ask Your Honour to indicate that in future there is to be no interference with the rights of members to deal with the business before the House. I ask that the agriculture committee not meet at the same time as an agricultural bill is being debated in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think there is much point in allowing this point of order to go further. The fact is that the Chair does not exercise any authority whatsoever over the scheduling of standing committees.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 782, 889, 1,288, 1,338, 1,341, 1,666, 1,667, 1,668, 1,682, 1,782, 1,801, 1,804, 1,830, 1,858, 1,874, 1,876, 1,879, 1,882, 2,017, 2,034, 2,052, 2,073, 2,077, 2,086, 2,155, 2,157 and 2,199.
Mr. Speaker, if question No. 564 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred questions No. 1,539 and 1,888?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Does the government know the names of individuals who worked in the Office of the Prime Minister, in the Privy Council Office or as a Research Assistant, Special Assistant, Executive Assistant, Secretary, Advisor, Consultant or in any other capacity in or for the office of any Minister or Minister of State from 1963 to the present?
2.	What is the (a) name (b) position (c) job description of each of those individuals who are presently in the Public Service or employed by (i) Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (ii) the Bank of Canada (iii) the Canada Council (iv) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (v) the Canadian Commercial Corporation (vi) the Canadian Dairy Commission (vii) the Canadian Film Development Corporation (viii) the Canadian International Development Agency (ix) the Canadian RadioTelevision Commission (x) the Canadian Transport Commission (xi) the Canadian Wheat Board (xii) the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (xiii) the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer (xiv) the Defence Research Board (xv) the Economic Council of Canada (xvi) Eldorado Nuclear Limited (xvii) the Federal Court of Canada (xviii) the Food Prices Review Board (xix) the Foreign Investment Review Agency (xx) the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corporation (xxi) Information Canada (xxii) the National Capital Commission (xxiii) the National Energy Board (xxiv) the National Farm Products Marketing Council (xxv) the National Film Board (xxvi) the National Gallery of Canada (xxvii) the National Harbours Board (xxviii) the National Research Council of Canada (xxix) the Representation Commissioner (xxx) the Science Council of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: The information requested is not readily available to provide an accurate answer to this question. The costs in manpower and time to undertake the very large amount of work which would be required to gather such detailed data as is obtainable for the period covered by the question, would be prohibitive.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	Are any Ministers who are members of the present Cabinet directors of any companies or corporations and, if so, which Ministers, of what companies or corporations are they directors, and at what date

May 1, 1975
Order Paper Questions
were any directorships presently held by such Cabinet Ministers assumed?
2.	Did any Ministers who are members of the present Cabinet resign any directorships on being sworn of the Privy Council and, if so, which Ministers, on what dates and from what companies or corporations?
3.	Did any Ministers who are members of the present Cabinet resign any directorships during the twelve months immediately prior to being sworn of the Privy Council and, if so, which Ministers, on what dates and from what companies or corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	It is government policy as stated in the House of Commons by the Prime Minister on July 18, 1973, that ministers cannot hold directorships in commercial or other profit-making corporations.
2.	Yes. See Order for Return of March 14, 1966 and
October 18, 1973; Debates of the House of Commons for October 7, 1968; Hon. Robert Andras: Gibson Motors (1962) Limited, Resigned: September 18, 1969; Gibson Lease and Rentals Limited, Resigned: September 18, 1969; Andras Hague Limited, Resigned: November 1, 1969, and Stratwin Limited, Resigned: November 1,	1969; Hon. Barney
Danson: Resigned his directorships effective December 17, 1974, in Danson Corporation Limited and Appelco Canada Limited, a subsidiary of Danson Corporation. Hon. Hugh Faulkner: Helix Investment on November 27, 1972; Hon. Jeanne Sauve:	Bushnell Communications Limited,
November 28, 1972, Radio Station CKAC in Montreal, December 1, 1972.
3.	Yes. The Hon. Alastair Gillespie resigned his directorship of W. J. Gage Ltd. in September 1970.
PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN "WHY NOT?"


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What is the total cost to the taxpayer of the present promotional campaign by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women that invites Canadians to write for a "Why Not?" pin?
2.	How many of the 167 recommendations in the 1970 Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada have been implemented by the government in the more than four years since the Report was received?
3.	If the "Why Not?" pin campaign proves effective in the improving the status of women in Canada, will the government be giving consideration to issuing "WIN" buttons as part of its war on inflation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. As of January 24, 1975, the total cost of the promotional campaign information relating to International Women's Year is $750,000. This includes the cost of purchasing advertising space in newspapers and advertising time on radio and television, as well as the production, mailing and handling costs of the newspaper advertisements, radio tapes and television clips. The cost of responding to the requests arising from these advertisements is not available at this time.
2.	The following outlines the current standing of the 122 recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women which fall within federal jurisdiction: 69 have been implemented. 8 will be implemented when the legislation presently before the House is passed. 8 will be covered by legislation which has been announced by government. 9 recommendations require administrative action and measures are presently being taken to implement them. 8 have federal provincial implications and are

presently being considered with the provinces. 8 have been partially implemented. 12 have not been implemented.
3.	See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition, Citation 171 (a) (g) (j) and Citation 181 (3).


Mr. Huntington: 1.	What was the total cost of advertising in the Department of National Health and Welfare for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What was the breakdown of the programmes against the total cost of advertising for these years?


Marc Lalonde: 1. For 1972-73: $30,040. For 1973-74: $197,743.
2.	See table:
	1972/73	1973/74
Policy Research and Long Range Planning Policy and Program Development and Co-ordination	N/A	$1,230Fitness and Amateur Sport Sport Canada	$1,786	2,205Recreation Canada Administrative Centre for Sport and	5,874	Recreation	2,072	4,148Medical Services	9,378	7,022Canada Pension Plan	3,790	173,223Health Protection	7,083	6,344Income Security Old Age Security	778Administration	55	2,793


Mr. Huntington: 1.	What was the total cost of advertising in the Post Office Department for the years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What was the breakdown of the programmes against the total cost of advertising for these years?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. The total cost of advertising was: 1972-73, $1,945,851; 1973-74, $2,002,732.
2.	1972-73, Marketing and Philatelic programs, including Postpak, Certified Mail, Telepost, Money Orders, Assured Mail, New rates, etc., $740,716; National Coding Program, $548,109; Operational Support, including Mail Early, Correct Addressing, Corporate, Transportation Tenders, and regional advertising, etc., $657,026; Total, $1,945,851. 197374: Marketing and Philatelic programs, including Assured Mail, Certified Mail, Postpak, Postal Standards Money Orders, Postal Stationery, etc., $799,609; National Coding Program, $655,984; Operational Support including, Mail Early, Corporate, Educational, Correct Addressing, Regional Advertising, etc., $547,139; Total, $2,002,732.
May 1, 1975


Mr. Brisco: 1.	(a) Is the national average for a house of wood frame construction $23.25 per sq. ft. (b) does a one-storey wood frame building 50'x25' contain 1,250 sq. ft. (c) what is the cost per sq. ft. of a customs building to be constructed at Waneta, British Columbia?
2.	How does the Department of Public Works justify such a high cost per sq. ft?
3.	Are there very high temperatures in the Waneta area during the summer months and very low temperatures and heavy snow loads during the winter months and, if so, for what reason are sky-lights called for in the construction of this building?
4.	(a) How will this building be heated in the winter months and at what cost per year (b) how will it be cooled in the summer months and at what cost per year?
5.	(a) Is there provision in the basement of this building for a well (b) has provision been made in the plans for periodical removal of the well casing (c) would the building have to be jacked up in order to remove the well casing (d) for what reason was this well not placed outside the building?
6.	What indication has the Department of Public Works received from either Canadian or United States authorities that this port of entry will have increased traffic loads to justify the expense of this contract?
7.	Are there several thousands of dollars in extras that can be charged to the Department over and above the contract price and, if so (a) what is the total cost of all proposed extras (b) what comprises these extras?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, in view of the length of the response to this question I wonder if it could be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: The response above referred to reads as follows:]
1.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) The cost per sq. ft. of the building is $41.56.
2.	The contract was awarded to the lowest of five reputable bidders. Although the national average for a house of wood frame construction is quoted by CMHC as $23.25 per sq. ft., current costs in the Penticton-Trail, B.C. area are running at $35 per sq. ft. It should be noted that these average costs reflect savings derived from volume construction whereas there is no volume construction involved in the construction of a public building. Also, the Customs Building at Waneta is of steel frame and masonry construction with a ceiling height that varies between 12' 0" and 20' 0". In addition, the cost includes air conditioning and additional public toilet facilities as well as other characteristics not found in the average house of wood frame construction such as: basement construction completely below grade; reinforced concrete basement walls; insulated basement walls; reinforced concrete main floor; angular shape building; minimum maintenance roof; interior rain water leaders; larger eaves and overhangs; increased window areas; wider commercial type entrances; brick & block interior partitions; better quality heating system; better quality lighting (high intensity). The cost of the Waneta Customs Building compares favourably with that of other similar prestige buildings in the area.
Order Paper Questions
3.	Yes. There are no sky-lights in the building proper. Sky-lights are provided in the canopies to provide light for customs inspections.
4.	(a) Oil fired hot air heating estimated to cost $590.00 per year, (b) Roof top air-conditioning estimated to cost $200.00 per year.
5.	(a) No; (b) Yes; (c) No; (d) The well is outside the building.
6.	Traffic loads are taken from a U.S. Environmental Impact Study prepared by the State of Washington and a study of Highway 22A prepared by the B.C. Department of Highways. Both studies indicate a very substantial increase in trans border traffic.
7.	No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost for all aspects of the Prime Minister's Official residence in Ottawa for the fiscal year 1973-74 including a breakdown of the total showing (a) insofar as the National Capital Commission is concerned (b) insofar as the Department of Public Works is concerned (c) insofar as the Prime Minister's and the Privy Council Offices are concerned?
2.	For each, what is the breakdown of costs under all possible headings including (a) salaries and wages (b) contract services (c) supplies (d) sundries and entertainment (e) construction and alterations (f) maintenance?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: 1.
(a) $36,927.00	(b) $221,005.03	(c) $73,053.00(a) *21,566.00	* 4,438.27	*54,694.00(b) 1,809.00	126,570.17	Nil(c) 4,646.00	89,196.53	12,739.00(d) 559.00	800.06	5,620.00(e) 8,347.00	800.06	Nil(f) Broken down under	800.06	Nil
(a) to (d)


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost for all aspects of the Prime Minister's Official residence in Ottawa for the fiscal year 1974-75 up to and including the last month for which figures are available, including a breakdown of the total showing (a) insofar as the National Capital Commission is concerned (b) insofar as the Department of Public Works is concerned (c) insofar as the Prime Minister's and the Privy Council Offices are concerned?
2.	For each, what is the breakdown of costs under all possible headings including (a) salaries and wages (b) contract services (c) supplies (d) sundries and entertainment (e) construction and alterations (f) maintenance?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: 1.

May 1, 1975
Order Paper Questions
(a)	*31,322.00	(b) *46,048.00	(c) *77,405.002. (a)	*20,347.00	* 3,712.00	*61,405.00(b)	2,155.00	37,138.00	Nil(e)	5,896.00	3,577.00	15,000.00(d)	108.00	1,621.00	1,000.00(e)	2,816.00	1.621.00	Nil(f)	Broken down under	1,621.00	Nil
(a) to (d)


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total cost for all aspects of the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake for the fiscal year 1973-74 including a breakdown of the total showing (a) insofar as the National Capital Commission is concerned (b) insofar as the Department of Public Works is concerned (c) insofar as the Prime Minister's and the Privy Council Offices are concerned?
2.	For each, what is the breakdown of costs under all possible headings including (a) salaries and wages (b) contract services (c) supplies (d) sundries and entertainment (e) construction and alterations (f) maintenance?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council Offices as follows: 1.
(a) $26,784	(b) *15,393.04	(c) 12,5672. (a)	*16,337	1 1,986.89	$2,567 plus official residence Ottawastaff as required(b)	0,591	8,076.70	Nil(c)	1,820	3,243.08	(c) and (d) expenditure included in operation of official residenceOttawa(d)	2,036	2,086.37	(e)	Nil	2,086.37	Nil(0	Broken down under (a) to (d)	2,086.37	Nil


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Did talks between the British and Canadian authorities take place last April on a reciprocal agreement between the two countries on social security and, if so, what progress can be reported on these talks?
2.	(a) In what areas, e.g. pension payments, medical benefits or whatever, is there disagreement still to be resolved (b) for what reason are these talks so protracted?
3.	Is there a date fixed on which talks are to be resumed and, if so, what is that date?
4. Is the scheme for Canada to assume payments in Canada for British pensioners and Britain to assume payments in Britain for Canadian pensioners, or will each country continue to look after its own migrant pensioners?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Late in March, 1974, the deputy minister of National Welfare had conversations with British officials in London covering the British

Green Paper on tax credits as well as social security relationships and developments in the two countries. While better understanding was achieved as to the internal workings of the two systems, it also became clear that the current state of legislation in the two countries precludes the reaching of a reciprocal agreement at this time.
2.	(a) and (b). At this stage, the problem in reaching a bilateral reciprocal agreement does not lie with different types of benefits but rather the different provisions of the legislation in the two countries.
3.	No date has been fixed for further conversations.
4.	As noted in (2) above, the different provisions of legislation in the two countries will require examination of a variety of possibilities.


Mr. Marshall: With reference to the licencing programme under the Department of the Environment, what are the names of all bona fide fishermen in the following communities in St. George's Bay, Western Newfoundland (a) Codroy (b) Highlands (c) St. David's (d) Jeffreys (e) McKays (f) Robinsons (g) Heatherton (h) St. Theresa's (i) Flat Bay (j) St. George's (k) Barachois Brook (1) Stephenville Crossing (m) Stephen-ville (n) Port au Port (o) Felix Cove (p) Campbell's Creek (q) Abraham's Cove (r) Ship Cove (s) Lower Cove (t) Sheaves Cove (u) Marches Point (v) Red Brook (w) Degras (x) Cape St. George (y) Mainland (z) Three Rock Cove (aa) Lourdes (bb) Winterhouses (cc) Black Duck Brook (dd) West Bay (ee) Piccadilly (ff) Boswarlos (gg) Point au Mai (hh) Aguathuna (ii) Fox Island River?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: It is a long-standing departmental policy not to divulge information, concerning individual persons and companies, which has been obtained in confidence for statistical and management purposes. To do so could seriously undermine the department's statistical system by casting doubt on the department's credibility in its assurances to fishermen and processors that all information secured from them is maintained in the strictest of confidence.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the scheduled date for the start of Canada-US Salmon negotiations?
2.	How long does the government expect such negotiations to last?
3.	How many fishermen in the Province of British Columbia will take part in the negotiations?
4.	What are the names, departments and addresses of the members of the official Canadian delegation?


Len Marchand: 1. The starting date for the next round in the Canada/USA salmon negotiations has tentatively been set at May 28, 1975.
2.	It is expected that these talks will last for seven to ten days, depending upon the progress made towards reaching an agreement.
3.	Ten commercial fishermen or representatives of commercial fishermen, two representatives of sport fishermen and two representatives of fish buyers and processors will
May 1, 1975

act as advisors to the Canadian delegation in these negotiations.
4.	A proposal for the official Canadian delegation has not yet been submitted to government for approval.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Is there an agreement relating to double taxation between the Governments of Canada and South Africa and (a) if so, does it extend to Namibia (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) has the government been approached by Canadian corporations to have this agreement extended to Namibia?
2.	Are Canadian corporations making payments to South Africa on their operations in Namibia either by way of income taxes, annual fees, royalties or licenses and, if so, do they receive credit from the government for such amounts paid?
3.	Has the government advised the Government of South Africa of its support of the International Court of Justice advisory opinion that the Republic of South Africa is in illegal possession of the territory of Namibia and, if so, will the government recognize and allow, as a tax deduction, tax payments, fees, royalties or licenses made by a Canadian corporation operating in Namibia to the UN Council for Namibia?
4.	Are Canadian diplomatic consular and commercial relations with Namibia not normal and, if not (a) has the government advised Canadian corporations that they are investing in Namibia at their own risk (b) how was this information conveyed to these corporations in Namibia?
5.	Are there any official statements, bulletins or memoranda issued by the government to such corporations and, if so, will the government Table such material?
6.	Has the government communicated to Canadian corporations doing business in Namibia, the United Nations Council for Namibia decree on the Natural Resources of Namibia, adopted at its 209th meeting on September 27, 1974?
7.	Has the government any intention of asking to be seated on the UN Council for Namibia?
8.	Has the government given any financial support to the UN Council for Namibia and, if not, is any such financial support contemplated?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and External Affairs as follows: 1. An agreement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion between Canada and South Africa was signed on September 28th, 1956 and entered into force in the following year. The agreement does not extend to Namibia-there is no provision in the agreement for its extension. Canadian corporations have approached the government to have the agreement extended to Namibia.
2.	Canadian corporations making payments of income tax on their operations in Namibia would be entitled to a foreign tax credit under the provisions of section 126 of the Income Tax Act. That section provides relief for any income or profits tax paid to the government of a country other than Canada including the government of a state, province or other political subdivision of a foreign country. Taxes other than income taxes and fees, royalties and other payments to a government would not qualify for a foreign tax credit under section 126. Such expenditures would ordinarily qualify for deduction as an expense in calculating the income from carrying on a business by a corporation.
3.	The government of South Africa has been advised of Canada's support of the advisory opinion of the Interna-
Order Paper Questions
tional Court of Justice. Under existing law, the foreign tax credit to which a corporation is entitled is restricted to any income or profits taxes paid to the government of a country or of a political subdivision thereof. The question of providing a credit against the Canadian corporate tax for income taxes paid to the United Nations or any other international organization has not yet arisen. Should such taxes by imposed, the government would be prepared to consider the necessary amendment to the Income Tax Act to permit a credit for such taxes.
4.	Relations with Namibia are not normal, (a) Yes. (b) Some of the major Canada based corporations operating in Namibia have been informally advised of the government's policy. Although no formal written advice has been given to them, the government's policies have been clearly enunciated in various public statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other Canadian representatives in Canada, in the United Nations and elsewhere.
5.	There are no such documents.
6.	No.
7.	No.
8.	The government has not yet given any financial support but is contemplating doing so.


Mr. Saltsman: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare examined the environmental problem inside a subsidiary of the Noranda smelting operations, namely the Canadian Copper Refiners in Montreal, to determine whether the company is exceeding the permissible pollution levels of arsenic hydride (AsH3) or arsine and, if so, did they exceed the permissible in-plant concentrations of 0.050 ppm?


Marc Lalonde: No. The legislative control of the workplace environment comes under provincial legislation.


Mr. Reynolds: Does Consolidated Aviation and Services (Pacific) Limited have any maintenance or any other type of contract for services with the government and, if so (a) on what date were such contracts signed (b) on what date do they expire (c) what is the value of each?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence, Public Works, Supply and Services and Transport as follows: No.


Mr. Mazankowski: Are Air Canada executives required to divulge details of their land, business and investment holdings and, if not, in light of Mr. Yves Menard's resignation, is Air Canada planning to require their executives to divulge their holdings?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Air Canada

May 1, 1975
Order Paper Questions
has been working on a policy and guidelines on outside interests for some time now. Proposals will be submitted to the board of directors shortly.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For each year 1970 to 1974 what were the calculated losses for providing rail service, excluding passenger, for (a) CNR Subdivision Bonnyville, Edmonton to Grand Centre (b) CNR Subdivision Coronado, Edmonton, St. Paul, Heinsburg (c) CPR Subdivision Willingdon, from Musidora to Lloydminster?
2.	For each Subdivision what amount was (a) claimed by the railways under the provisions of the Railway Act (b) paid in lieu of claims by the government?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. (a, b) CNR, to date has not filed subsidy claims for these lines, (c) CP's Willingdon subdivision extends from Lloydminster at Mile 0.0 through Musidora at Mile 80.8 to South Edmonton at Mile 174.5. CP's claim for this line encompasses the uneconomic portion of the line from Mile 1.4 to Mile 162.8. Latest claimed losses for Mile 1.4 to Mile
162.8	were: 1970-$783,426; 1971-$1,031,215; 1972-$923,274; 1973-$904,921 and 1974-$1,125,661 (preliminary estimate).
2. (a) CNR, to date has not filed subsidy claims for these lines and no payments have been made in respect of these lines, (b) CPL submitted the following claims for losses under Section 258 of the Railway Act for the years 1970 to 1974 for the Willingdon subdivision from Mile 1.4 to Mile
162.8	and were paid the following:
Claimed
Year	Actual Loss	Paid to Date
	*	*
1970	783,426	599,6571971	1,031,215	822,3671972	923,274	786,4551973	904,921	759,0111974	1,125,661	1,013,871


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What is the total revenue derived on the rail line from Musidora to Lloydminster, Alberta?
2.	What is the total revenue under statutory rates for the line?
3.	What is the total mileage from Musidora to Lloydminster?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. The total revenue derived on any rail line consists of revenue from carload traffic, leases and other agreements. Total revenue from carload traffic on the rail line from Musidora, Mile 80.8, to Mile 1.4 (excluding Lloydminster) was: 1970, $419,316; 1971, $538,607; 1972, $546,894; 1973, $466,342. Total revenue for 1974 is not available at this tin .. Revenue from leases and other agreements was in th $3,000 to $4,000 range per year.
2.	Total revenue under statutory rates from Musidora, Mile 80.8 to Mile 1.4 (excluding Lloydminster) was: 1970, $387,081; 1971, $524,790; 1972, $526,216; 1973, $440,554. Total revenue under statutory rates for 1974 is not available at this time.
3.	Total mileage from Musidora to Lloydminster is 80.8 miles.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	For each of the past ten years, what was the total (a) volume (b) value of Irish moss harvested in each of the Atlantic Provinces?
2.	What steps are being taken to construct a carageen extraction plant in Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Insofar as Statistics Canada is concerned: 1. The table tollowing shows the amount and value of Irish Moss harvested in each of the Atlantic Provinces for the past ten years.
Amount and Value of Irish Moss Harvested Atlantic Provinces 1965-1974 Note: All data shown in thousands of pounds and dollars Prince-Edward
Year	Newfoundland Weight Value	Island Weight	Value	New Brunswick Weight Value	Nova Scotia Weight Value	Total Weight	Value1965	-	-	17,139	258	-	22,152	346	39,291	6041966	-	-	24,464	402	949	14	25,596	556	51,009	9721967	-	-	47,926	1,216	1,142	25	30,262	1,062	79,330	2,3031968	-	-	53,656	1,168	1,244	27	32,149	1,081	87,049	2,2761969	-	-	51,789	1,209	3,756	99	40,851	1,438	96,396	2,7461970	-	-	66,522	1,588	7,804	243	31,293	1,036	105,619	2,8671971	-	-	50,763	937	3,293	88	26,439	727	80,495	1,7521972	-	-	30,477	594	2,389	68	21,288	599	54,154	1,2611973	-	-	49,123	1,172	2,275	70	23,483	717	74,881	1,9591974	32	2	76,036	3,106	10,332	469	45,577	2,255	131,977	5,832
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
2. No steps are currently being taken to construct a carageen extraction plant in Prince Edward Island. 
May 1, 1975

In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 2. No steps are currently being taken to construct a carageen extraction plant in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	In connection with the derailment at Thunder Bay recently, were empty mail bags found in the vicinity?
2.	Was mail stolen and, if so, what action has been taken to recover the stolen mail and apprehend and prosecute the offenders?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. As for the second part, the answer is that the derailment of train 214 on 9 February 1975 near Caramat, Ontario involved a car containing mail which broke open. The incident occurred in a remote area and it was only possible to provide some degree of protection from the local looters on the following day. Mail bags were cut open and mail scattered by the looters who wanted the bags to cart large amounts of meat, etc. While operating under most difficult and at times violent circumstances, railway and police officials endeavoured to protect the mail and it is believed that most of the mail (including register despatches) was recovered although some of it was badly water damaged. Normal procedure applies where anyone will be liable to prosecution if sufficient evidence is obtained to indicate the theft of mail or possession of stolen mail.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What degree of standardization has taken place in the area of purchasing over the past five years within the Department of Supply and Services?
2.	What are the practices and policies now in force respecting the buying, delegation of authority and tendering procedure for contracts?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. The number of customer departments and agencies has increased from 125 in 1970 to 141 in 1975. Approximately 15,000 items have been catalogued by the Supply Administration, of which some 7,000 are common items in use by several departments and agencies.
2. The steps in the procurement process which include the tendering procedure have been tabled in response to Question 2,008. Equality of opportunity to compete for government contracts, fair value for the taxpayer's dollar and optimum service to customer departments and agencies are the key policies followed by the Supply Administration. Delegation of authority to Supply Administration Officials is compatible with the level of responsibility. For example, the level for Directors' General approval of entry into competitive contracts is $250,000, Directors' $150,000, Division Chiefs' $100,000 and contracting officers' $15,000.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	Have any Canadians trained at the National Intelligence Academy, Fort Lauderdale, Florida and, if so, are any Canadians presently training?
2.	Where are the Canadians who trained at the NIA presently located?
3.	Who paid the costs of those Canadians who have trained at the NIA?
4.	Have any Canadian governments or police departments purchased goods from Audio Intelligence Devices, whose headquarters are in Fort Lauderdale and, if so, where are they being used?
5.	Were any Canadian dignitaries escorted to the school by Secret Service agents?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and the Solicitor General (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	No. (National Defence) Yes, for evaluation purposes only at Headquarters, Ottawa (Royal Canadian Mounted Police).
5.	No.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): In the last fiscal year, what was the cost of operation of the Parliamentary Returns Office of the Department of Labour?


John Carr Munro: There is no Parliamentary Returns Office as such in the Canada Department of Labour. The Department is a small one with correspondingly small requirements for responses to Parliamentary inquiries. For this reason Parliamentary returns are handled on a part-time basis by several members of the Deputy Minister's Secretariat.


Mr. Rodriguez: With reference to the answer to Question No. 414 (a) what methods of evaluation were used by the department to determine the effectiveness of such gifts (b) if evaluations were done, who did them and will the government Table them (c) are trade and/or labour unions eligible for such grants or contributions and, if not, for what reason?


Gaston Clermont: (a) Evaluation of particular contributions is made accordingly to the following criteria: 1. There must be an identifiable need, not currently being met, for enhancement of the management capabilities of the applicant association's membership.
2. The management course for which assistance is sought must be capable of making a significant contribution to improving the management competence of a large proportion of the association's membership.

May 1, 1975
Order Paper Questions
3.	The proposed course must deal with subject matter not covered by existing courses or must promise a significant improvement in quality over similar existing courses.
4.	The proposed course must represent a significant departure from, or increase in, the normal educational activities of the association to date.
5.	The applicant must be a non-profit professional, industry, business or management association that can contribute significantly to the improvement of managerial competence in the industry sector or activity it represents.
6.	The applicant must be able to implement the course successfully.
7.	The applicant must submit a plan for the proposed course, covering the developmental and operational phases of the course, (b) The evaluation is made case by case by officials who prepare the information on the applicant and his application. The recommendation to accept or refuse an application is made by a committee of officials. The contract with the successful applicant imposes on the association the obligation to report regularly over a period of three to five years on the effectiveness of the course developed. In the government's view, it would not be appropriate to table these evaluations, (c) Labour unions meeting the criteria under (a) could be eligible to apply to develop management retraining or upgrading courses of a type and quality not currently available for their management or for their members who are managers in industry. To date, no such case has arisen.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Is Mr. Don Green, now employed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the same person who ran as a Liberal candidate in Calgary South in the 1974 general election?
2.	(a) What are his (i) duties (ii) qualifications for the position (b) who else was considered?
3.	Was the fact that he was a Liberal candidate taken into account in a positive way?
4.	(a) What are the terms of his contract (b) what is his annual salary or contract salary per month and is this more than the annual basic salary of a Member of Parliament?
5.	Does he have an expense account of any kind and, if so, how much in meals, entertainment and air fares has he used in performance of his duties since his appointment?
6.	On what date was he appointed?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Yes
2.	(a) (i) As Special Assistant to the Minister, Mr. Green performs duties assigned to him by the Minister, (ii) Master of Social Work and experience running a community health clinic and community development projects, (b) The choice of candidates is at the discretion of the Minister concerned.
3.	Answered under 2 (b)
4.	(a) This is not a contract position, (b) The salary of a Special Assistant is up to $21,000.
5.	As of March 18, 1975 the total expenses amount to $1,089.95.
6.	October 1, 1974.


Mr. Orlikow: How many men and women were members of the Armed Forces as of January 1, 1975 (a) how many were officers with the rank of Captain and above (b) what was the (i) minimum (ii) maximum salary for each such rank?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The strength of the Armed Forces as of January 1, 1975 was 78,101. (a) The number of Officers with the rank of Captain and above was as follows: General, 1; Lieutenant General, 6; Major General, 26; Brigadier General, 73; Colonel, 300; Lieutenant Colonel, 893; Major, 2,927; Captain, 6,162. (b) (i) and (ii) The minimum and maximum salary for General Service for each rank is as follows:
	Minimum	Maximum
	S	*
General	44,000	54,000Lieutenant General	33,000	42,000Major General	29,000	37,000Brigadier General	25,500	32,500Colonel	27,000	30,600Lieutenant Colonel	23,160	26,400Major	19,260	22,620Captain	14,160	19,200


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): May a Member of Parliament re'ceive a copy of all the regulations on the Unemployment Insurance Act and, if not, for what reason?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes. A copy of the Unemployment Insurance Act and Regulations was sent to every Member of Parliament on August 14, 1974.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): 1.	How many "temporary" employees are employed by UIC in (a) each province (b) each regional office in Quebec?
2.	How many man-hours are devoted to employee training?


Robert Knight Andras: 1974 1. (a) Newfoundland, 42; Prince Edward Island, 10; New Brunswick, 94; Nova Scotia, 40; Quebec, 490; Ontario, 1,310 (Head office included-144); Manitoba, 77; Saskatchewan, 28; Alberta, 75; British Columbia, 396; (b) One regional office, Montreal: 103.
2. 98,531.5 man/hours were devoted to employee training in 1974.
May 1, 1975


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Has DOT called for tenders for the design and construction of the proposed Pickering airport and, if so, to whom were such contracts awarded?
2.	Has there been approval or opposition to the proposed Pickering airport from the Councils of the (a) City of Toronto (b) Borough of Scarborough (c) Town of Markham (d) Town of Stouffville (e) Town of Pickering (f) Town of Richmond Hill?
3.	How many residents within N.E.F. 30 noise contour are presently affected at Malton?
4.	How many residents within N.E.F. 30 noise contour will be affected at Malton (a) without (b) with F.A.R. 36 retrofit by 1980, without a second major airport in Toronto?
5.	Have major airlines expressed their agreement to use a second airport in Toronto and duplicate their services and, if so, which ones?
6.	How much was spent on the Pickering airport project up to March 31, 1975?
7.	What is the projected cost of a completed Pickering airport?


Jean Marchand: 1. No.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes; (c) Yes; (d) Yes; (e) Yes; (f) No.
3.	Malton, 1973 (latest year for which information is at present available): 30 NEF, 33,000.
4.	(a) Malton 1980 with no retrofit or refanning: 30 NEF, 61,000; (b) Complete retrofit by 1980 is not considered to be possible. Evidence was given before the Airport Inquiry Commission on this subject and the Commission's comments were as follows: "The commission is of the opinion that if the retrofit and refan programmes are undertaken the effect will be to prolong the use of the retrofitted and refanned aircraft in order to recover the costs of investment. This, in turn, will result in an inclination by the airlines to meet growth demands by greater use of the retrofitted and refanned aircraft rather than by the introduction of widebodied aircraft. This will result in greater aircraft movements. This, in turn, will negate some of the benefits to be gained from the programmes. As previously noted, an increase in aircraft movements has the effect of expanding NEF contours and thereby increasing the number of people affected by noise from aircraft operations. It should also be noted that as the number of wide-bodied aircraft, which are regarded as quiet aircraft, are increased, the noise from these aircraft will increase. It should be mentioned that while the 747's, DC-lO's do meet the requirements of FAR 36, on approach and takeoff, they do so only marginally. It should also be noted that as the size of an aircraft is increased, airframe noise will be a significant problem. The commission hesitates to express an opinion as to the date the entire United States fleet will be required to meet the requirements of FAR 36. However, as a result of the determined effort demonstrated by the United States to reduce the level of noise generated by aircraft operations, it is reasonable to assume that by 1985 the entire American fleet will meet the present requirements of FAR 36. The commission is of the opinion that the jet engine and aerodynamics are very complex subjects which will require continued research for an understanding and control of the resulting noise. As a consequence, the present noise levels generated by jet aircraft operations will realistically be with us at least until 1985. While it is difficult to estimate the noise levels
Western Grain Stabilization
which will be generated by aircraft operations after 1985, it is fair to say that they will never be comparable to the noise level generated by a glider, as some people would have the commission believe. However, it is probable that after 1985, the then noise level from aircraft operations will increase gradually with the probable increase in aircraft movements."
5.	Under the role envisaged for the Minimum International Airport, both international scheduled and charter traffic could be assigned to Pickering. An airline consultative committee has been formed and will be meeting in the near future.
6.	The total expenditure to March 31, 1975 in the planning and development of the Toronto Area Airports System is $92,156,000. Of this amount some $75,003,000 has been paid to those parties who held a financial interest in the land expropriated at the Pickering site. Included in the balance of expenditures are costs relative to consulting and other professional work to evaluate many alternative sites, develop traffic forecasts, and prepare economic and ecological studies, etc. It would be impractical to maintain separate accounting systems for each site evaluated. Expenditures for the Pickering site are therefore included in the total given.
7.	The authorized cost for the construction of the Minimum International Airport, related facilities, and land, approved by the government on February 20, 1975, is slightly in excess of $200 Million. No airport construction at Pickering in addition to this has been approved.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Symes: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the pro-
[Stage Direction]
May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
duction and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-41 I cannot help reflecting on what happened to the forerunner of this piece of legislation-Bill C-244, the prairie grain stabilization bill which was introduced in 1971. To put it mildly, the bill had a torrid history. It generated bitter debate and animosity in the minds of western Canadian farmers. It is fair to say that it united prairie producers in their extreme opposition to the measure. That opposition was stiff, and eventually the government withdrew the bill. The Edmonton Journal wrote, in an editorial in October, 1971, that the legislation was a disaster. I quote from the editorial:
The withdrawal of the grain stabilization bill is not, as Otto Lang suggested, "a major defeat for the farmer."
It was a defeat for the Trudeau government and for Mr. Lang, who was the federal minister responsible for the bill. It is understandable that he should feel bitter. But there is no reason why the farmers should suffer.
If the Trudeau government is still convinced that it had a good plan for stabilizing prairie grain income, there is no reason why the bill cannot be reintroduced, in a modified form to take into account the criticism the original received in western Canada.
The experience in which we were engaged during that period of time brought forth a better product; the bill is considerably improved. While there are still a number of areas which require clarification and changes, nevertheless it is an improvement over the original legislation.
What were some of the features of the bill to which there was opposition when it was first introduced? The major objection was the $100 million carrot that was dangled in front of the producers. It was an attempt to coerce them into buying the stabilization package. It was made up of money which was due to the farmers at that time under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. That created a great deal of hostility in the minds of producers across this country.
The second major objection at that time was that the bill failed to take regional considerations into account. That area still requires improvement. I am encouraged by the fact that the minister indicated he may be receptive to some changes in this regard. I hope that in committee some way will be found to take into account the aspects of a failure in any given region. The third major objection to the bill at that time was that it was mandatory for a producer to belong to and pay into a fund. That issue created a great deal of hard feeling. The fourth objection was the fact there was no provision for taking into account increased production and inflation costs.
The fifth major objection was that, based upon the previous five-year prairie grain income, the bill would do nothing more than stabilize grain income across western Canada at the poverty level. We know that at that time the price of grain was very depressed. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) shakes his head in the negative. I say to him that was the opinion of every major farm organization in the country at that time. It was certainly the opinion of the hon. member's predecessor and many other members of this House. That was perhaps the major

reason for a great deal of the animosity and bitterness that was generated over the bill.
Another area of objection was the fact that payments from the fund were based upon gross, rather than net, income figures. This bill is based upon the same principle as the original stabilization bill, but I think we must give credit to the minister and those who drafted the bill for taking into consideration some of the issues that were raised when it was first considered.
We have objections to this bill: I have already referred to some of them. The bill appears to be very complex in nature. It takes into consideration some of the objections registered against the original bill and some improvements have been made. However, some of our major objections, such as taking into consideration the regional aspect, have not been met. As I said previously, there will have to be some provision for a major failure in a given block. I referred to a snowed-under condition in the Peace River block. This is a common occurrence. An area may be subjected to a drought. Members opposite will suggest these situations can be covered by crop insurance; however, there is the prospect of a whole province suffering a severe calamity, with no hope of drawing a penny from the stabilization fund.
When dealing with this bill it is a good time to take into consideration these problems and, if possible, to incorporate in the legislation a mechanism to deal with them. This bill seems to contain a great deal of legalistic jargon. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) stated yesterday that it could conceivably become an administrative nightmare. Even the best legal minds find it somewhat difficult to decipher the content and purport of some clauses of the bill. If it does become an administrative nightmare, I suggest that will be good for the minister; it will enable him to provide employment opportunities for prairies Grits.


Mr. Lang:: It will be very simple.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hope the minister explains it better than he did in his speech, because there is in the bill a great deal which should be explained much more thoroughly. I hope the minister will do that in committee.


Mr. Benjamin:: The farmers want to know.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As the hon. member says, the farmers want to have a better understanding of the legalistic jargon contained in the bill. There is room in this bill for a fair amount of streamlining. Hopefully, the minister will be open-minded and will accept some of the suggestions that will undoubtedly be made by members on this side of the House. There are some uncertainties and we want clarification of them. For example, I am somewhat confused about the statement that it is voluntary, yet it is really not voluntary. That statement requires clarification. There are penalties and there are some discriminatory features when one wants to withdraw from the program.
The major objection, however, is the fact that this bill lumps together the whole prairie region. The minister indicated that the regional aspect has been seriously considered and that it is difficult to comply with. However, I feel it should be the subject of further serious consider-
May 1, 1975

ation. There are areas within the prairie region which could suffer a very severe setback. Under a program like that, if an area suffers a major disaster there should be the option of seeking assistance from the fund. That view was put forward by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, a respectable and reliable farm organization, in its presentation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet on April 7, 1975. It indicated that the proposed grain stabilization program should be changed to benefit regional geographic areas rather that the whole aggregate Canadian Wheat Board area. With the backing of members of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and, I am sure, other farm organizations, there is good reason for reconsidering this aspect of the bill.
With regard to achieving stability, the individual producer is very important. In order to be effective in bringing about over-all stability in the grain industry we must concern ourselves with the stability of the individual producer. I might compare this legislation to the beef stabilization program to the extent that those who suffer most in terms of loss do not really get any more than those who are able to sell at a reasonable price. In times when markets are seriously depressed and farmers are forced to sell off their animals, it is somewhat unfair that a person who has received, say, 10 cents a pound for his culled cow should get the same amount under the stabilization program as the person who sold his cow for 25 or 30 cents a pound. In addition, there may be a tendency here to protect farmers who have enjoyed good fortune over the past three years, and penalize those who have been unfortunate over that period. For example, a farmer who has experienced three years of crop failure would get only a very small share of the pay-off. It seems to me the plan could be adjusted so as to take this aspect into consideration.
Turning to the provisions for calculating expenses, it is important to note, as has been pointed out already by some speakers, that certain important items are not included, namely, depreciation of capital, interest on debt and interest on equity, as well as costs of labour and management. Surely these items should have their place in any consideration of expenditure. This is an area which warrants further attention.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has put forward a number of suggestions which I should like to place on the record because I believe them worthy of consideration. New farmers starting out should have the same privilege of opting out of the program, if they wish to do so, as other farmers will be given over the three-year period. Also, since the question of interest income and interest costs is left to the discretion of the Minister of Finance, as the bill is presently drafted, the federation recommends that interest rates be tied by formula to the rates of government bonds. Further, having suggested that the $25,000 eligibility level may be too low, they point out that it stabilizes the level of net revenue at a figure probably between $15,000 and $22,000.
There may or may not be provision for taking this into consideration, but if there is not there should be. I notice that in the last stabilization bill, provision was made whereby any losses in the Canadian Wheat Board pool
Western Grain Stabilization
account were to be covered out of the stabilization funds established at that time. I have looked through this bill and cannot find any reference to that matter. I raise it now with the idea in mind that the minister may wish to clarify the position when he rises to speak.
A good case might be made for bringing the bill and its administration under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture. I say this bearing in mind that the legislation before us may well prove to be an administrative nightmare. After all, it involves the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Wheat Board and the Grains Commission. Moreover, any program aimed at stabilizing returns to farmers is traditionally administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Not unnaturally, the federal government will boast about this legislation and call it a great step forward, designed to improve the lot of the western farmer. We must remember, though, that the bill replaces a number of previous measures which have been discontinued. We know that under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and under the previous act, PFAA, western farmers received payments amounting, under the former, to $56 million over the last three years in which it was in effect, and in the case of the latter, PFAA, to an amount in the order of $6 million.


Daniel Aiken Lang: There is crop insurance in effect now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, there is crop insurance, but I have no figures as to how much the federal government is contributing in that regard. Nevertheless, we are talking in terms of a figure of some $60 million: that is what those two programs represented. When the minister tells us that, had this new program been in effect for the year 1974, it would have meant a pay-out of some $90 million on the part of the federal treasury, I would remind hon. members that we are not looking at that amount of money as new expenditure. The bill is a step in the right direction but it certainly does not justify the minister boasting about it at any great length in terms of additional funds from the treasury.
The minister spent a great deal of time telling us about the bold initiatives his government had taken to assist the grains industry, drawing particular attention to the provisions of the bill we are now considering. In my view, the producers of Canada would be far happier if we were being asked to consider a bill in this House designed to overcome one of the most serious problems we face, that is to say, inability to move their grain effectively. I am talking about labour disruption, labour chaos. The situation facing us today as far as labour is concerned can only be described as a state of anarchy. Producers are frustrated by the continual disruption of the movement of grain as a result of labour unrest and breakdowns in the transportation system.
I know the minister will say that returns to farmers are still better than they have been for the last five years. That is true, but it is little comfort; it does not make up for the waste which has occurred as a result of the government's failure to deal with this question. It is not only the dollars which have been lost as a result of liability for demurrage payments; it is the embarrassment which has been caused to our nation. We are now being classified as

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
an unreliable shipper of grain. Demurrage charges for the 1974 crop year totalled some $17 million, and we are told the figure will be substantially greater in the crop year which will end this July.
We have lost millions and millions of dollars as a result of failure to ship our grain at a time when prices were high, and the resulting depression of the market has cost producers very heavily. Customers have been lost that will never be regained. The port of Vancouver is a big question mark. It seems that most western producers are now looking to the port of Seattle as a logical substitute. I was talking to members of the Wheat Board this morning and was told that a huge vessel has been in the port of Vancouver since February 11, taking on cargo for Bangladesh under our foreign aid program. It has been there for close to three months being loaded. This is nothing but sheer waste.
I must say that since I have been a member of this House, never before have I sensed the frustration, anger and feeling of anxiety that now exists on the part of western grain producers owing to failure to move their products to market because of strikes and work stoppages, with seemingly no recourse for them. Moreover, I believe the anxiety is compounded by the fact that the producers feel that the federal government hasn't a handle on the situation. We seem to be going from bad to worse. The gentleman in charge of the Canada-Japan Trade Council, Colonel Houston, speaking to the Palliser Wheat Growers Association on January 9 last had this to say:
Canada is now an enigma to many foreigners. On the specific question of Canada as a trading partner, a business partner, she is now looked upon by many as an unreliable supplier and an uncertain place in which to invest. It should not be necessary, especially before this audience, to stress the degree of our national dependence upon export markets. For Canada, exporting is the very breath of life. All our hopes for an ever-rising standard of living, for remaining in the forefront of developed nations, depends directly upon our ability to maintain and expand our overseas markets-
One of the most frequent causes of disruption in our distribution system lies in the area of labour-management disagreement. In my opinion, this is due to an archaic concept of labour-management relations which has become entrenched in the thinking of government, of labour and of management. This system, involving as it does confrontation, is sadly out of tune with the times and with the circumstances prevailing in this country.
I think that sums up the situation very well. I know that the producers of this country would be very much happier if we were considering legislation to deal with this issue, this crippling enigma, rather than being sidetracked by this bill. No wonder the producers of Canada are angered and frustrated, subjected as they are to the whims of 30 to 35 labour unions involved in the movement of grain. Any one of these labour unions can tie up indefinitely the movement of grain bound for export, with no protection being given to the farmers: they become the sole victims of the irresponsible actions of other groups.
Surely it is time the government recognized that they have a major responsibility in this area to come up with some kind of new mechanism to protect farmers and alleviate financial losses attributed to labour disputes and disruptions, which in turn cause not only lost sales but direct out of pocket expenses on the part of producers. As reported at page 4198 of Hansard, the minister in charge of

the Wheat Board was asked this question by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Inasmuch as I know of no business where two parties can incur an expense and charge it to an innocent third party, has there been any investigation by the Ministry of Justice as to the legality of charging demurrage to farmers or will there be any investigation as to the farmers' right to sue in relation to demurrage charges?
The minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure those against whom demurrage charges are sought are fully aware of their rights with regard to civil liability and will defend accordingly.
I wish the minister would explain in more detail precisely what he means. I am no lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and certainly I am not a dean of law; but if what the minister is saying is true, then the Canadian Wheat Board, being a trustee or custodian of the farmers, should have the option of initiating legal action in the courts against those who are responsible. I am not sure what the minister is saying, but the Canadian Wheat Board is supposed to act on behalf of the farmers, as it does in terms of selling and handling grain. This is why I suggest the Canadian Wheat Board should take the initiative against those who cause disruptions in the movement of grain which result in millions and millions of dollars lost by the producers.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister is not prepared to do something along those lines, then perhaps he should be prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the federal treasury pick up the tab for these demurrage charges, because that is what the farmers are asking for. In conclusion, if legislation were brought before the House at least to lay the groundwork for dealing with the disruptive effects of strikes and proposing a new mechanism to improve the collective bargaining process, it would be heralded with a great deal more enthusiasm than this legislation.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, while I was not here when the Prairie Grain Stabilization Act was brought forward, I have studied the debate and some newspaper reports of that time. I have also listened very carefully to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who took part in that debate. I should like to say someting later in my remarks about that act. I can only echo the sentiments of the hon. member for Vegreville regarding labour strife in this country. As I travel across my riding, farmers raise the subject over and over again. They feel, for proper reasons, that they are being done out of income that is properly theirs by the number of unions that are striking in one way or another, thus preventing their product from getting to market and obtaining the best possible price.
I am pleased to take part in this debate on the western grain stabilization bill. Few people today would argue that there is not a great need for stabilization. Rather than lopping off the peak of the prairie farmer's income, we need something that will take into consideration the low prices that many farmers receive for their products. They must obtain the best possible price because of the high input costs they are facing.
May 1, 1975

As has been said by many members, the bill itself is exceedingly complicated and it is doubtful whether many farmers will fully comprehend its provisions. Because of that, they may be wary about taking advantage of its provisions. I should like to make some comments regarding amendments that we should perhaps move to the Crop Insurance Act, putting into it many of the stabilization benefits contained in this bill. Farmers on the prairies are familiar with crop insurance and are happy with the provisions which have been put forward through which the federal and provincial governments are taking part in respect of payments on crop insurance. Because of this familiarity, I think farmers would be much more open to that type of stabilization than to the complicated procedure put forward in this bill.
It cannot be disputed that stabilization is the only way we can mitigate this roller-coaster type of situation that we have in the agricultural economy. The question is, what kind of stabilization do we need? Let me make some points consistent with those put forward by the notable agricultural economist, Dr. Philip Thair. In 1974 there was a significant increase in realized net farm income over the 1973 farm income level; and the 1973 net farm income was 39.2 per cent higher than that for 1972. In the five years from 1955 to 1960, the average annual change in realized net income over the previous year was 10.3 per cent. In the 1961 to 1965 period, this was 10 per cent, and in the 1966 to 1970 period it was 10.7 per cent.
Suddenly, in the 1971 to 1974 period the average annual change was 36 per cent. There was a consistent average annual increase of around 10 per cent up to that time, and then there was a dramatic increase of 36 per cent. These figures are the Canadian aggregate and do not take into account the variability between regions or commodities. The annual variability in Saskatchewan was almost double the Canadian figure. No industry can endure such changes without suffering severe repercussions.
The virtually inordinate changes in the past two years have served to increase the farmer's vulnerability. Heightened price levels necessarily entail escalating cost commitments which are locked into a fairly rigid upward trend. This means that the farmer becomes more greatly exposed to decreasing product prices, not simply because of profit loss but, more importantly, because of high-priced, fixed input commitments. His entire operation can be jeopardized when product prices slip.
This is certainly true of the cow-calf feedlot industry today. Prices a number of years ago were increasing and reached a peak of over $50 per 100 pounds. At that time farmers made substantial outlays. A number of farmers were enticed into the industry, in some cases by provincial governments and the federal LIFT program. We saw that peak reached and then prices declined to where they are today, somewhere between $35 and $40 per hundred. This has severely jeopardized the position of the farmer who made this capital outlay because of increasing product price, because he now finds himself facing these high capital costs and low product prices.
The proportion of operating and depreciation charges to realized gross income gradually increased from approximately 60 per cent in the mid-1950s to about 70 per cent in
Western Grain Stabilization
the 1968 to 1971 period. Because of the unprecedented and unpredictable market situation in the last three years, this has fallen back to about 60 per cent. However, we must remember that product prices have risen phenomenally and that when these prices soften or fall the proportion, because costs have remained at higher levels or have inflated, will be far in excess of the 60 per cent figure. In fact, prices need only fall slightly in order for the proportion of costs to exceed 70 per cent or 80 per cent on an aggregate basis.
What I am trying to say is that land values are inflating, and machinery prices are escalating rapidly, as is the price of fertilizer and energy. Many input costs are increasing. In fact, we know that the input costs of a farmer are increasing at approximately the rate of 10 per cent, or at a greater rate than product prices have increased in the industry. This is a very serious situation for many farmers with heavy financial commitments who are now facing lower prices.
In the past few weeks we have brought forward legislation in an attempt to entice young people into agriculture. I refer specifically to amendments to the Farm Credit Act. Many hon. members have echoed the words of others who have expressed ideas as to how we should get young people into agriculture. This is very important, but it is also important that these people have their incomes stabilized in order that they can expect a certain end product in 10 or 15 years. The situation must be stabilized or these young people will virtually be thrown out of business.
We must not overlook the fact that the agricultural boom in the last few years has not served to lessen the economic gap between the rich farmer and the poor farmer. The wealthy producer still reigns supreme in the sense of total capital, and being in a stronger position he is able to grow even larger by bringing together the land in his area.
Because of present agricultural instability, the current declining trend in farm enterprises is likely to be perpetuated. Many young men wish to get into agriculture, but this tendency will not greatly moderate the decline in the number of farm enterprises. Many of those who do not commence farming will merely be replaced by older farmers who consider it expedient to increase their profitability by increasing their land holdings. Given the fact that larger farms are now in a more propitious capital position to effect consolidation, I still believe we will be witnessing an ever widening decline in the number of small farming units in Canada, particularly the small family farm units. Stabilization can help the young farmer plan his production cycle so he can see the entire profit picture and know that he will be able to pay back the interest on his principal. Again I would ask, what form of stabilization would be the best?
A great number of the predictions by agricultural economists and people in the Department of Agriculture have been of a shortrun nature. It has been recognized in the past that shortrun forecasts are not extremely reliable because of unpredictable world trends and events, as well as the acts of nature which farmers must face. In order for a farmer to make a relatively accurate decision regarding capital input expenditures, longer run projections are necessary. Yet forecasting in times of great change is

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
naturally difficult, if not impossible, because the major variables are virtually unknown within certain areas of agriculture.
In summary, we can conclude that farmers are indeed victims of a see-saw economy. Their operations are becoming increasingly more vulnerable and subject to jeopardy because of escalating costs and capital commitments. Distribution income of rich farmers is definitely not equalizing the difference between rich farmers and poor farmers. There is a marked decline in the number of farming units. The most important factors concerning farm enterprises are, essentially, unpredictable.
There is great need for stabilization, but what form should it take? Yields and markets have proven to be, and still are, highly unstable. It would be unwise to stabilize agriculture beyond the point where it could respond to fluctuations in yields and markets. For example, according to this bill, in order to determine whether or by what method stabilization payments are to be made, the minister will calculate the amount of net eligible grain sale proceeds of all producers for each of the five years immediately preceeding the year under review and base his decision upon the average of these proceeds and the average of the proceeds of the relevant year. Surely, given current fluctuating market and yield factors, this basis for determining possible payments is somewhat inaccurate and unreasonable. It is certainly unresponsive to major variables in agriculture. This legislative provision is only one of several which I think should be scrutinized closely and re-examined at the committee stage.
All things taken into consideration, it would seem that a policy based on the insurance principle is the best type of stabilization today. Insurance against low yield and low income is the most logical form of stabilization. The crop insurance program, based on income guarantees, is highly successful. Farmers understand it and are extremely familiar with its benefits. Therefore, would it not be advisable to incorporate the provisions of Bill C-41 into the crop insurance program, with parliament amending the program as required, thereby eliminating the need for new legislation and a new administrative process which would otherwise come about? It is my feeling that following this suggestion would be of great benefit to farmers and it warrants consideration.
I have made a number of points as to why I feel the crop insurance program should be brought into stabilization. Let us go back to the increased administration which will be necessary if this bill is passed. If the minister does not see fit to accept the suggestion of taking another look at the question of whether the Crop Insurance Act can be amended in order to, in effect, stabilize farm income and include within its bounds the variety of proposals contained in this bill, hopefully he will allow an amendment whereby the crop insurance machinery could be used at least with respect to checking inventory on the prairies. This would allow the crop insurance people, who have to go out into the area, to gather this information while they are on the farms and it seems to me it would keep costs down within the government.

Let us consider what this administration has been set up to do. It will maintain individual producer records on a calendar year basis for the purpose of calculating levies refundable, prepare an annual statement for each producer, calculate each participating producer's payment, if there is a stabilization payment, and maintain a three-year summary file. The records would have to contain the producer identification number, the name and address of the producer, the cumulative gross grain sale proceeds of the producer, the levy contributions of the producer and the levy refunds paid to the producer.
The administration would be established in Winnipeg as part of Agriculture Canada. The function of this administration will be to receive voluntary levies from producers, effect liaison with the Canadian Grains Commission on levy deductions of licensees, register designated producers, maintain the stabilization fund, maintain producer records, perform public relations matters for the program, answer producers' inquiries, calculate and make stabilization payments and calculate and pay levy refunds.
The minister calls this a simple program. Considering other departments which have been set up, I am sure this would be a large administration, requiring many people, and would cost the government a large amount of money to set up. Perhaps we could use the administration already in existence under the Crop Insurance Act to do many of the things the minister proposes in this bill.
If this bill passes second reading, there is a strong point to be made for allowing the agriculture committee to travel. The precursor to this legislation, the prairie grain stabilization bill, was introduced in 1970 for first reading, did not reach second reading until May of 1971 and was withdrawn from parliament. The reason for the withdrawal was heavy producer opposition. The bill did not allow the farmer to become voluntarily involved, and it involved the government putting $100 million into the fund which, in effect, was perhaps just stabilizing low incomes. Because of the interest of prairie farmers, I think it is essential that the agriculture committee travel and obtain the opinions of farmers in at least 20 or 30 locations in the area under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think this is a very important point. I hope the minister will be persuaded to allow the committee to travel, to feel out the proposals of prairie farmers and to learn whether they believe this legislation would adequately stabilize their incomes.
There is a point being made by a number of hon. members which should be dealt with briefly, but dealt with nonetheless. This bill, which deals with the income of prairie farmers, should be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture. The Canadian Wheat Board was only set up to deal with the marketing of the product of producers and not with their income. I think it would be consistent of this legislation were under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture. I believe that a very strong case could be made for an amendment in this regard, and it should be brought forward in committee for perusal.
I conclude by saying that I hope a number of the points which have been made will be considered by the minister; that he will consider using the Crop Insurance Act as a vehicle to administer this legislation; that he will consider
May 1, 1975

the possibility of allowing the committee to travel when the bill is at committee stage; and that the legislation will be brought under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it does not seem very long since we were debating the old grain stabilization bill in this House. We were involved with all the emotions and protests which were apparent at that time. As written, the bill was withdrawn because of farmer opposition. It remains to be seen whether farmers in western Canada are in favour of Bill C-41, the western grain stabilization bill, as it has been reintroduced.
It would be fair to say that the present bill is a better piece of legislation than that brought in some years ago. But there are still many questions to be answered in connection with the grain stabilization bill; there is still the very real question of whether we in the grain growing areas of western Canada really need this program at this time or whether there is an alternative course we should be taking. In saying that, I suppose it could be said that it comes after the fact, because the government has brought in this legislation. However, I think the question is still valid.
We in the opposition are concerned whether to support this kind of legislation on second reading and, more specifically on third reading. Other than raising various questions on the legislation, I am basically neutral: my judgment will be based on the reaction we receive from farmers across western Canada. I echo all the comments of previous speakers about travelling and having the agricultural committee go across western Canada to take a good, in-depth look at what farmers are thinking with regard to grain stabilization. I believe this is necessary and that in some respects it will expedite the work of the committee. It could travel for about ten days and hear all the witnesses, whereas it could take three or four months to hear them if the committee has to conduct all its hearings in Ottawa. That is something we must take into account. Provided the time is ripe politically-in one province of western Canada at least-I hope the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will give consideration to this suggestion.
I started out by asking whether we really need such a scheme for grain. The concept may be valid for produce such as eggs and potatoes, but farm leaders in western Canada will be asking whether such a scheme for grain will not create a very large bureaucracy which would be difficult to stop or even to slow down. The complexity of the bill is somewhat frightening, with its maze of facts, figures and numbers, although the basic concept of grain stabilization is not difficult to understand. It is the operational and administrative features of the bill that are difficult, and this is another reason why it should be considered in depth when it goes to the Standing Committee on Agriculture after second reading.
It would seem, from the notes on western grain stabilization working paper published in August, 1974, by the government, that the main criterion on was the cheapest plan for a given level of stability, a plan that was actuarially sound and based on the production the government
Western Grain Stabilization
wanted at that time. This, of course, in no way argues that it is the best plan for the government or for the producers; all it says is that it is actuarially sound and, possibly, one of the cheapest plans that could be devised for a given level of stability.
The key question in this debate must be: what stability is really provided to commercial, western grain producers, and at what cost; that is, what are the costs and benefits of such program, compared to the alternatives that could be considered? From the latest figures I have seen and to which other hon. member have alluded, we can expect that about one-half of the commercial grain sales in western Canada would be covered by the $25,000 gross sales limitation imposed by the legislation. There is no evidence that farmers with sales of $25,000 or less are in greater need of stabilization than larger farmers, and if the plan is actuarially sound, why the limit of $25,000? This limit is unrealistically low and should be increased.
The bill appears to take the narrow view that the government is giving out money almost through the goodness of its heart to provide some stabilization, and the level of the gift is the key to this whole aspect. There are, however, direct and indirect benefits that the government receives, as well as the farmers. This is something that the minister responsible for the Wheat Board seldom refers to, namely, that the government also receives some benefit, direct or indirect. For example, Mr. Speaker, if a stabilizing, net cash flow payment occurs there is likely to be a four or five times multiplier effect on the prairie economy. Assuming standard tax levels, it would seem that the federal government would get back anywhere from $1.25 to $1.75 for every dollar it pays out.
There is also the question of whether the federal financial authorities might be able to deduct such payments from federal transfer payments to the provinces. Of course, this is another question which will have to be dealt with at the committee stage. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the program is unlikely to have any net cost to the government at all. As I said before, why impose a limit of $25,000 on sales? The limit is unrealistically low and should be raised. Clearly, the spending by larger farmers in western Canada could also have a multiplier effect. Is the middle-sized farmer which the legislation talks about the sort of farmer which the western grain stabilization program ought to be concerned about? Should the government be assisting the middle-sized farmer under this plan, because that is exactly what the legislation will do unless there is a more realistic ceiling?
As I have said, I have no real quarrel with the legislation. I am not on one side or the other of the argument. We shall not know for some time how the people affected by the legislation feel about it. Of course, one can ask many questions about it. What will be the situation with regard to farmers who decide to opt out, come back to the plan and then opt out again? Who is to administer the program? Who is to pay the administration costs? We must also consider the question of the three-year system for calculating individual pay-outs which seems to penalize producers who are expanding as against those who are stable or are reducing the size of their operations. The legislation seems to be aimed at the middle-sized prairie grain farmer

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
and ignores anyone who is smaller or larger than the optimum size contemplated by the bill.
I return to my first question: do we need this scheme in the first place? It could be argued that it was needed perhaps 20 years ago. It was not needed three or four years ago. Now we must ask, what are the government's priorities? Perhaps this particular grain stabilization bill is not high on the list of priorities. We have heard much talk of priorities. The minister spoke about priorities in Saskatchewan last week.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said that labour disputes are among our most pressing problems and these disputes affect farmers. He was quite right. Transportation generally is in confusion: we must solve our transportation difficulties. At present the whole question of transportation is, so to speak, in a state of suspended animation. We should also consider present high levels of taxation. Farmers are concerned about this. The matter of high interest rates should be close to the top of any list of priorities. In addition, the difficulties of the beef industry should be considered. Instead of dealing with these questions, we are spending our time debating this piece of legislation.
Some people have argued-I will not argue one way or another-that we do not need the kind of grain stabilization plan proposed by the legislation; we need a plan which will take into account all the different elements, all the regional differences in that area served mainly by the Canadian Wheat Board. I am talking about differences in soil, climate, and so on. We ought to consider such matters. Some argue that this is a matter of high priority. I suggest that the grain stabilization bill presently before us does not deal with any of these aspects. It deals with the prairie economy as a whole, in total. That is where this legislation falls down.
Another danger if that the legislation may tend to shelter farmers from the marketplace. That is how it appears to many farmers in western Canada with whom I have spoken. Incidentally, almost without exception those to whom I spoke do not understand the legislation. They understand the basic concept of stabilization-it is not hard to understand-but do not understand the peculiarities of this legislation. Farmers have said to me they are afraid this will be another law which will come between the marketplace and the farmer. Whether that fear is justified may be a matter for debate. Nevertheless, farmers in some parts of western Canada have expressed that fear and it ought to be considered.
We should consider reassessing the grain stabilization program after it has been in existence for three or five years. This would help to allay fears which have been expressed by some in western Canada. Also, we should ask if farm-to-farm sales are to be excluded. Eastern grain producers are wondering about the benefits of this plan. The committee, in considering this bill, will consider whether eastern grain producers are interested in this plan. I wonder why the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has not been making noises in this regard. Also, will feed grain on farms qualify? That is another question we must ask.
It is possible that discussions connected with this bill will have a depressing effect on transportation in western

Canada. At least the bill will keep the farmers busy all summer; they will be trying to figure it out. Perhaps there will be explanations in committee. I hope that people from grain organizations and others will be made fully aware of the provisions of this bill. The bill will also ensure western members of parliament a job for some time to come- indeed, for as long as the legislation is in force. The law will be complicated and farmers will find it difficult to know how to opt in, opt out, or do whatever else may be done.
So far as I am aware, the minister in his speech opening the debate did not mention any producer pressure for moving this bill forward in a hurry. As I said before, grain stabilization is not a matter of high priority for the government. Let me digress for a moment. There are some matters which the House of Commons ought to consider. We should look at improved facilities on the Pacific seaboard and Churchill, the situation vis-a-vis strikes, the whole aspect of the protein payment on wheat, the government's grain storage program, if in fact they have one or are thinking of one, and possibly tax relief. It has already been said that it would be a good idea to have a registered retirement savings plan for farmers and ranchers. This is another area the government should be looking at from a tax point of view. We should be very much aware of these problems which are more serious than those we are dealing with at the present time.
I hope that some of the questions we have raised about this legislation will be sufficiently dealt with in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I repeat, it is essential for the agriculture committee to travel in connection with this legislation. Before taking a hard and fast position on the legislation, I think it is necessary to get a reaction from those who will be affected, namely, the western grain producers.
If it can be pointed out that this is not the best kind of stabilization legislation, and it will act more as a deterrent than helping western farmers, I will have no qualms about voting against it, as was done a few years ago. I will conclude by saying I look forward to a thorough clause by clause discussion on the whole aspect of grain stabilization when the bill is before the committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to at last take part in this debate. This legislation was one of the first things I heard about when I became actively involved in politics during the election campaign. A lot of publicity was given to statements by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to the effect that the western grain stabilization bill would be brought forward within seven days of the opening of the first session of this parliament. I looked forward to that.
All of us from western Canada, especially the prairie region, realize the importance of the agricultural industry, grain in particular, to our economy. We looked forward with anticipation to the introduction of this legislation. First, we wanted to see what the minister had in mind. Second, it was to be an opportunity for western Canada to have some input into the legislation to ensure that this time it would be of the highest possible calibre and benefit
May 1, 1975

in the interests of western grain producers. We waited a considerable time for this second reading debate, because the bill was not introduced until December 4 of last year and has now only been brought forward for second reading; therefore, I hope the minister has no intention of having this legislation become effective before seeding begins. Under the circumstances, that is very unlikely.


Mr. Goodale:: It is still snowing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I realize it is still snowing in
Assiniboia.


An hon. Member:: It has been snowing there since July
8.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would not go so far as to say that. I want to deal with some of the provisions of Bill C-41, "an Act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof." That is possibly the shortest sentence in the bill. It reminds me of another rather infamous act on our statute books, the Income Tax Act. Anyone who reads these two pieces of legislation will understand that we humble western farmers are going to have a very difficult time interpreting this incredibly complex piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: That's humility!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Humility comes naturally to any westerner. I am glad to see two or three Liberal members of the agriculture committee sitting in the back row. We should give particular attention to this bill because there is still considerable uncertainty in the minds of western grain producers with regard to the operation of the legislation. Since it was first suggested that this bill should be reintroduced in this session of parliament, it has been my contention that it should receive very close examination by the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
I support the suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), that the agriculture committee should take this bill to the grain producers in western Canada. The western grain producers sometimes feel a certain remoteness from people in Ottawa. I feel it would have a therapeutic effect if the members of the agriculture committee travelled to those people as opposed to having only those who can afford to come to Ottawa presenting their points of view. This type of legislation requires input from western grain producers. It must be explained to the man on the farm. It is imperative that the members of the agriculture committee travel out west. In addition to seeing some of God's country, they can explain this bill and receive opinions as to whether the western producers feel it can operate in their best interests.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to some of the background of this legislation. I was not here the first time this bill was introduced. Initially, there was an attempt to bring forward a stabilization bill with respect to western grain under the so-called prairie grain stabilization act. The bill was withdrawn because, as has been pointed out many times, there were some fairly
Western Grain Stabilization
substantial objections to its terms. It has also been pointed out that this opposition has been somewhat allayed by improvements to the bill.
Notwithstanding this, questions have been raised. I am in receipt of communications from constituents and producer groups pointing out that there are still substantial questions to be taken into account. For this reason, the agriculture committee is likely to be called upon to spend a fairly long time considering the legislation before us today. In my opinion, this is an inopportune time to be launching upon this work, to be carrying out an inquiry and inviting witnesses to come forward. We know that seeding time is just beginning in western Canada; the farmers whom this measure concerns will be on the land; they will not have time to make representations with respect to these proposals. The legislation should have been introduced last October at the beginning of the session. It should have been debated on second reading then, and put forward for consideration by the agriculture committee so that there might have been an opportunity during the winter months to canvass the ideas of those who are directly affected.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Would the hon. member permit a question? I should like to ask whether he is aware that the reason for the delay in the introduction of the bill was the extensive consultations which were going on with the various farm organizations and our desire to incorporate positive suggestions into the bill. I hope the hon. member agrees that this was a desirable thing to do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate the point the minister has made in the guise of a question, and I accept his sincerity when he says he has been trying to obtain suggestions from producer groups. But that still does not explain the delay. There was no smile on the minister's face when he made the promise that the legislation would be introduced within the first seven days of the new session. Those were the minister's words. It was the minister who said the legislation would be introduced almost as soon as we got back to this chamber. Instead, we have waited until seeding time on the prairies, and parliament is apparently being asked to rush the bill through. I think this is bad timing on the minister's part.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin commented on the fact that it is the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who is in charge of this legislation. The primary aim of the stabilization bill is to even out the income of grain producers. Some may contend that the aim is to stabilize the industry; but the industry is composed of people and it is the farmers who will receive financial benefit. It is, therefore, questionable whether the minister responsible for the Wheat Board should be the minister in charge of this bill. The Wheat Board legislation does not deal with the incomes of farmers. The role of the Wheat Board is, essentially, a marketing role and its powers are defined accordingly.
I could go over the provisions covering the powers of the Wheat Board; those sections and subsections refer to marketing concepts, marketing powers. They are quite distinct from the concepts dealt with in the legislation before us. It
5384

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
is the Minister of Agriculture who traditionally and by statute should ensure that producers receive a reasonable income. What, in fact, the Wheat Board is performing under the stabilization act is the carrying out of the mechanics of the act. The licensed elevators and feed mills serve as the collectors of a levy and the permit books of the Wheat Board serve as a verification unit for the levy. In other words, the Wheat Board is a catalyst to help in the working of the stabilization act; but in principle it is the Minister of Agriculture who should have introduced the bill to the House.
Then, again, we often hear the minister responsible for the Wheat Board referred to as the minister for everything in western Canada. If, as we understand, he is looking after transportation, it is not surprising that he should also be looking after legislation dealing with incomes of farmers. If the government puts forward other legislation which may peripherally affect the western farmer, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will, no doubt, be given that responsibility as well. Nevertheless, it seems logical to me that the minister responsible for this legislation should be the Minister of Agriculture, and the time has come for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, who is also the honorary minister of transport-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Anything but that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry if that remark caused some alarm. I am simply saying that the logical place for this legislation is with the Department of the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when in due course he carries out a cabinet shuffle, will dispose of the matter accordingly.
I turn now to another aspect of the bill, the question of compulsory membership. The original bill of 1970-71 contained a compulsory aspect. We are told that under the present bill there is no compulsion and that farmers may opt out of the program if they wish. Clause 5 contains provision for opting out, but I suggest the wording is disguised so as to give only an appearance of avoiding compulsion; that in fact it is compulsory to an extent. Also, I would add, it discriminates against one particular genre of producer, making it compulsory for him to join. Under clause 5(1) a person who is an eligible, active producer-a producer who is actually working on the land as opposed to a producer recorded in a permit book-has three years to decide to cease to become a participant. This decision must be made at the time the act comes into force. Thus, between 1975 and 1978 a producer may elect to withdraw.
On December 4, 1974, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board issued a press release dealing with the stabilization act. On page 7 appeared the title "Participation Voluntary" and the sentence "No farmer will be forced to participate in the plan". The minister is incorrect when he says participation is voluntary. Webster's Dictionary defines "voluntary" as "brought about by one's own free will or choice". A producer does not have the luxury of free will or choice if a time limit of three years is imposed upon him. Voluntary withdrawal should mean that a producer can decide to abandon the plan at any time. Here we find a limitation imposed upon voluntary withdrawal; it is restricted by a time period. It is difficult to understand

why the minister is imposing this time-frame. It cannot be because the plan would not be actuarially sound if a large proportion of producers dropped out. The fund only affects those producers who have contributed to it; the producers who put the money into the fund will receive money when the circumstances call for such action.
At page 9 of the same press release, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said that the federal treasury "will guarantee the solvency of the western grain stabilization fund". Also, the producers are paying only for this special kind of insurance and not for the administration costs that accrue to it. At page 8 of the press release the following statement appears:
The costs of administering the plan will be borne entirely by the federal government. No administrative costs will be deducted from the fund.
Clause 5(2) of the bill provides that once a producer has withdrawn, he may elect to join the plan again. Clause 5(4) adds that the producer is allowed to come in only once, and no more. But under clause 5(3) this producer will be classified as a conditional participant for three years. In effect, a penalty is associated with this category; if a payment is to be made within those three years, the conditional participant will receive only 90 per cent of the benefits. This is a form of discrimination. One part of the bill provides that a producer may voluntarily withdraw; another part provides that if the producer returns to the plan, he must face a penalty. The bill is really providing that voluntary producers do not exist but that coercion of the producer does.
It must be emphasized that only existing, actual producers have this option for a one-time withdrawal from the plan. Clause 6 of the bill provides that new producers will automatically be in the plan once the legislation is implemented; but there is no option for the withdrawal of new producers. To allow an existing producer a rather haphazard option to withdraw, and to prevent any new producer from having equal opportunity to do the same, is discriminatory. One is left with the conclusion that the federal government does not believe that new producers can fend for themselves but, rather, must be quickly swept under the protective fold of the federal plan. Hence, I suggest that the voluntary aspect of this legislation will have to receive the closest attention of the committee and the representations of people in western Canada.
I should like to deal with one or two other aspects of the bill. I realize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) wants to say a few words this afternoon, and I do not want to curtail him unduly; but since I have this captive audience which seems to be most attentive, I shall continue with my informative remarks.


An hon. Member:: We feel obligated.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My hon. friend always does me the honour of being in the chamber when I speak. I do appreciate it. He shows great discrimination by listening to me. With regard to protection for the individual producer, one of the major remaining objections to the bill, which is a carryover from the proposed 1971 legislation, is that the plan will not take note of the major differences in
May 1, 1975

various regions. The minister was reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of September 9, 1974, as saying that the federal government was studying proposed changes to its grain stabilization plan that would fix incomes on a more regional basis. That statement was attributed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Under the legislation as it now stands, payment to producers will take place only if the totality of the prairie provinces suffers from severe crop damage or depressed markets. The lumping of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the designated areas of British Columbia prevents an individual producer or a localized region within a province from obtaining compensation if crop damage occurs.
The minister has responded to this criticism by saying that the plan is not a form of insurance but is a stabilization program. It was reported in the Globe and Mail of December 7, 1974, that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board said at a press conference that he would propose continued study to see whether more regionalization could be put into the program. He added that too much regionalization, however, would make the plan little more than normal crop insurance. The minister said the plan was not a crop insurance scheme but was meant very much to complement existing insurance schemes.
Because this aspect of the bill is of great importance, the minister should confirm in the House if his proposal for a study into regionalization of the legislation has been initiated and, if so, when this study will be tabled, or possibly presented to the committee. Department officials have stated that serious and frequent meetings took place among producer groups, bureaucrats and government officials before the final drafting of the bill was completed. Also, localization of the stabilization program, was I understand, a contentious issue in 1970, judging from my observations out west and in the House. It seems that the minister is responding somewhat late at this point in time. After the bill was given first reading, the proposal was then announced by the Minister. I should like the minister to tell the House what has transpired and when we will receive information about the regionalization aspect.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the administrative costs of the plan. I want to give the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville the fullest possible time to tell the House what he knows about agriculture, so I will allow him five or ten minutes.


An hon. Member:: One minute will do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is an old saying, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts", and I want to put that in the context of the administrative costs of this plan. One very appealing part of the legislation is that which provides that the producers will not pay any of the administrative costs involved in the program but that, rather, the costs will be borne by the federal government. I presume most producers will receive this particular proposal gladly and will accept the proposition that they will not be charged for any specific administrative costs under this legislation. But the question then arises, where will all this money come from? Once the legislation is passed, opposition
Western Grain Stabilization
members will not know the actual costs until the annual report of the stabilization fund is tabled and the estimates come before the committee.
I think it is a belief generally held even by members on the government side that since this government has been in office, government spending has reached almost uncontrollable proportions and shows no sign of easing, despite promises to that effect. Since the stabilization program is a new concept and therefore lacks experience, I am concerned about the cost of administration. I fear-I hope this will not be the case-that costs will reach epidemic proportions.
Although the bill provides that the producers will not be asked to pay the costs, I hope the producers themselves will be very observant and keep a keen eye on the cost to the general treasury of administering this plan. I think a new body of civil servants and bureaucrats will be required to operate this legislation, so there is a possibility that Parkinson's law will be put into place and there will be an increase in the size of the agency, branch or department seized with the responsibility of administering this legislation.
We only have to look back into the very recent past to see what happened in respect of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. During the committee proceedings, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) refused to accept responsibility for CEMA's difficulties and tried to lay the blame on the producers. In view of the fact that this particular administrative facet is being taken from the producers and adopted by the government, I hope the minister will publicly state his responsibility for this stabilization fund in order that the producers will know that they will not be blamed in the event that something goes wrong with the administration of the program.
I have spoken a little longer than I anticipated, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate your attention and the attention of hon. members in this chamber.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-41 which is before us today has really been before this House for four or five years. It has quite a fascinating history. I see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) sitting at the back; I am sure he followed this matter many years ago when he was a university student in Saskatchewan. In the fall of 1970, or in the spring of 1971, this bill was first introduced to the House. There was quite a debate at that time and the minister tried to push the bill through. It was a bill that virtually all farm organizations and farmers in the west disagreed with violently, and they made their points of view known very clearly to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
As a matter of fact, we fought a by-election campaign on this bill in the riding of Assiniboia. I remember the results of that by-election very well; the government party dropped from first to third place. I thought maybe the government had learned something as a result of that by-election. Also, the election results in Saskatchewan in 1971 probably stemmed in part from the fact this bill had been before the House. One would have thought that with
295 57-65(4

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
all these setbacks to the Liberal Party during these years, it would have learned a lesson.
The bill before us today is an improvement over the 1971 bill, but it does have many deficiencies. Again, I believe the minister is trying to stay away from some of the input that farmers wanted. I would refer to the statement by the government House leader, in December, to our leader- and I believe to the House-that Bill C-41 was a priority matter and should be dealt with as soon as possible. He said we should set aside other legislation in order to deal with it.
This bill came into the House for first reading on December 4 and we were supposed to deal with it right away. Suddenly, other legislation got in the way and the government House leader had other priorities. One of those priorities was Bill C-44, which apparently was more important than this bill to establish a grain stabilization fund. If the minister in charge of the Wheat Board had really thought this was a priority item, we would have had second reading before Christmas, and during the months of January, February, March and April we could have heard from the farmers across the prairies who were able to attend hearings, rather than waiting until now when they are going into spring seeding. These are the things I believe could have been done had the government been serious about putting this legislation before the House.
It is very amusing to go back to some of the statements made by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board in 1971. I am sure a number of Saskatchewan members will remember them very clearly. The minister at that time said the bill could not be based on net farm income but had to be based on gross farm income. Now we have a bill before the House that is based partially on net farm income.
The minister also said in 1971 that there was no way to take into consideration the cost of production when calculating payments from a farm income stabilization fund. We have a clause in the bill that does take this into consideration to a major degree. These are things that could have been done back in 1971 and we might have had a good stabilization bill at that time. Instead, we had a by-election, with the government being forced to withdraw the legislation from the House.
This party has made it clear over the years that farm income must be stabilized. Farmers, more than any other persons in our society, are subject to fluctuation in the price of their products. The farmer is affected not just by weather conditions and by the crops of other countries but also by the free, open market in this country. This minister and this government have been responsible for promoting open marketing in Canada so that farmers now have the option of selling certain grains on the open market, an option they did not have a few years ago. When the farmer is faced with all kinds of difficulties such as the ones I have mentioned, he needs stabilized farm income. Our party has long advocated a stabilization plan based on the cost of production. Our party has also advocated a strong system of marketing boards in this country through which all farm commodities could be marketed.
We need a strong system of marketing boards in this country in order that we can have planned production and planned marketing, and in order that the farmers can have 
some say and some clout in respect of what they are to get for their products when they sell them in the fall of the year or at other times. These are some of the things that should be done. Our country should have, as an objective in agriculture, the mechanization of food production. We can only have that if we guarantee farm prices, and only if we have a grain stabilization plan that gives farmers an absolute guarantee. If we had marketing boards, with the farmers having some clout, then the farmers could make the decisions that are so important to planning.
The bill before the House today goes part way in that direction but by no means far enough. There are a number of clauses in the bill that we feel discriminate against the small producer, against regions and against those farmers who have the misfortune of having low yields or low prices over a series of years. For this reason, we intend to move certain amendments to the bill. At this stage, the most important thing we should do is to make sure that all members of this House realize the importance of holding public hearings so the farmers of this country who are to be affected by this bill will have the chance to present their case. A request has been made of the minister by a number of organizations, including the National Farmers Union, the Flax Growers Association of western Canada, as well as by a number of individual farmers, to hold such hearings before passing this bill. We should go across the country and have the farmers appear before us to tell us what should be in this legislation. That would be democracy at work.
There are many things in this bill that I believe must be changed. There must be input from the farmers, rather than from bureaucrats and technocrats sitting in their ivory towers in Ottawa. There are a number of things that should be changed, and I want to get to just one or two of them before five o'clock. At that time I will call it five o'clock and continue later.
One thing that discriminates against the producer is that payments from the fund are to be made in a general sense to all people who come under the Wheat Board area, and are not to be made in a regional sense. I feel that provision contains potential discrimination. For example, there may be a crop failure in an area such as northeastern Saskatchewan where we often have poor crops or crops with low protein content. Often our export commitment is in respect of grain of high protein quality. There is no provision in this bill for pay-outs to farmers who suffer because of poor quality grain. This involves one amendment to which I think we can all agree and I hope such an amendment will be acceptable at the committee stage. Participation in this fund should be universal. All producers should participate if this measure is to be effective and the fund worth while.
Perhaps at this point I might call it five o'clock.
May 1, 1975



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark)-Indian Affairs-Alleged failure of minister to deal with grievances of Treaty Seven chiefs-Government position.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills. There being no item under the heading of private bills on the order paper, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).


Mr. Herbert:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order I raise again today concerns the manner in which we deal with private members' business. I want to use as an example in explanation of the points I have been raising the conduct of private members' business on Tuesday of this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, how can the hon. member raise a point of order when nothing at all has been raised or is before the House? One cannot make a point of order out of the blue. My contention is that the hon. member has no right to raise a point of order until something has been done which might be out of order.


An hon. Member:: Hear him out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The understanding is that the first item on the list for today is the one being called. I do not think that this is the day for the hon. member to raise that kind of point of order.


Harold Thomas Herbert: If I may reply to that, Madam Speaker, I am referring to what happened in this House on Tuesday of this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is too late.


Harold Thomas Herbert: That is why I raise the point of order at this time.


Walter David Baker: That is not a proper point of order. It is the wrong day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Today is Thursday.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I would like to remind the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that he should raise this point of order at the appropriate time, which is Monday night.


Harold Thomas Herbert: I rise on a question of privilege, then, because there were happenings on Tuesday of this week
United Aircraft
which affected my privilege as a member of this House. I was going to raise them on a point of order, but since it involves my own rights in this House I will use this opportunity to raise a question of privilege. On Tuesday of this week-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I think the question of privilege should be raised when the Speaker is in the chair after the question period.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Edward Broadbent: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between United Aircraft and the government over the past year and copies of contracts relating to federal grants accorded to United Aircraft over the past five years.
He said: Madam Speaker, the issue I speak of this afternoon concerns one of the most vicious and tragic strikes in recent Canadian history. I refer to the United Aircraft plant at Longueuil, Quebec. The strike at that plant is still in progress. The issues involved are many. There has been injustice inflicted upon the workers at that plant in the past.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I suggest that we are dealing with a notice of motion for the production of papers and I trust we will not be dealing with the substance of the Longueuil strike at United Aircraft. Surely, if we are to deal with a motion for the production of papers, that is what we should be dealing with.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Wait for it.


John Edward Broadbent: I would have thought that even a member of the Liberal Party would have been bright enough to conclude that an argument is needed to justify the motion. What I am about to do is try to provide, even for the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), some grounds for the motion we are debating which led to my moving it in the first place. I hope he will have read that I am calling for copies of contracts and correspondence. The contracts and correspondence refer quite directly to the labour situation I was about to discuss when I was interrupted.
If I may continue, Madam Speaker, the strike which is in progress involves many issues. It involves federal funding to private corporations at a level of hundreds of millions of dollars. It involves the right of Canadian workers to a just settlement and to have appropriate and fair working relationships with their employers. It involves the question of whether the federal government should have dealings with any corporation without that corpora-

May 1, 1975
United Aircraft
tion meeting certain minimal standards of good corporate citizenship.
In short, the United Aircraft situation is a highly particular but highly symbolic case illustrating many of the problems we face in Canadian society, and more particularly, labour problems and the issue of federal incentive grants to corporations. The United Aircraft Corporation, as I have documented in another speech in the House in a more systematic way than I will this afternoon, has received millions of dollars in assistance from the government in recent years in the form of outright grants and in the form of repayable loans.
The reasons for those grants and the purposes for which they were to be spent were entirely laudable. They were to be spent to do research and development, and ultimately to produce first-rate aircraft engines; and this is what in fact occurred: there was developed by Canadian technicians and skilled workers at Longueuil a very successful aircraft engine which gained widespread acceptance in world markets. It was a first-rate project from that point of view.
The workers in that plant began negotiations some time before, but just some 16 months ago, in January of 1974, the strike resulted and it is still in progress. What were the demands at that time, and were they reasonable? It seems to me they wanted wage levels comparable to other workers in the same industry. They wanted the Rand formula to be applied in industry, something which has been accepted by good corporate citizens throughout-


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I simply want to reiterate the original point I made. Evidently the hon. gentleman is attempting to make a speech about the Longueuil strike at United Aircraft. He is not at all interested in the production of documents; he is attempting to make a political speech. He has the right to make political speeches, but now is not the time to do so.
He is sitting beside a gentleman who is most knowledgeable of the rules of the House, so surely he could seek counsel about whether it is proper for him to make comments on the desirability of the strike without even once mentioning what he is seeking to have produced, or the purpose of the production.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I would say there are times when that point of order is justified in this five o'clock hour, but surely it is recognized that if my hon. friend is seeking to persuade this House to call for the production of certain papers, and it happens that those papers are copies of contracts and correspondence, he has the right to make the case as to why they should be tabled. It will then be a matter of judgment for the Chair as to whether he is straying too far from the facts needed to justify his case. It seems to me, however, that he is trying to make a case for his proposition, which is that certain papers should be tabled. As long as he is doing that, I believe he is in order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has indicated what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby 
(Mr. Broadbent) did not indicate when he launched into a political speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I will read again the motion as it was put:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between United Aircraft and the government-
Perhaps the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) would address his remarks to that subject.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that is precisely what I am addressing myself to. For a normal set of reasonable, intelligent and conscientious human beings, an explanation could be given in three minutes; but for members of the Liberal Party a minimum of 20 minutes is needed. I am trying to provide an argument that even an average member of the Liberal Party could understand-and that takes a lot of effort.
We have a motion for the production of papers that says the government should provide the contracts so that this House can understand what kind of obligations were entered into between the government and the company. Did they deal with the labour situation, or did they not? Did they entail certain obligations for production in Canada so that it could not be transferred back to the United States and so adversely affect our workers? Did the contracts make provision for dealing with what is known as scab labour in a strike situation? I should have thought these things were almost self-evident to a normal, intelligent human being but I understand that for a Liberal it takes more time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Cut the interruptions; I have had two interruptions in five minutes. If I could now address
myself-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) on a question of privilege.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I want to say that this poor, simpleminded Liberal knows the distinction between jurisdiction which
is-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat? This is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I shall try to ignore the noise over there and deal with the issue. I was saying that the original demands of the workers at the time of the strike beginning early in 1974 were those widely accepted by the labour movement and employers elsewhere in Canada for many years, but apparently were not accepted by this company. I sought the contracts they signed with the government which provided them with millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money. I wanted to see those contracts to find out if the workers were given any protection at all. We have had partial revelation of the contracts but we have not seen all of them. I wanted to see the correspondence between the federal government and the
May 1, 1975

company concerning these contracts, but that was denied me.
During the course of the strike, production was transferred from Canada to the parent company in the United States, thus depriving our workers of jobs which were paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. It seems to me that members of parliament have a legitimate obligation in a case like this. Even Liberals might be interested in finding out if public funds were being used to subsidize private corporations, and if the contracts concerned made it mandatory that the companies receiving those funds did all the work in Canada or if they were to be permitted to transfer employment to the United States or some other country.
Those parts of contracts that were provided after I asked for them in the House made some things clear. They made it clear that in providing millions of dollars to United Aircraft Corporation the government did not insist on written guarantees that work on these engines would be done in Canada. There was no provision to prevent United Aircraft Corporation shifting production from the province of Quebec to New England, which is what took place during the past year. The strike is still in progress and men have been out of work for 16 months. In my view, this is because the company did not fulfil its moral obligation to its employees, even if it did meet the letter of the law in terms of contracts signed by the federal government and United Aircraft Corporation.
During the course of this strike, the government signed additional contracts worth $14 million. I should like to know, from whoever will speak for the government, if there are any contractual arrangements that made this mandatory. Not only has the government permitted this company to abuse its workers through previous contracts, but they have entered into new contracts fully aware of the reprehensible attitude of this corporation toward its employees.
I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) if the government should not require acceptance of the Rand formula as a minimum condition of good corporate citizenship. It could do that. Of course, enforcement of the Labour Code for most privately-owned industry lies within the jurisdiction of the provinces, but there is nothing to prohibit this government from setting minimum standards for its contracts with private corporations. I was anxious to see if this was discussed in correspondence between the company and the government. I suspect it was not. I suggest that kind of forceful declaration of principle outlining certain minimal standards should have been forthcoming from the federal government, and I want to see the correspondence to know exactly what is in it.
If the government is going to deny our right to see the correspondence, as I am sure it will, I want a spokesman for the government to tell us why. I want to know why in the future there should not be standards of good corporate citizenship, principles, and behaviour. I want to know why the government does not feel it appropriate that this company should be taken over as a Crown corporation and integrated with the other parts of the aircraft industry owned by the federal government, to establish a competi-
United Aircraft
tive, progressive aircraft industry in Canada under public ownership.
I should like the government spokesman to suggest why that should not be done in this particular case, from the point of view of rationalizing the industry, especially as it is known that the very success of United Aircraft in Canada is dependent on funds provided by the taxpayers of Canada via the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, motion No. 17 dated February 12, 1975 and moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) can be discussed today pursuant to Standing Order 48. I think it is important to talk about that rule which provides for the discussion of such problems.
The rule deals with the production of papers and allows a member who was not satisfied by the reasons given for refusing to produce the paper or papers requested to discuss the matter for one hour and forty minutes. The debate can be followed by a vote and according to the results of the division, the government either is forced to produce the papers requested by the hon. member and to do so as soon as possible, or is confirmed in the position it took about the problem raised by my hon. friend. Incidentally, I wish him good luck in his campaign for the leadership of his party.
To recall the chronology of events related to motion No. 17 proposed by the hon. member, one may refer to page 346 of Hansard for October 11, 1974, when he asked his first question about the United Aircraft Company to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). The question read as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the United Aircraft Corporation in the Montreal area. Would the minister inform the House as to the discussions that have been reported to have taken place between his officials and that corporation concerning obtaining a guarantee from that company that it will place in Canada the amount of work to which it is committed by virtue of getting some $70 million worth of assistance from the federal government? I refer to replacing in Canada work that has been transferred to the United States in recent months.
The hon. member said the same thing this evening. The reply was as follows, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I and my officials have met with senior officials of UACL and the United States parent corporation to determine and to clarify the longterm plans of the firm respecting both the repatriation of work that has been transferred from the Longueuil plant to East Hartford and the expansion plans of the Canadian company in Canada. I hope to have more to say on this point by next week.
Later on, early in 1975, the hon. member gave notice of motion for production of papers concerning the whole problem posed by United Aircraft. In the meantime, I was advised that United Aircraft had mentioned to the government, through the minister in charge, that during a strike it would give temporary sub-contracts for the construction of engines in the United States, essentially to continue deliveries and protect its position as major supplier on the international scene of gas turbines for small aircraft. The company assured the government of the temporary nature

May 1, 1975
United Aircraft
of that step and of the repatriation of labour to Canada in due course.
During the strike, an increase in the demand for engines forced the company to give out sub-contracts. It endeavoured to give them out as soon as possible to Canadian firms. Still, it had to resort to the traditional American sub-contractors because of their capacity to meet an increase in demand. The parent company took over the work the traditional sub-contractors do not normally perform. Canadian sub-contractors were entrusted with a considerable amount of additional work and the company is now endeavouring to rely further on their co-operation.
Let us refer now to the tabling of parliamentary papers and more especially the reasons which have prompted the government not to provide the papers requested by the member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). They deal with privileged data which the department has obtained from trade information concerning manufacturing issues as well as contracts and sub-contracts. The information was freely given, but under the seal of secrecy. In this connection, it is pointed out that the industrial expansion role assumed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce mostly depends on the discretion shown by the minister in the use and distribution of highly confidential trade data received from different Canadian corporations.
The publication of such data by the department would be prejudicial to the raison d'etre and aims of the department to such an extent that the Canadian economy could eventually suffer. In addition, the foreign competitors of United Aircraft would gain access to information which they could use at the expense of that corporation, thus impending its efforts on international markets. Such a situation could certainly cause a loss of jobs and, in view of the present economic conditions, I believe that this is not the time to create a loss of employment for Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: As concerns the production of papers, on March 15, 1973, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), who was then President of the Privy Council and House leader for the government, tabled a document which has been added to Hansard, at page 2288; this document, Appendix "B", entitled "Notices of Motions for the production of papers", established a general principle for the production of papers, which principle reads as follows;
To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistant with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.
Then follow 16 exemptions, Madam Speaker. I believe that the request of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby comes within the definition of at least four exemptions which I shall now quote. Exemption 5 reads as follows:

Papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons.
This means that when this exemption applies, the papers cannot be produced.
The 10th exemption reads as follows:
Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded.
Here is exemption 12:
Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence.
This is exemption 16:
Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.
And I believe that the request of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby comes within the definitions of the exemptions that I have just read, that is exemptions 5, 10, 12 and 16.
It must be recognized that the issuance on March 15, 1973, of guidelines on the publication of parliamentary papers, was a significant step forward. No criteria existed before that, and although ministers of the Crown did not often do so, they could refuse to produce documents requested by opposition members, without giving any reasons. This in my view was a positive effort, and it was endorsed by the current government leader.
This problem is of the utmost importance, and the government did not hesitate to face it. The whole issue was also the subject of an in-depth study by the joint committee on statutory instruments. That committee's co-chairman is a highly qualified member of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). It is also my privilege and pleasure to be a member of the committee. We try to study the production of documents without any partisanship, if this is possible to the politician working on this kind of issue with widespread political implications. I believe that all hon. members sitting on the committee deserve commendation for their totally unprejudiced effort.
The government's main reason in establishing these exemptions is to give the widest possible information, not only to the public, but also to members of this House, for the proper understanding of Parliament's operation.
It seems that not all hon. members agree, and the contrary, of course, would have surprised all the people. The government established a procedure to get to this objective. Furthermore, this is the reason of the reference to this committee of the study of the production of documents, which was established precisely to meet the demands as the one being made now with motion No. 17 standing in the name of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
Madam Speaker, you know it is very difficult to make a judgment on the relevance of the questions asked and that it is also very difficult for a parliamentarian to appraise the balance between the expressed will of the government to supply as much information as possible and the obligation to provide sound administration and to ensure at the same time the security of the country. In my view, it is a good thing to insist on the fact that in the past, the
May 1, 1975

government had no firm established policy for its part as a supplier of information. That part was played every day "by ear" depending on the type of question, without any guideline whatever, and the whim of officials and ministers alike. Undoubtedly such a situation, that was bound not to last, had to be remedied, in a condition where modern ways of communication are more and more available and in ever growing demand.
It is obvious, Madam Speaker, that guidelines are criticized by the opposition, whose role it is to do so, since they must force the government to account for the exercise of its mandate, not in an evasive but a concrete manner, by providing the greatest amount of information possible so as to justify its political action. In fact, the idea is to try and find a middle-of-the-road policy between unacceptable total secrecy and acceptable partial disclosure. The discussion concerning the production of documents is between these two extremes.
On the one part, certain civil servants and politicians are jealous of their papers and fear the principle of complete disclosure and, on the other hand, some refuse total and absolute secrecy. Between those two extremes surely there is room for a happy medium that could most often satisfy everyone-In medio stat virtus. We all know that there are now rules concerning the production of papers, and I mentioned it earlier-Standing Order 48.
I want to come back to the fact that the government having issued guidelines on the availability of all government papers, unless they fall within clearly defined categories for exemption, as is the case now, represents a very commendable effort, as I mentioned in my opening remarks.
I am convinced there is room for improvement, and that is the primary reason for the examination undertaken by our committee whose name I mentioned earlier. I think surely the open and candid attitude of the government in that respect should draw the opposition's approval.
Before undertaking to reform those guidelines it must be borne in mind that the government spent a lot of time preparing the list of exemptions released on March 15, 1973, There is no doubt that all aspects were carefully weighed before that list was produced. But since it is the nature of man to make mistakes the government does not pretend to have reached optimum conditions. On the contrary, being aware of possible mistakes and weaknesses it set up a committee to examine carefully all aspects of the problem precisely to reach, if possible, perfection in this area.
The fault that seems to exist, and in that I think I am consistent with certain members of the opposition, is the fact that the government now considers its own actions without appeal by the opposition. Perhaps an organization such as the one recommended by a member of the opposition should be created to enable an independent body to determine the validity of the government's position, or of the opposition's request. In democracy, the rules of the game call for-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is now expired.
United Aircraft


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) is wondering why someone from Hamilton Mountain is speaking on this matter. I think that can be easily clarified by giving my background in the good city of Verdun.
Verdun was a very residential area. We always became concerned with the surrounding corporations, for the good of the corporations and for the worry of the workers who lived in Verdun. The people of Verdun, looking at the suburbs around it, such as Montreal, realized that it was necessary to be concerned because we were mainly the workers in that area. I think we share something in common in that at least.
The best way for me to approach the problem in the hope that I will be relevant in speaking to the question, and since we have mentioned the United Aircraft of Canada Limited and certain factors of the corporation's operation, is to establish in a few short moments something of the character of United Aircraft of Canada Limited, then immediately move on to the minister's actions in relation to documents which he has tabled, and then go directly to the correspondence requested and my feeling concerning the motion.
In establishing the character we should recognize that United Aircraft of Canada Limited has never officially approached the department requesting permission in writing to transfer work from Canada to the United States. When the department became aware that UACL was transferring some work from Canada, it asked the company for a statement outlining the details. Through these consultations which took place during May and June, the department obtained a picture of the actual transfers that were taking place. UACL's justification was that it had to protect its markets from its competitors, and that its customers had indicated that they would switch their business from UACL to competing manufacturers of aircraft if UACL were unable to supply from some source.
When the department became aware of the magnitude of the transfers it called in the Canadian president and senior officials from the international parent, and informed them that the work must be returned to Canada as quickly as possible. Furthermore, the minister informed top company officials that he wished to be made aware of the company's plans for its future in Canada, including new investment. As a result of these pressures the company immediately took steps to repatriate the work to Canada, and since the consultations employment has increased to near record levels and production volume in Canada now exceeds previous record levels.
Because of the government's participation in the development of the PT 6 and the JT 15 families of engines, UACL has developed from a minor supplier of replacement parts employing about 400 people to an internationally renowned developer and manufacturer of the most advanced types of small and medium-sized turbine engines having a wide variety of applications. The government's share of the financing-$73 million-is much less than the investment by UACL and UAL at $250 million.
5392

May 1, 1975
United Aircraft


Mr. Gilbert:: You are reading your speech.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is right.
In the absence of the government's participation it is very likely that UACL would still be a minor supplier of replacement parts of obsolete piston engines and an employer of a few hundred relatively unskilled workers. At the present time UACL employs several hundred highly qualified graduate engineers, and provides outstanding opportunities for the talent of Canadians in the development of advanced technology engineering products. It is one of the few major establishments in the province of Quebec which employs engineers in such substantial numbers on this type of high technology endeavour.
I think this establishes the character of the company, also its shortcomings in the transfer of the work, but its reasons for doing that.
Further, it ought to be said that United Aircraft contributed more than $94 million to the Canadian economy in 1974. The company's expenditures averaged $1.8 million a week for wages and salaries of Canadian employees, employees' benefits, federal, provincial and municipal taxes, and purchases from suppliers and sub-contractors throughout the country. Wages and salaries laid by UACL to its Canadian employees last year amounted to $49.4 million. At the end of 1974, 4,855 people were working with UACL in Canada. Purchases of goods and services from Canadian businesses and industry rose to the amount of $37.8 million in 1974. In addition, UACL spent $3.8 million in capital investment in that year, and is planning to commit more than $7 million to increase its production.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I would remind the hon. member that the motion deals with correspondence between United Aircraft and the government.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is why I summarized initially, Madam Speaker. I said I would establish the character because it seemed that somehow the aircraft company was involved in this. If you wanted the papers, I think I said in my first statement that it is writing, written words, that are required. I was referring to what was in that writing, as released by the minister. That seems rather reasonable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Having moved away from the character of the company I think I would like to move into the area of exactly what the minister said when tabling the document.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: On January 27, 1974, he said the government's contribution of some $73 million to the company was a good investment. He made that statement after copies of all development agreements between the Crown and United Aircraft had been tabled in the House of Commons. All agreements were tabled, with the exception of three amendments to them. These were excluded on legal advice because they contained classified engineering

and cost information which violates industrial security if made public to the company's competitors.
The minister is being quite clear. He is emphasizing that the joint venture between the government and company, starting in 1960, has resulted in the development in Canada of a high grade technical capability to produce small gas turbines for world markets. Coming directly to the point, I think the relevant part is Appendix E, to the notices of motions regulations, although there are many other areas we could touch. It says in paragraph 5:
Papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or group of persons.
If indeed the minister, with the legal advice he had, and in his wisdom really was convinced that the release of this information could jeopardize the company's future financially, or indeed could jeopardize the workers who work there and cause a further transfer of business, then indeed he was acting in absolute good faith and was following the regulations in not tabling the documents.
Copies of all agreements covering development assistance by the federal government to United Aircraft of Canada Limited were tabled, as I mentioned, on January 27. Correspondence between the Government of Canada and United Aircraft of Canada Limited over the past year continues to be of a confidential nature and, if released, would disclose information which is private to the company and would be detrimental to Canadian production and exports.
The main reasons for continued confidentiality are that United Aircraft has provided complete access on a privileged basis to its financial records, to its market analyses, and to its long term plans for product and market development. Disclosure of this data to international competitors could destroy its competitive advantage in the small aircraft engine field, and would be inimical to the Canadian interest.
Similarly, United Aircraft's dealings with its sub-contractors and suppliers in Canada and abroad could be adversely affected by disclosure. Moreover, the department must retain its neutral stance between Canadian companies having dealings with United Aircraft, many of which are privately owned, and would not wish their commercial affairs to be indirectly disclosed.
Finally, releasing the data could inhibit the flow of future information between the company and the government to the detriment of our objectives for industrial and trade development of this high technology product sector.
I really think the reference to paragraph 5 fits pretty good. It speaks of papers containing information "the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or group of persons." The minister is clearly on firm ground in this matter.
One of the hon. members on the other side has said he does not like my using notes although, after all, I think it is important sometimes for the record to say the words as written down. So I would like to use an analogy. The analogy is very simple. If you have ever been involved in the school system, you know that for a long time they used to write records on record cards, and these cards would go to the principal's office. As a result some teacher would
May 1, 1975

receive a record that Johnny So-and-So was indeed a very bad boy, an incorrigible. And so the teacher already had the answer to all the questions before he ever dealt with that child in class. That system is not supposed to be in force any more.
It is considered bad, really bad, to have that information which is secret and unavailable to the person concerned, but it is equally bad if you reveal the information which makes it no longer secret, because people make judgments that are not the judgment that teachers made when they wrote that correspondence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So Johnny So-and-So became a Liberal M.P.!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I can give another example. As a dean working in the students' area in university I know I quickly came to this conclusion with respect to the loaning of student finances from the university. Sometimes I found it very necessary to make notes on paper which would indicate what the problem was, whether it was something that existed at home, whether it was something that existed in the person's own life, whether it was of a moral character, or whether it was of a criminal nature. It really was a very incorrect thing for me to put that on the correspondence file for someone else to read it at a different time, and in a different way.
Indeed, I remember that at the end of each year I would destroy each and every such file personally, leaving only a record for the accountant of what was owed, be it $300, $450 or whatever, because somebody else reading what I wrote at that time, reading what my assessment was, would not read my comments in the same light, or have the same information that I had. So this kind of privileged correspondence is important. Certain things are said in relation to the events at the time.
I think the time has come, if we are to get along in the field of industrial labour relations, when we must think of companies within the corporate image as a corporate family. Companies, in the same way as labour unions, are people, not inanimate objects. Their character can be smeared. They can be set up for attack by people, and maligned if what is stated in one simple sentence is extracted and presented in the wrong way.
Therefore I am proud to associate myself with those who have spoken against the production of these papers. However, I am also pleased to associate myself with concern for the workers along with the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, who I know is sincere. But like the person who calls for another person's record to clear that person, sometimes the presentation of the record is detrimental to the parties concerned.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member is rising to ask a question. Would the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain allow a question?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: No, Madam Speaker; I never open my mouth in front of self-styled experts.
United Aircraft


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in the last comments addressed by the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), when he refers to his interest in labour relations. I also want to join in the compassion expressed by both the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby concerning the problem at United Aircraft in Lon-gueuil. This problem has lasted too long and I want to endorse the desire of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby to see the end of this dispute.
Unfortunately, I do not think I can agree with the motion presented by the hon. member. Obviously, he tried very hard to find a justification for the production of the papers but, Madam Speaker, he has not been able, to, because the papers he was asking for contain information which he claims he has already obtained from the minister.

You will recall, Madam Speaker, that the two main arguments that were made by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby were, first that he supposes that the correspondence between United Aircraft and I.T. and C. would indicate some pressure coming from I.T. and C. with reference to labour matters; secondly, that the contract which there allegedly was between I.T. and C. and United Aircraft would contain a prohibition preventing United Aircraft from transferring work from Canada into its United States plants.
With all due respect to the hon. member, so far as those two arguments are concerned he already has the information. He asked a question in the House of the minister regarding whether there was any correspondence that referred to the labour matter, and he was given a reply that implied that it was none of the business of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) what the labour relations might be between the workers at Longueuil and United Aircraft.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is very conscious of the jurisdictional obligations of the federal government, much more so than the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, who evidently does not understand that when there are labour conflicts between workers in a province and a company within that province, those relations must be dealt with by legislation enacted by the provincial legislature. Effectively the conflict at United Aircraft is one involving workers who are completely within the province of Quebec and a company that operates within the province of Quebec; ergo the whole problem is one that falls within that jurisdiction.
When we were debating Bill C-32 we heard a lot clamouring from that corner of the House about protecting provincial jurisdiction. One of their Saskatchewan members said that the federal government was poking its nose into provincial jurisdiction and matters that did not concern it. I am amazed that the leader of that party should attempt to stick his nose into something that does not concern him, and which does not concern the members of this House.
5394

May 1, 1975
United Aircraft
Sympathetic as I am to that particular conflict, I know that the province of Quebec has a responsibility for labour relations within the province. It is not for me as a member of this House to indicate to them how they should discharge that responsibility. I can understand that the leader of the NDP, or rather the potential leader of the NDP, has no party in the province of Quebec and has to use this chamber to indicate what they ought to do at the provincial level. But that is not my role, or the role of any member of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member recalls the gist of the point of order that he raised about 50 minutes ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: As a matter of fact I was just about to call the hon. member to order. Perhaps I should let the hon. member know that the motion deals with correspondence between United Aircraft and the government.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I fully agree, Madam Speaker, and I am not one to abuse the rules of the House. If I was carried away, it was because of the persuasiveness of my own argument. I might indicate to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby that he actually has the information he is seeking, in an answer given him in the House.
I had three other arguments I wanted to put, Madam Speaker, but I think the most viable one is this. We are dealing with a clause in a contract that allegedly prohibits United Aircraft from transferring work to the United States. I point out to the hon. member that there have been $92 million worth of federal funds invested in this corporation. In order to protect that investment a judgment was exercised by the federal government, and was provided in the answer. That judgment was to permit United Aircraft to keep its competitiveness by transferring work to the United States, with the assurance that the work would come back. I suggest to the hon. member that had that assurance not been obtained, that strike would have destroyed United Aircraft. Thank you for your patience, Madam Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I was suggesting that this party supports the principle of stabilizing incomes for farmers because farmers, perhaps more than anyone else in our country, have to live with the open market system, with existing weather patterns, and are subject to international markets which they can no longer control, and in addition they have to live with the Liberals, never knowing what they are going to do.
The farmers have to meet many uncertainties in respect of income from what they produce. The time has long since passed when the government should have taken the responsibility of stabilizing the income of farmers. This has been the foundation policy of this party and of the CCF before it. We have always said that we should have a farm stabilization program with marketing boards, so we can market farm products in an orderly fashion. These are things this party has advocated for years. There must be guaranteed prices. When the farmer plants his crop in the spring he has no idea what he will get for that crop when he sells it in the fall. This discriminates against the small farmer and squeezes him out of business because he is the guy who has to compete with big agribusiness and the big producer.
This bill is an improvement over the 1971 bill. I thought the minister had learned a few things since then, but perhaps he has not learned enough. When this bill goes to committee there are a number of changes that I and others in my party would like to see adopted. I am sure the farmers would like to have these changes made in the bill as well.
The most important thing we must do as members of parliament is make sure that the agriculture committee holds public hearings throughout the country so that the farmers' union, the Federation of Agriculture, and any other grain group will have the opportunity of contributing some input to this grain stabilization program.
This piece of legislation will fundamentally change the income status of many grain farmers. It is important that the changes are made in their best interest rather than the best interest of anyone else. There are a number of other things that should be changed. I referred earlier to the fact that pay-outs are to be made on a total or global basis, and this is discriminatory.
Let me give an example. There may be a poor quality crop in my area with wheat of grade 5 or lower, yet the average may be grade 1, 2 or 3, so the farmers in my area

would not receive pay-outs from the stabilization fund. That is unfair. Likewise the average income for a particular year might be lower than the average for the previous five years across the board, but you might still have farmers who are getting grades 1 and 2, with others getting inferior grades, yet they would all receive the same pay-out. That is very unfair to the farmers who have inferior grades of wheat or other grains.
This is the type of amendment I think we can all agree on, and this is the type of amendment that will make a better and more equitable bill for farmers all across the prairie grain region.
There are a number of other things in the bill I feel are unfair. I referred earlier to the fact that this measure should be universal in participation. If it were universal I believe it would be stronger and much better.
Under the bill there is to be a levy imposed on the producer of 2 per cent on all grain sold up to a maximum of $25,000, which means a maximum levy of $500 per year. The government will contribute 4 per cent. If there is a deficit, then as I read the legislation the levy on producers will increase from 2 per cent to 2.5 per cent, and the contribution by the government will increase from 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent, and so on. If there is a deficit in the fund for more than three years the pay-outs to the producers will not remain level or static but will decrease, and that too strikes me as something that is really unfair. When the need is greatest for the farmers on the prairies, if there has been a general pay-out for three or four years, the benefits will decrease because there is less money in the fund.
There should be an amendment so that the government will contribute more if there is a serious situation on the prairies for a number of years when income is down, otherwise this measure will not be as effective as it should be, and it will not be much of a stabilizing fund.
I note also a clause that says that if the fund is in a deficit position for three years or more the income of farmers will not be stabilized at 100 per cent of the average for the previous five years, but rather at 90 per cent. Again this is a downward trend in stabilization of farm income if we are unfortunate enough to have several consecutive years in which farm income is dropping instead of going up. That is another amendment I think we should consider when this bill reaches the committee stage.
I note also that all types of grain will qualify in respect of the farm income stabilization fund. That strikes me as rather strange when we know that the government has put so much grain on the open market. We have many people who advocate a free enterprise system in the farm community, and who say that marketing boards are not good and that the power of the Wheat Board is too strong. If these people feel that way and believe in the open market, why should they be allowed to qualify for stabilization? If they believe in free marketing, and the floor drops out from under the price of barley, rapeseed, wheat, flax, oats or any grain, then why should they be covered by this plan? Surely this plan goes against the principles those people advocate when they talk about a free market. I do not believe we should be covering the grain that is
Western Grain Stabilization
sold on the open market. We should not be supporting off-board grain sales under the grain stabilization bill.
Most of us will agree that grain which is sold by one farmer to another, or to a feed mill or a feed lot, should be covered. We can move an amendment so that this type of transaction is covered. This represents a small transaction made between the farmer and someone else, probably in his own community.
However, when it comes to selling grain off the board on the open market, then I suggest those grains should not be covered. If these people want to play the free enterprise game with Richardson and Sons or the grain exchange, then let them play that game, but why should we have a government that comes forward with an insurance plan that will subsidize those people if the floor drops out of the market? This, to me, is another form of subsidization of those involved in grain exchange and private grain trade. We do not need that in this House. If I am to be consistent, that is one part of the bill I cannot support. That is a typical, Liberal free enterprise tactic, where there is free enterprise for the rich, but, boy oh boy, when those free enterprisers get into trouble, there has to be a little socialism to bail them out. Surely to God if they believe in their philosophy, they could follow it through. And why should it be followed up with public funds?
I think there should be marketing boards for all farm commodities and guaranteed prices when there is planned production where the objective is the maximization of food production. We should not be fooling around with food in the open market. We should not be gambling with flax, rye and rape seed on the open market as if gambling with dice in a casino. There is no need for that in Canadian agricultural policy.
Deep down in that big, warm, congenial heart I have a hunch that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) agrees with me, but he is probably having a hell of a fight in cabinet with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I think the time has come when we should move on the recommendation made, I believe, by the Department of Agriculture to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), namely, that the Wheat Board come under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture. It makes more sense to me to have all farm jurisdictions, departments and agencies under the Minister of Agriculture. What does wheat have to do with the Minister of Justice? I believe that this is a political move.
I do not think politics should be played in regard to the livelihood of farmers, their futures, destinies and incomes. I think the Minister of Agriculture was right when he suggested to the Prime Minister that he should have the Wheat Board under his authority. That makes more sense, and I think hon. members in this House would give the minister support in that regard. We sometimes sympathize with the minister in his fight with the academic from Saskatoon-Humboldt, and I think we can give him support there as well.
There are several other areas of this bill which should be amended. I notice that when the expenses of a farmer are calculated under this legislation, a number of important areas are excluded. It excludes, for example, depreciation

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
on buildings used in farm operations. Whether they be grain bins or whatever, they are necessary to produce grain on the prairies. This legislation also excludes machinery. Why should machinery be excluded? There is nothing which depreciates more rapidly on farms than machinery.
Machinery prices have been skyrocketing in the last number of years. This bill ought to be amended so that it will really stabilize income and make sure farmers do not get behind year after year. There should be a formula to include things like machinery and farm buildings. Interest on debts should be included. Interest accumulates for farmers buying machinery and building materials to put up buildings. The interest on such debts is not included in the bill before us. If this bill is to be one which will in a genuine way stabilize farm income, these things should be included.
Another matter which strikes me as being unfair to small farmers is that the pay-out from the fund in an aggregate manner is determined on the proportion of the farmer's share of contributions he has made to the plan. In other words, if a small farmer has had the misfortune of having low quality crops or poor crops for a series of years, and his payments into the fund have been small, when there is a pay-out from the fund, he receives a small pay-out. The small farmer, or the farmer with the bad quality crop, cannot help what kind of crop he achieves, and if there is a fund which will penalize him for being a small farmer or for having a poor quality crop, that will help push them out of the market. That will not stabilize the western grain industry, and we should be doing that at this time.
These are five or six things which should be rectified in the bill which is before us. There are a number of items which should be mentioned, and which our party and other hon. members will be bringing to the attention of the committee when we get to that stage, but I think, that the most important item we have to resolve at second reading today is that if this bill is to be effective, it must be discussed across this country by farmers at open meetings of the agriculture committee. There has to be input from the farmers, be it from the farmers' union, the wheat pool, the federation of agriculture or any other group.
This is a complicated bill. One or two lawyers in the House have said that it is one of the most complicated bills. In many ways it is similar to the income tax bill we debated a few months ago. I think even the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) would say that in certain respects the bill is rather complicated. We do not know what the minister means in some of the clauses of this bill. These clauses have to be clarified.
Farmers have to know what this bill will cost, what it will be giving to them in terms of pay-outs and benefits, and this can only be achieved through public hearings. Surely to goodness, that is democracy. We in this House when we draft legislation are delegates of the people, but before we pass any bills into law which fundamentally affect the livelihood of people, the least we can do is have public hearings extensively where all affected people will have a chance to appear with briefs, if they so wish, to suggest amendments and to recommend to us whether to support the bill in its present form or in an amended form.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to have the opportunity to participate in this debate, and particularly to follow the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I will take this opportunity to welcome him back to the House of Commons after his road show.


An hon. Member:: Was he sick?


Charles Joseph Clark: He always makes an energetic contribution, which he did on the road show when he was travelling across the country. I understand that he was recently in my own province and had the opportunity of meeting the one supporter of his party who lives there. I want to congratulate him on that, and welcome him back.
I am also pleased to speak in the presence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I want to congratulate him on overcoming what was obviously the design of his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), responsible for everything under the sun, in arranging for this debate to be held tonight, the same night the Minister of Agriculture was to appear as a witness to discuss one of the few pieces of agricultural legislation which still comes under his jurisdiction. I am pleased that the minister was able to have that standing committee cancelled and that he is able to be here tonight. I imagine this is the closest the Minister of Agriculture will come to Bill C-41, which should have appeared under his sponsorship.
We are all very pleased that this bill is finally back in the House for second reading and that we have an opportunity to discuss a measure which has been of great concern, to western Canadians in particular, for nearly five years since the predecessor to this bill first appeared in 1970. It casts a peculiar light on the priorities of the government when one remembers that this has been an urgent bill ever since December when it was first introduced by the Minister of Justice, responsible for everything under the sun. At that time he said it was a priority matter, yet it has been an priority now for almost five months. Several other bills which are clearly not of the same importance to western Canada, or to the country, have taken precedence over it, but we are pleased that it has now found its way on to the agenda of parliament to be considered at second reading.
I must support an observation made at the beginning of the remarks of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville when he suggested that the timing of consideration of this bill is unfortunate from the point of view of many of the farmers most directly concerned. It would have been preferable to have had this bill for second reading at the time when the minister said it was a priority, and to have had the opportunity to have the standing committee travel through the country to hold public hearings. This would have encouraged a contribution from the people most directly concerned at a time when they were relatively free to express their concern and not preoccupied with seeding or other problems of the busy season.
I want to return to the procedural question of public meetings of the standing committee, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House believe that it is absolutely essential
May 1, 1975

that the standing committee go across the country, particularly to the prairie regions, so that it will have the benefit of the advice of the people who will be directly affected by the bill.
It is curious that this bill is sponsored by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board when clearly it should have been introduced in this House by the Minister of Agriculture. Since the minister was elevated from the back benches to his present position he has presided over a diminishing department. On one side is Beryl Plumptre picking away at him, and on the other side is the minister responsible for everything under the sun, picking away too. My colleague points out that he is even having difficulties with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet).
The Minister of Agriculture often tells us in this House that he is one of the most popular ministers in the government-in fact in any government known to man! It has to be admitted that he is popular with his colleagues because they all come to him to take away responsibilities that should properly be his. This bill, for instance, should have been brought forward by the Minister of Agriculture but instead came in under the sponsorship of the law professor from Saskatchewan.
A meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was cancelled tonight in order to allow the minister to be here to get as close as he ever will to this grain stabilization bill. The standing committee was to have considered Bill C-50, the agricultural stabilization bill. That quite dramatically raises the question of why two bills dealing with agricultural stabilization should come before the House with different sponsors. Why should the agricultural stabilization bill be introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, and the grain stabilization bill which is before us now be introduced by the Minister of Justice?
I think it is important to underline that the matters for which the Minister of Justice is presumably responsible relate to the Wheat Board. The activities of the Wheat Board in relation to grains, however, are by legislation restricted to and concentrated upon marketing. The Wheat Board has nothing to do with the income of farmers or the stabilization of their income. That responsibility properly lies with the Minister of Agriculture.
It is very important to raise the question of the government's determination to strip the Minister of Agriculture of a responsibility which belonged in that portfolio when others held it. If there is any sense or reason to the direction of agricultural policy in Canada today, that responsibility should still belong to his portfolio.
Why does the Minister of Justice introduce legislation dealing with income stabilization in relation to grain? It is quite clear that for some of the grains included in the bill such as rye, flax, and rapeseed, the Wheat Board has only a limited responsibility related to quotas. The sponsorship of this bill by the Minister of Justice responsible for the Wheat Board will only lead to an expansion of the interest of the Wheat Board instead of curtailing its activity.
There is a parliamentary reason for worrying about this sponsorship. The relationship of this bill to the Canadian Wheat Board may make it more difficult for parliament to keep tabs on what is going on. We are all acquainted with
Western Grain Stabilization
the frequent practice of the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board of ducking criticism of that body by saying, "That is a Wheat Board responsibility," and accepting responsibility only when things turn out well. Everyone who has attempted to read the bill agrees that it is a highly complicated piece of legislation, so it may turn out to be difficult for parliament to get answers.
The simple answer to the question of why the Minister of Agriculture has been stripped of a responsibility which should properly be his may be that the Minister of Justice is more influential in the cabinet, and that this bill is another piece of the personal political empire that he is attempting to accumulate.
I suppose it could be said that the Minister of Justice does not have much to do. His activities seem to be limited to denying inquiries into activities which clearly demand them, and to offering unsolicited legal advice to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) when that minister wants to extend assistance to organizations in the constituency of the Minister of Justice. He does not have much to do in his own portfolio and, being an ambitious man, reaches for responsibilities which properly belong to the Minister of Agriculture.
We have a certain sympathy for the dilemma of the Minister of Justice because he cannot decide which other portfolio he wants to have-is it Minister of Justice responsible for agriculture, or Minister of Justice responsible for transport? He has just returned from a whistle stop pogo stick jump of the prairies, grabbing at the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). The Minister of Transport was so alarmed that he took the unprecedented step of going out west himself to see what the Minister of Justice was up to, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice is entitled to his ambition, of course, but we must seriously examine his attempts to take over the functions of the Department of Transport and whole programs of the Department of Agriculture. These ambitions portend confusion and a lack of co-ordination of agricultural policies.


An hon. Member:: I hear he wants to take over CEMA.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is one that he has been content to leave to the Minister of Agriculture-if he has it and not Beryl Plumptre.
The serious problems are the capacity of the Government of Canada effectively to co-ordinate agricultural policy, and the right of Canadian farmers to know that the programs being devised and the structures being established are in their interests, and not designed to further the ambition of a particular minister, such as the Minister of Justice. There are very real concerns. The bill before us deals with the incomes and security of countless numbers of Canadians who make their living in one of the most unpredictable professions, agriculture. The confusion about who is responsible for the co-ordination of agricultural policy makes things even more difficult for them.
There is another aspect to this which concerns many members of this House, and it is that the duplication involving competition among ministers for jurisdiction over agriculture may substantially add to the costs of

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
government. Certainly the structures that were established to deal with agricultural problems and that were evolved to deal with agricultural policy should not be shaped simply to suit one man's ambition. There should be a much more rational inspiration behind the development of agricultural policy in this country than is presently the case with the Minister of Justice reaching out for everything he can grasp.
There is no rational reason for having this bill introduced in the name of, and proceed under the direction of, the Minister of Justice. Yet we are building into the legislation a reliance on Wheat Board proceedings. We are building in, by having the Minister of Justice responsible for this agency, the suggestion that there will be a continuing relationship between this program, which has to do with the incomes of grain farmers, and the Wheat Board, which to this point and under the act, has had to do exclusively with the marketing of grain products. There is no rational reason for that. The simple reason is that it happens to serve the interests of a particularly ambitious and influential minister.
The problem is that strong though the Minister of Justice may be, he is not going to be there always, and the program and legislation we are designing at this time will almost certainly endure after the minister has gone. The structures we are establishing will almost certainly have to be dealt with by Canadian farmers after this particular minister has gone; yet we are establishing structures and evolving a policy shaped simply to serve the ambitions of a transitory minister. I think that ought to be a matter of concern to all of us.
I must admit that perhaps one of the reasons why this bill has not been sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture, who has always identified himself in this House and elsewhere as being a simple farmer, is that he cannot understand it. We sympathize with him. Even my distinguished legal colleague from Saskatoon-Biggar expressed a certain difficulty in understanding the complexities of this legislation. The complexities of formulas set out in Bill C-41 make the filling out of income tax forms seem relatively easy.
This is complicated legislation and leads me to suspect that the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the Wheat Board, harbours some continuing interest in the job prospects of the graduates of the law school of the University of Saskatchewan. Certainly, he is introducing here a piece of legislation which will keep them busy for a long time to come, as farmers try to figure out how to deal with this legislation and what it means. It is a bonanza for lawyers, but it may turn out to be something considerably less for grain farmers. It will also keep several other groups busy, too, because this legislation in all its complexity cannot possibly be carried out without a substantial bureaucracy. Clearly, tonight, in considering Bill C-41, we are being invited to establish an even greater bureaucracy to deal with this complex legislation.
As I said earlier, the concept inspiring this bill was first introduced in parliament in 1970, and was given second reading in 1971. The bill then before the House received such universal criticism and condemnation that it was simply battered down by public opinion. There was overwhelming, universal opposition by farm spokesmen,

individual farmers and members representing agricultural regions in this country, and for those reasons, because of the extensive opposition, the government withdrew the predecessor bill. There were three features of that predecessor bill which were particularly objectionable. One was its compulsory nature; the second was the failure of any willingness to engage in indexing; the third was that there was no regionalization. Once again the bill dealt with the whole area of the prairies. It was universally attacked, and withdrawn, and in the replacement that has been brought forward at this time there is evidence showing that the government has learned some lessons.
The question of indexing, of course, has continued to be of embarrassment to the present government. Most of us in this House remember what has become enshrined in history as the Truro speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). That minister, after admitting that his most recent attempts at developing an economic policy for the country have failed, has departed for another round of mysterious economic conferences which keep him outside this House. The Minister of Finance, when the concept of indexing was introduced by the leader of my party, attacked that concept all out as the worst possible thing which could happen. As we know, a little later he embraced it as his own. That has become, of course, a favourite practice of that whirling dervish, the Minister of Finance. I will not be surprised if, when the budget comes down at the end of this month, we find that prominent in its contents are policies which he attacked with such roundness and vigour in the election campaign of ten momths ago.
As I say, indexing was the matter he opposed in the period of the first introduction of this bill. For that reason, among others, there was no inclusion of an indexing provision in the first version of the bill that we received. But now there has been a change and the bill before us involves an indexing of a sort, an indexing of some of the costs of production. Yet, as several of my colleagues have indicated and as some Canadian farmers know to their great concern, indexing is not to be applicable to all the costs of production which Canadian farmers will face. It is to be a partial indexing; but a partial indexing is better than none at all. There are still serious difficulties that we will want to examine more fully at the committee stage, and I am sure individual Canadian farmers will wish to ask questions about the bill if they are given the opportunity to attend public meetings of a standing committee which has a mandate to travel.
The second element of that first version that was objectionable was the compulsory element. Now it is not completely compulsory; it is only partly compulsory for a farmer to become involved in this stabilization program. The minister delights in calling this a voluntary program, but this, I suggest is a highly misleading description. For one thing you are, in effect, locked into this program. You can only opt out of it. There is no provision to opt in, only a provision to opt out. Unless you take the initiative, you are involved in this program. That is a peculiar feature among Canadian government programs.
Many programs are said to be voluntary and give the right to individuals who may be affected to decide on whether they want to be in the program. In this case the
May 1, 1975

situation is reversed and the participants must make the decision as to whether they want to be out of the program. In addition, that provision to opt out exists only for farmers, as I read the bill, who happen to be engaged in grain farming at the time the act is proclaimed. If you come in later, you have to live with the program. You do not have an option. If you happen to become engaged in grain farming after this legislation is passed, you do not have an option.
One again, under this partly compulsory, partly voluntary measure, if you opt out and then in again, you suffer a penalty. So, it is voluntary in that sense, that is to say, voluntary at a price; and while the price may not amount to a great deal in dollar terms, certainly it detracts from the claim that it is a purely voluntary program. It is not voluntary if you must pay a penalty for exercising your will.
I want to deal for a moment with the fact that people who become involved in grain farming after this bill comes into effect are to have no option. They are to be locked into the program. You know, it is a fact of life that there are certain certainties you must expect when you become involved in farming. You can expect to face drought, rain, and other problems including, I suppose, a special species of pestilence which can be called "Otto's army". If this bill is proclaimed and put into effect, once you get into grain farming you will be subject to the provisions involving the inspections, bureacracy, and the Liberal party in prairie Canada on wheels, that will flow out of this legislation. You will not have a choice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Otto's army worms.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggests "Otto's army worms". That is probably a more descriptive phrase. If you get into agriculture after the proclamation of this bill, three things are certain; death, taxes-and Otto Lang. That is a matter to give very serious cause for concern to anyone either considering or engaged in the occupation of grain farming which would make them subject to the bill, once proclaimed.
The third major weakness in the original version of this bill is a weakness which remains. It has to do with the fact that the bill is applicable only across a broad region. Others who have spoken have made the point that in cases where there might be continual poor crops, or in cases such as the Peace River area which might suffer frequently from problems of either drought or too much rain and a loss of crops, this legislation we are now establishing does not come into effect. It comes into effect only if the whole region is affected.
The minister of-I keep forgetting what to call him. It is so improbable that a Minister of Justice should be responsible for this bill. He is the Minister of Justice responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the grain stabilization bill, and everything else he can get his hands on. In a press release last December he stated that he recognizes there is a weakness in the fact that the bill applies only across the board and does not allow any more specific application. He
Western Grain Stabilization
said he would undertake a study on regionalization to see if the bill could be made effective in particular locales that suffer particular problems. However, we have seen no evidence of that study.
The bill is back with the same fault that marked its predecessor. Perhaps we can get the Minister of Agriculture involved in this legislation, at least to the point of carrying a question to his colleague who runs everything. He might ask his colleague what happened to the study into the possibility of regionalization of this program. That is certainly a matter we will want to go into at length during the committee stage.
This is a very serious matter in many parts of the country, including part of my constituency which is liable, to an unusual degree, to crop problems and crop failure. This bill will not be of much help to farmers there if they suffer difficulties which are not shared across the whole of the region. It is a better bill than its predecessor. It has to be because the predecessor inspired such outrage in the agricultural community that it had to be pulled back quickly. However, it still has some faults in that there is only partial indexing, not the complete or fair kind of indexing that allows taking into account all the costs of production faced by grain farmers. There are still several compulsory aspects to membership in the program. There is still the refusal to let it apply to areas which have special problems as well as the requirement that it applies across the board.
I want to deal for a moment with the costs that are involved here and with the size of the staff for the operation that we are establishing. It has been made clear that the contributions of grain farmers will not go into the administrative fund. In other words, Treasury Board is going to meet the administration costs. That, in effect, gives a free hand, a carte blanche to the Minister of Justice who is responsible for this bill.
We know from a very unhappy experience how agencies established for apparently limited purposes can grow and grow. We have seen it with the CBC, which has sent more people than most governments to cover the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in the Caribbean. We have seen it with Information Canada, which was established for a particular function which it promptly abandoned. It has continued to grow. We have seen it with several agencies.
There is the very real danger that by providing a kind of carte blanche funding from the Treasury Board, not from the program, and without adequate means of scrutiny or any clear indication by the minister as to the dimensions of the staff and cost, this could run into a very expensive venture. That is particularly true when you bear in mind the capacity to build the administrative machinery of this bill into a 1974 version of the Jimmy Gardiner machine. We on this side of the House would be less than frank if we did not express a very real concern that part of the purpose of the Minister of Justice responsible for winning seats in Saskatchewan is to turn the administrative machinery of this bill into a political arm of the Liberal party.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Like the Senate.

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague aptly says, "Like the Senate". This will be an agency allowing a much broader membership than the Senate. If you look at the duties that have to be carried out under this bill, there is a very substantial requirement for staff and money.
The administrators of this provision will have to look into cases of individual farmers, and process and deal with them. That takes staff. They will have to send endorsements to individual farmers. That takes staff. They will have to work out their refunds that will have to be paid when they make mistakes, as inevitably they will. That takes staff, both to make the mistakes and prepare the refunds.
There is a requirement that they have to penalize people who are called conditional participants. It is a wonder of the English language how you can have a conditional participant in a voluntary plan. That is what we have here. They will have to police that provision to make sure that those who have the audacity to opt out of the program in the first instance are penalized. That will take staff and money. In order to make this work in individual cases, we will require large staffs, computers, Einsteins and mathematicians housed somewhere in western Canada. They will be required simply to make calculations of the way this works. Reviewing the records of individual farmers will take staff and cost money.
There is a reference in one of the explanatory notes to this bill about a public relations function that will be undertaken by the administrators of this program. From what we know about the way the government handles its public relations, that will certainly cost a lot of money. We have here, among other things, an undertaking to have the Treasury Board of Canada fund an administration program that could be very large.
When we get to the standing committee we will want answers about the kinds of activities that are going to be carried out in administering this program, and what guarantees there will be on limits on the growth and staff and cost of this program.
I come from a province where there are not many Liberals. That is one of the advantages of Alberta. My concern is that under this provision the Minister of Justice, responsible for extending comfort to Liberals in western Canada, could hire every Liberal in Alberta as an administrator of this program. That is a matter about which we have to be very careful and concerned.
There are a number of other matters with which one could deal when discussing this legislation. It is particularly ironic that we should be considering a bill having to do with income derived from grain at a time when the real problem is not stabilizing grain incomes but the movement of the grain. My hon. friend from Vegreville dealt with this aspect, and drew attention to the failure of the ministers concerned with agriculture to confront directly this serious situation, one which causes more concern than any other to western Canadians engaged in agriculture. They are worried most of all about the increasing difficulty of moving their crops to export markets. This is where the priority should lie. Having delayed this so-called urgent measure for five months between first and second read-

ings, surely the government could have taken some action in the interim to improve the grain transportation picture.
There are specific questions raised by this bill, and they need to be answered. One of them is of interest to a good many of my constituents who are just entering the agricultural industry. What is meant by an actual producer? Who will be eligible? Is a hobby farmer, for example, eligible to become involved in the grain stabilization program? What about the homestead farmers, perhaps someone in the Little Smokey region of Alberta who works in the oilfields to build up a farm, but who is only spending part of his time in agriculture? Is such a person an actual producer, eligible to take part in the program?
Why does the calculation of costs not take into account the interest farmers have to pay on debt? Why does it not take into account the depreciation of capital? Another question: whatever happened to this mythical study of regionalization to which the Minister of Justice alluded in his brief statement in December? Is it simply to remain a study? Has such a study in fact been conducted? And, if so, will the minister tell us what it contains? Is there a chance that the legislation we are dealing with will be changed because of the impact of that study?
Why is the only option available to farmers under this program an option to go out? Why should the system not be reversed so that the option would be to come in? That would be a genuinely voluntary approach, whereas what we find in the bill is a highly qualified example of the exercise of voluntary will.
I have another important question while the Minister of Agriculture is here. What will be the tie-in, administratively or in terms of policy, with the Department of Agriculture? Will the system being set up here continue as an empire of its own under the Minister of Justice, or will machinery be established to ensure that activities carried out under the grain stabilization program are consistent with other policies? What is to be the role of the Minister of Agriculture in this piece of agricultural legislation which has been removed from his jurisdiction because of the insatiable ambition of a Minister of Justice who wants to be responsible for whatever he can lay his hands on?
What will be the cost of administration, money which will have to be found by the Treasury Board? I am interested in the size of the staff which will be required. Will the Minister of Justice be able to go out and hire every Liberal in Alberta, or will more than 11 people be needed to run this scheme?


An hon. Member:: The filibuster is getting entertaining, anyway.


Charles Joseph Clark: There are a great many other questions which some of my hon. friends will be raising as the debate proceeds. We are pleased the bill is back in the House in a form which has been considerably improved. Apparently the government has learned a lesson; it is a better bill than the one it started with. Though it gives rise to a number of problems and there are a great many questions to be asked about it, this legislation is of importance to the part of the country from which I come. It is essential that before we get to third reading, before we conclude the committee stage, an opportunity be provided for grain farmers to contribute directly to the
May 1, 1975

consideration of this measure and that the government, which has the power of life and death over committees, committees which are not merely its creatures but its tools, should give the agriculture committee authority to travel through Western Canada and hold open hearings.


An hon. Member:: Another jaunt.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is particularly important that this process be carried out at a time when those directly concerned by the legislation are able to participate. It would be foolish to send the committee out to hold hearings while farmers are too busy earning a living to appear before it to make representations. Before this bill becomes law it is essential to seek the advice of Canadians who make their living growing grain.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member and the House that there are still Canadians who have confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. This letter comes from Picture Butte, Alberta. I should like to read just one sentence:
I should like to thank you again for the help you have given to the industry. It is more than any previous Minister of Agriculture has achieved.
Need I say more, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. McKinnon:: Would the minister table that letter so that the rest of us might benefit from reading it?


Eugene Whelan: Following the usual procedure, I can only table it with the consent of the writer.


An hon. Member:: Your brother will agree.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and proud to be able to say a few words this evening in the debate on Bill C-41. It is a bill of great significance, and I believe this debate will prove to be an historic one not only for this House but for the part of Canada which most of the speakers who have participated represent, that is, Western Canada.
I am interested in the peculiar debate which has been taking place as to the importance of this legislation. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), I am glad to note, has finally concluded that it is a very important piece of legislation for Western Canada. Earlier this afternoon I listened to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He began by pointing out some of the difficult situations existing in the grain industry. The years 1969 and 1970 were a time of crisis in the industry, and it was that very crisis that prompted the original proposal. The hon. member spoke of Bill C-244 and referred to the strenuous debates we had on that bill. There seemed to be approval in principle but a great deal of discussion about the precise details of the original stabilization proposal.
It seemed to me that the hon. member was saying that the whole idea was an important one, but he questioned whether or not it was now appropriate to deal with it by this legislation. He said we should deal with a good many other things, and he referred to transportation and labour problems. I agree that they are serious and deserve the
Western Grain Stabilization
attention of the House, but I suspect, Madam Speaker, that western farmers will be very interested in this debate and anxious to see it proceed.
Continuing in the same vein, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). He said it was crucial to travel with the agriculture committee to provide farmers and organizations with information about the bill and to receive their representations. I should like to discuss this aspect a bit further. It seems to me that in making the proposal the hon. member is saying that the whole idea is a very important one and that the farmers should be given an opportunity to discuss it. On the other hand, the hon. member questioned whether this legislation is really important, something that we should write home about", so to speak.
Thus I am a little confused whether or not hon. members opposite think the legislation is important or not. I am happy for the odd unequivocal statement of the kind we heard from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, who said specifically that it was very important and that they were glad to see this kind of provision once again before the House of Commons.
This bill, or I suppose more particularly its predecessor, has a rather special association with the Assiniboia constituency. A grain stabilization plan for western farm incomes and for the general economy of the west was first proposed in specific terms by the present wheat board minister in October of 1970 in a document entitled "Proposals for a Production and Grain Receipts Policy for the Western Grains Industry" dated October 29, 1970. At that time the minister discussed a whole variety of problems in the grains industry and proposed solutions to those problems, ways to attack them.
One of the proposals that was made was the western grain stabilization idea. That concept developed not easily but was the product of a lot of work in many quarters, both inside the House and in the Government of Canada, as well as among farmers and farm organizations. All of this work was directed toward attacking that age old problem in western agriculture, which I am sure is also common to members in this House who represent constituencies outside of western Canada that have a rural background. I refer to the problem of the recurrent, jolting bust years that come time and time again. Farmers are never able to enjoy the good years, the good years when they are at their peak, for fear of how low the next valley will be.
This is the problem that the grain stabilization concept was directed to four or five years ago when it was first suggested, and it is the same problem that we are trying to attack today. Many farmers and farm organizations contributed to the development of this concept at the beginning.
In connection with that landmark proposal that originally came before the House five years ago, it would be particularly appropriate this evening to acknowledge the concern, hard work and tireless effort of a previous government member for Assiniboia in this House. I refer, of course, to a most distinguished Canadian and member of parliament, the late A. B. Douglas of Weyburn, who represented Assiniboia from 1968 until 1971. His dedication to

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
solving this problem is one reason why I say this bill has a very distinct connection with the Assiniboia constituency.
Another reason I say Assiniboia has a peculiar interest in these proposals was alluded to earlier today by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). After Mr. Douglas's untimely death in 1971, a by-election was called and fought in Assiniboia. The campaign was based largely upon the 1970-71 stabilization proposals; they played a major role in the discussions at that time. I was a little saddened at the attitude that I detected was taken by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, indeed by others in the House today, who seemed to express a great deal of glee, patting themselves on the back, that the 1971 proposals were not successful.
It seems to me that that is not a particularly good reason for any member of the House to rejoice, and I wonder whether their priorities are not a little twisted. If they are happy with that sort of result, then I wonder whether they are showing genuine concern for grain producers or rather are merely exhibiting political expediency. I think the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville gave himself away when he spent a great deal of time on the question of the Assiniboia by-election and the provincial election in Saskatchewan, both of which were fought that year. In both campaigns members opposite went out of their way to explain, or to mis-explain, if you like, what the stabilization idea was all about.
As you might suspect, Madam Speaker, I was not particularly elated at the result of the election in Assiniboia in 1971, but as I pointed out to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville this afternoon, since that time we have corrected that particular problem. I was not particularly elated either when in 1971 the stabilization proposal was ultimately withdrawn. I do not say it was a perfect plan. It was not a perfect plan and no one at that time pretended it was. But it was a good beginning, a place to start.
Never before had any government in this country pioneered this particular field. They paid a lot of lip service to it and we heard much rhetoric about how nice it would be to solve the problem, but no one got around to putting a specific proposal before parliament or before farmers which they could examine in an effort to try to solve the problem.
It is interesting to note that we did not see this kind of magic solution to the stabilization issue even 15 years ago when hon. members opposite sat in this House with the biggest majority any government in this country has ever had.
Bill C-244 in 1971 ploughed a lot of new ground. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that it laid the foundation for the new major proposals we have before us this evening in Bill C-41.
I was interested in the figures that the minister reviewed in his remarks to the House on Monday evening when he spoke on the consideration of this bill on second reading. Those figures demonstrate quite clearly the kind of value in pure dollars and cents that Bill C-41 will have for western Canadian grain producers. He demonstrated how much cash would have flowed to the pockets of western grain producers over the last ten years had this proposal been in effect during those years. It seems to me

that this kind of result in terms of dollars and cents is what we should concern ourselves about so as to ensure that the farmers of this country will not in the future have to worry about these jolting periods when their incomes fall to rock bottom as a result of problems over which they have no control at all.
In 1971 we listened to different criticisms, different depending upon where that criticism came from. We heard much criticism from members of both parties opposite, and we received some very legitimate suggestions for improving the bill from farm organizations in western Canada. But let me compare the difference in emphasis here, Madam Speaker. Why were the parties opposite criticizing? The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville spelt that out very clearly: they were criticizing for the purpose of an election in Saskatchewan and by-election in Assiniboia riding.
On the other hand, the farm groups had an entirely different emphasis. They were talking about putting in place a plan that they believed was in their best interests, one that would operate in the long term in their best interests. I do not think they wanted to see the stabilization proposal postponed for one year, two years, or five years; they wanted a plan in 1971 that they could regard as being in their best interests. They put forward proposals for changes and suggestions for improvement and that, indeed, has been the basis for the kind of work that has gone on since 1971 within the grains administration of the Government of Canada; putting this kind of suggestion for improvement in place.
These are constructive suggestions that have come forward from farm groups and farmers in this country, and particularly western Canada, and not the kind of negative, nit-picking, partisan criticism we heard from members opposite in 1971, and again today. That kind of criticism has not contributed one iota to improving the situation in western Canada.
That story dating back to 1971 is an interesting one. It is one that I suppose has some happy times and some sad times, but it is history, and some of it may be characterized at this stage as ancient history.
But in the interests of farmers of western Canada in 1971, when he withdrew the grain stabilization bill at that time, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board made one very firm commitment. He said he would return with it in an improved form to take account of the suggestions from farmers and farm organizations, and so tonight we come to consider Bill C-41 in principle and, later on, I hope very quickly, in committee in some detail.
I think the minister's explanation of the principle of the bill is very well set forward in his remarks of last Monday. There is no real point in going through the bill clause by clause at this stage because that is the function of the committee. There are some very interesting and important but minor points, if you like, that should make this program in its entirety very attractive to western Canadian grain producers.
First of all there is a small but important aspect, and that is that the levies that will be paid by farmers will be tax deductible as a farm expense. This is written into the
May 1, 1975

legislation. Again I say this is a small item, but one of those things that can mean a lot in terms of making the program function smoothly.
Members today have discussed the question of "voluntariness" and the series of combinations and permutations of that. I will discuss that in a moment in more detail. In moving toward this voluntary concept or feature of the stabilization plan, this is not an easy thing to do it you want to make the plan totally effective, but it is the kind of thing I think western Canadian farmers will appreciate.
In addition we have as part of the stabilization plan the creation of a five-member advisory committee composed of farmers or farm representatives who will advise on the administration of the plan.
We have heard some reference tonight about the administrative costs of the plan. I know the minister will want to say more about that, probably in his concluding remarks or before the committee, but it is clear that the cost of administering this plan will not be borne by the farmers of western Canada out of their stabilization fund, but rather by the federal treasury.
Another interesting thing, and I am sure this will be of interest to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, is that payments to the producers will be exempt from legal process.
Again, the solvency of the stabilization fund, another small but interesting point, is guaranteed by the federal treasury. In addition, whenever the fund is in a surplus position the federal government will be paying interest to the fund. This is a series of small features, if you like, but features I think farmers will be interested in knowing about as they become more familiar with the stabilisation plan; features which should make this bill in some measure at least attractive to them.
I have listened very carefully to most of the debate we have had in the past two or three days on Bill C-41, and it seems to me there have been three main criticisms coming from people across the way. The first one, and the one that seems to have occupied the most time during the comments we have been hearing, is that the proposal is complicated. Well, Madam Speaker, so is the problem. We have had a longstanding and recurrent pattern of grain incomes in the west being up one year and down the next. As I said earlier, you cannot be happy about the good times for fear of how bad the bad times will be. You only have to look at the pattern of grain incomes for the past quarter of a century, since the second world war, to see that gyrating line going up and down and up and down. As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out, this issue of how to deal with that has been on the minds of farmers and western Canadians generally for years. That is so because when farm incomes go up and down so does the entire economy of that particular part of Canada.
This problem has been on the minds of western Canadians not just for the past five years or 15 years or 20 years. The problem goes back many decades. It is one that I suppose in a way has compounded itself over time. So we have a serious problem with this fluctuating pattern of incomes in western Canada, and it is difficult to attack it effectively. We have had piecemeal proposals in the past
Western Grain Stabilization
that, on the periphery, have attempted to do something, but there have been no quick, simple or easy solutions.
It is important, as hon. members opposite and members on this side of the House have suggested publicly and privately, to provide information on the complexities of the program to farmers in order to get their reaction, and explain the details to make sure that everyone who can be affected has an adequate understanding of what the proposal is all about. However, simply to say it is complicated and complex, or that you have not had time to read the lengthy bill, is not a valid criticism.
I suppose we could say that if the answer had been quick, simple and easy, even that administration of 15 years ago, which sat in this House with the biggest majority of all in history, might have been lucky enough to stumble onto the solution, but it did not because the problem was a little bit beyond it.
The other criticisms that have been mentioned tonight, which I think are more logical and more interesting, and ones I want to give rather considerable attention to as we go through the committee work, involve the matter of dealing with the voluntary nature of the plan and its greater regionalization.
The voluntary aspect seems to have two sides, and they were alluded to at least indirectly by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. First of all there is the matter of the producer who comes into the program after it is in place, whether two years or five years from now, or two weeks after the bill is proclaimed. What is his position? As the bill stands at the moment it would indicate that he is included in the calculations.
There seems to be some logic in looking at the suggestions that have come forward from farm organizations, and others, that under the proposal the new farmer starting out after the plan has been put into place should have some option to decide to opt out of the program. I would very much want to look at that particular suggestion in more detail when this will no doubt be put to us by farm groups appearing before the standing committee, and when it is discussed by members around that table. There seems to be some substantial argument for extending the voluntary aspect of the plan to include that particular person.
There is another aspect to which the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar referred, and which was passed over as well by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). This aspect relates to the fellow who is in the plan one year, out the next, then wants back in, then wants out, and then wants back in again. He is the "inner and outer", the fellow who, I suppose, would want to take advantage of the stabilization plan when it suits his income position, but really does not want to contribute to it or have any investment in its future when things are going well, because at that particular moment in time he does not feel the necessity for a stabilization program.
I will want to look at that latter proposition very carefully before moving toward any kind of concession on that point. I think it is important to allow the producer to change his mind if he has decided to opt out, and to make application to come under the plan, but whether we should continue indefinitely so that the producer can decide to be

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
in one year and out the next seems to me to be something that we would want to question very seriously before adopting.
As I say in respect of the voluntary aspect, I am rather sympathetic toward the suggestion about the new producer, but in respect of the proposition that people should be able to fly back and forth at will, if you like, without any regard to the continuity of the plan, I am not persuaded that that would be a particularly good idea.
The second aspect, which I said is more substantial than the rather weak criticism that this bill is complicated, seems to have more merit. That is the question of regionalization. It is important to make this plan the best we can put together. It is important to make it sensitive, if we can, to provincial, or perhaps even smaller regional variations. It is important to recognize the very practical differences between one region on the prairies and another and between one part of a province and another.
Earlier this evening I saw the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) in the House. His part of Saskatchewan varies rather drastically from mine. There are real substantial and practical differences. As far as statistically possible, it would be useful to move toward a greater regionalization in the concept of the stabilization program.
I am happy that in his remarks back in December when he introduced the bill for first reading, and in his comments earlier this week, the minister clearly indicated that, if at all possible, work would be proceeding toward this worthwhile end, and hopefully in the future we will see that, based upon greater sensitivity to regional differences.
There is an important question we should be asking, and that deals with how far we should go with this concept. I want to be very careful before recommending a reduction of a grain stabilization plan to the absolute individual non-averaged basis. It seems to me that there is a danger there, and that we should be careful before we proceed to it. The danger is simply that a plan of that nature would serve to reduce the incentive for good farming practices and dampen a producer's personal initiative.
I do not believe farmers generally would want to see a program which would render it rather irrelevant as to whether they followed good production practices and properly exercised their personal judgments regarding how their own farming operations should be run. That is a problem, if we are talking about what really amounts to an individual kind of calculation. This is a consideration which I think we should bear in mind when we consider the general question of making the plan more sensitive to regions, or perhaps going beyond that.
Over the last four months or so since the grain stabilization plan was introduced in this House last December, I have been spending a good deal of time around my part of Saskatchewan talking to farmers at dozens of meetings, public and private, and invariably the question of the stabilization plan for grain came up. I have found, in my discussions with producers, a great deal of curiosity about the plan, and an anticipation to hear what the full scope is and to hear the full detail. They have many questions, but above all in my discussions I found a very broad and

general measure of support for the stabilization plan introduced by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
We all have to be involved in the informational process, because before producers, either in a political sense or in the economic sense, can make a judgment about this bill, they will want to understand clearly and fully the total implications. There is a responsibility on every one of us in this House to engage in that information process, and to assist farmers in western Canada to understand what the stabilization bill stands for, what it will attempt to do, and how it will effect individual producers.
I am looking forward to serious consideration for this bill and parliamentary approval at a very early date, at least in time for application of the stabilization plan to the 1975 year. I think western farmers are looking forward to the same thing.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I have been interested in listening to this debate, but I have not enjoyed any speech more than the one just made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) does not look back, he is not really sure whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is making the speech or whether he made it the other day. I noticed he was interested in both speeches and in their similarity.
The hon. member for Assiniboia made a statement, which I thought was very amusing, about how wonderful the stabilization plan was when it was first introduced in 1970, and about how much farmers would have benefited from it. He is repeating an argument the Minister of Justice made the other night by saying that if the plan had been in effect back in the late 1960's, farmers would have benefited much from it. It is probably safe to say that by killing the stabilization bill as it was proposed in 1970-71, we probably saved western Canadian farmers something in excess of $500 million.
The government was in a position to do a number of things which were involved in the original stabilization plan, which it did. It dropped the storage grain reserves act after it retained very little storage for a two year period. That provided western farmers with the ability to store grain without having to pay exorbitant costs for a long period of time. I think it would run into hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of time. Of course that is no longer available to western Canadian farmers.
In another piece of legislation now before parliament we are again dropping the prairie farm assistance bill, which has within it $7 million or $8 million. If we had dropped that in the 1970-71 year, I presume the farmer would have benefited from that fund in those intervening four years at least $10 million a year and probably more, which means another $40 million or $50 million.
That indicates to me one of the weaknesses of this stabilization program because that assistance which was provided to western Canada for many years, and which was used by farmers, is no longer available to them. Substituted for that is a new proposition which will stabilize the shortfall in income, if that shortfall takes place, over the whole area. This is being done in a very complicated way, despite the remarks of the hon. member for
May 1, 1975

Assiniboia. I would like him to explain to the Minister of Agriculture-who I hope will gain control of this eventually-the three formulas. I do not think it is complicated, but I think hon. members will agree that it is confusing.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture explained it to the members of the agriculture committee in a letter recently, when it wrote this:
The legislation therefore contains a formula for calculating the ratio which first of all adjusts for inventory changes, but also reduces the marketings and inventory changes to numbers of acres based on the average five year yields.
Of course the minister is familiar with that because he used that part of it in some other legislation. This letter goes on to say that:
These are compared to the numbers of acres of grain seeded, to give the marketing to production ratio. Table I gives a simplified example, using only two grains, of how this ratio is arrived at. Table II, which follows, shows how the stabilization payments are calculated.
I will read from Table 1. There are, of course, six basic grains in the index that have to be administered. The table is as follows:
Table 1-Marketing to Production Ratio (example-not actual figures and as if only two grains are involved-wheat and barley)
Production Marketings Inventory change 5-year av. yield actual yield in yr. acreage seeded
Wheat
675 million bushels 500 million bushels + 25 million bushels 25 bushels/acre 27 bushels/acre 25 million acres
Barley
532 million bushels 250 million bushels + 25 million bushels 40 bushels/acre 38 bushels/acre 14 million acres
That is not difficult, Madam Speaker. Those are just the actual figures. But the table continues:
(1) marketings	500	250[DOT]f 5-yr. av.	- =	20 million acres	- = 6.25 million acresyield	25	40(2) inventory	25	25change -f-	- =	1 million acres	- = . 625 million acres5-yr. av. yield	25	40
(3) Adjustment
(seeded acreage X (5-yr. av. yield - actual yield)
5-year average yield
25 X (25-27)	14 X (40-38)

2 mill. ac.

* = .7 mill. ac.
25	40
Marketing/Production Ratio
1 + 2 + 3 for each grain
total of seeded acres
Western Grain Stabilization
That is very simple, Madam Speaker. That is only the marketing production ratio, and the minister understands that.
It gets more complicated in Table II, however, which follows:
Table II-Calculations of Aggregate Stabilization Payment- Simplified Example-not actual figures
Example
A.	Marketing to Production Ratio (see Table 1)
(1)	area gross expense
(2)	area net expenses ($(1) X A) 1.5 X .6814
(3)	aggregate gross grain sale proceeds
(4)	aggregate net grain sale proceeds
[(3) -(2)) ($2.0-1.0221)
(5)	aggregate gross eligible grain sale proceeds
5	1.8
B,	Ratio of -	-	.9 (ratio)
3	2.0
$	.6814 (ratio)
$1.5 billion $ 1.0221 billion $2.0 billion
* 0.9779 billion $1.8 billion
(0) aggregate gross participating eligible grain
sale proceeds	$ 1.7 billion
6	1.7
C.	Ratio of -	

 9.44 (ratio)
5	1.8
(7) net eligible grain sale proceeds
1(4) X B] $0.9779 X .9	$ 0.88011 billion
That is "not complicated," Madam Speaker. We heard the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) quoting the Minister of Justice who says it is not really complicated. I can go on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are these figures seasonally adjusted?


William Arnold Peters: Not yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Timiskaming allow a question?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Ralph Goodale: The question is simple, Madam Speaker. In my remarks a few moments ago I did not say the program was not complicated, I said it was in fact complex. The question is whether that is sufficient reason in itself for not going ahead with the plan to assist the incomes of western grain producers. Is it complex enough to say "scrap the whole thing"?
20 + 1 - 2 + 6.25 + 6.25 +.7	.26.575

= 

 = .6814 Mr. Peters: Madam Speaker, I was not trying to indicate
that the complexity would necessarily be against the plan,
25 + 14
5406

May 1, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
but the hon. member for Assiniboia indicated that this was a simple solution for western Canada, and I must say I am pleased he can understand it.


Ralph Goodale: I said it was a good solution; I did not say it was simple. If it was simple even you could understand it.


William Arnold Peters: The last plan was simple but it was not operative, and it was not acceptable. This one is so complicated that I do not know whether it is acceptable or not. I have read it, studied it, looked at all the figures, and it is very complicated. It is going to be very difficult to explain to the average farmer in western Canada how this works. He wants a simplified program. You will notice that the payment is to be made over the whole grain area of western Canada, including western Ontario and British Columbia. Maybe we should keep in mind what the farmer actually wants to accomplish.
The federation indicated that they were in favour of income stabilization, and I think they shocked me and a number of other members of parliament when they said so at their appearance before the agricultural committee on Bill C-50. They said that some provinces were going into the stabilization field and that they were particularly pleased with the British Columbia stabilization plan. One of the reasons they were so interested was that they were being asked to help develop and administer it. One of their objectives was a guaranteed price based on the cost of production during times of unfavourable market conditions. This bill does not offer that but it will create such complexity as farmers have never known.
Farmers in western Canada are familiar with regimentation. For years they have had permits, quotas, restrictions on grain delivered to the elevators, the time of delivery; initial and final payments have been set for them; there have been restrictions on how they can operate on their own land, or as a tenant on rented land.
Under this legislation a farmer's social insurance number will be fed into a computer and the calculation will be automatic. Farmers will be able to contribute a maximum of $500 on the basis of sales of $25,000. Do farmers wish to be regimented in this way? The hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member from Saskatoon should remember that if this program had been in effect, say, back, in 1971, there would have been no payouts in recent years. Certainly most areas would not have benefited from it. I say that because grain crops in western Canada seldom vary much.
There have been disasters of various kinds in western Canada, but most of those have stemmed, not from an inability to produce grain, but from ability to meet other conditions. There have been difficulties with delivery, with price, with markets and sometimes with the weather. But this bill does nothing about such things. What will happen if any one area suffers damage, say, from cutworm, or from other factors which reduce the grain crop? Farmers from one area may not be able to market any grain. Yet, because the Wheat Board may market large quantities of grain produced elsewhere, total revenues may be higher than normal and, because the program is

based on the national average, the farmers in the afflicted area may not obtain compensation. Remember, farm organizations want stability of farm incomes so that farmers can stay in business.
This measure is complicated, and reminds me of the unemployment insurance structure. Farmers will be governed by a computer in much the same way as workers are governed by the unemployment insurance program computer. The machinery is inhuman and many farmers who ought to receive benefits will not.
Some hon. members have suggested that this program ought to apply on a regional basis, so that if one region suffers a disaster the farmers there can be compensated. Really, the government is not contemplating a program of income stabilization; it is concerned about stabilizing an industry.
I submit, also, that we should give serious consideration to including off-board grain in calculations. After all, many farmers have decided in the past to withhold grain from the Wheat Board and use it to produce livestock. Sometimes this has increased net farm returns. Generally, the availability of grain has been reflected in market prices and has affected other segments of agriculture. When grain prices are low one sees more red meat produced.
I suggest that grain consumed on vertically integrated feed lots may not have been included. On the other hand, if we include off-board grains under the stabilization bill, we shall subsidize the commodities exchange in Winnipeg as well as guarantee the floor to the farmer we intend to assist. Frankly, this problem admits of no easy solution; but then, there are no easy solutions in agriculture.
Although I am not offended by the minister's giving attention to the stabilization of farm income, I think the program ought to be the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think you can divorce the problem of grain from that of beef, livestock, milk, or of any other agricultural commodity. Each of these areas is deserving of attention.
Furthermore, it is no longer necessary to drum up political support for the program by using the sort of tactics used by Jimmy Gardiner. Anyone who is honest will concede that it is no longer necessary to sell political policies as he sold them. Today there is television. Today it is not necessary for politicians to knock on doors in western Canada and say, "Here is a little handout; in return, I want you to vote for Jimmy." This may have happened in years gone by, but I do not think it is necessary today.
In addition to looking at the stabilization of incomes, the minister should also consider the storage of western grain. I submit that we should be storing grain. I remember a story in the Old Testament. As I remember it, Pharaoh sent for Joseph and told him to interpret a strange dream; Pharaoh had seen seven fat cows, followed by seven lean cows, and wondered what the dream meant. Joseph interpreted the dream, saying it signified seven fat years, to be followed by seven lean years. I submit that we should be wise to consider that story. It is quite possible that lean years are ahead. We have spent much money developing markets for wheat; in the last 40 or 50 years we have built up our markets. We need to guarantee our
May 1, 1975

supplies of grain. Crops have failed in western Canada once or twice.
I understand that snowfall this past winter has been below average in many parts of western Canada. Perhaps we are at the beginning of a cycle of smaller crops. The Canadian government would be wise to look ahead. We should guarantee our supplies. After all, the Minister of Agriculture did pledge the countries attending the World Food Conference that we would provide a certain quantity of grain. It is very nice when he can say that. It is nice when the farmer has that grain on his farm or in his own elevator. However, if the cost of keeping the grain in the elevator becomes too much, and it is no longer to his advantage to have that grain on his farm, then we will not be able to meet that kind of commitment.
I got a real charge out of the callousness of the Minister of Agriculture when he said, "Produce all the wheat you can produce, seed all the acres that can be seeded." How does he know how much should be seeded? We really do not know. This is what the farmers are now asking. To be fair to the minister, we are only talking about four or five million acres, because we run very close to the maximum of our seeded acres in western Canada. It would not be good business practice for the farmer to take the stubble and use that for a double crop. If he does not pay some attention to conservation he will not have any good land left. The farmer learned that lesson the hard way.
When the program was introduced the Minister of Justice said the government would pay farmers to take their land out of production. There was absolutely no justification for that program. That stupid piece of advice probably cost the farmer hundreds of millions of dollars.
Wheat has become very important to this country. Many raw materials have also become important in the past five or six years. However, wheat is a renewable resource, one which we have become excellent at producing. We have good wheat and we have good markets. We should be providing a storage facility that will guarantee those markets against any kind of situation that may develop. It need not be a disaster in this country but one that may occur in any part of the world. We should be able to guarantee two full years of supply of wheat at any given time rather than the haphazard system we now have, where we are not sure what kind of wheat is in storage because much of it is stored by the individual farmer.
The farmer wants stability. It is foolish for the farmer to divide his production between grain and some other area of agriculture. If stabilization of income is good for one farmer, it should be good for all farmers. The only way that can legitimately be done is for the Minister of Agriculture to demand from the government that he get back control over that field. The whole industry must be stabilized. A farmer's income must be stabilized at a level that will cover all his costs of production.
Many years ago we recommended a guaranteed forward parity price for all agricultural commodities. This does not mean that you boost the prices of commodities. Before the farmer plants his crop, he is told how much the government is willing to take and at what price. If he can get more for it, that is fine. If not, he has that guarantee from
Western Grain Stabilization
the government. The amount will cover his costs of production; labour, interest on investment, some allowance for depreciation and wages. Surely nothing less than that is satisfactory today for our farmers whether they are in the maple syrup industry, grain, or any other field. We ask that the Department of Agriculture provide this stabilization for farming.
There is another factor that is not only important to Canadian consumers but to the world. We are in a position where we can greatly increase our production of almost any agricultural commodity. It is in everyone's interest that we provide two things, stability of income for those on the farm and an ability to go into farming for those who are not fortunate enough to inherit farms from their relatives.
We are negligent if we do not provide for another generation of agricultural producers. We have not given any real assistance. Any assistance that has been given has been by the provinces, and most has been detrimental. All across the country provincial governments encouraged young people to go into the cow-calf operation. The bottom fell out of the market and they were stuck with very large debts.
When we travel across the country to meet the farmers I hope the minister will be reasonably open-minded. The cabinet and members in the House are treating the hon. member for Assiniboia very poorly. I am sure that he has all the responsibility and does all the work connected with the wheat board. If we are not willing to have this back under agriculture, the hon. member should be appointed the secretary of state for the Wheat Board.


John Mercer Reid: Minister of State.


William Arnold Peters: That is an operation that demands some responsibility. I have always been shocked by the flippant way in which the Minister of Justice handles his responsibility for the Wheat Board. He does not know the difference between his responsibilities and those of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). He gets them confused. He has now reached the stage where I expect him to be making a housing proposition for farm women in western Canada. However, he does not give any attention to those areas that warrant it.
When the western Canadian farmers provide the agriculture committee with the information they require, I hope the government will be more flexible than last time. Mr. Douglas of Assiniboia might have lived a lot longer if the government had not been as unfair to him as it was in the requests it made of him, and the unreasonableness of some of those requests.
I suggest that a lot can be learned by travelling across the country to meet farmers. Stabilization could probably be a workable tool for western farmers if the government would adopt the attitude of allowing input from the farmers in a just and reasonable way instead of being dogmatic, as the Minister of Justice has been with every bill he has introduced.


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


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.

Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Mr. McCain:: Madam Speaker, I presume you will want to call it ten o'clock at this time.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Charles Joseph Clark: On April 15, as reported at page 4813 of Hansard, as one of a series of questions addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), I asked why the minister had not responded to a single major suggestion or request put forward by the Treaty 7 Chiefs of Bands and whether he intended to continue to ignore their legitimate grievances and concerns, or go back and deal with them directly.
The minister responded:
Mr. Speaker, the statement is absolutely incorrect.
On November 28, 1974, treaty Indians from throughout Southern Alberta occupied the offices in Calgary of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They did so to protest inadequate services provided to Indians living in the City of Calgary. It was done as an act of frustration after everything else had failed. The Government of Canada had pulled back on a major commitment to assist the urban Indians of Calgary to begin to develop programs which would help them meet the special and peculiar problems of native Canadians living in a modern metropolitan centre. A commitment had been made to help them, but the government turned its back on its own commitment.
Out of frustration, the occupation took place. This led to the Minister of Indian Affairs laying criminal charges against two of the native people involved. Unfortunately the question of the laying of criminal charges became the focus of attention arising out of the incident, and it has taken attention away from what are the major issues- first, the bad relations between the Indian people and the public servants who are in Alberta to try to serve them; second, growing evidence that economic development and social assistance programs for status Indian are not working and need improvement.
Finally, and most important, is the fact that urban Indians, treaty Indians living in cities, now find themselves in limbo without either the provincial or the federal government assuming responsibility for helping them meet the special difficulties of adjustment they must solve.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
After the charges were laid several respected chiefs of tribes in the Treaty 7 region submitted detailed proposals to the Minister of Indian Affairs asking for a change in various programs and in certain personnel. They sought a meeting with the minister. On April 7 the minister replied by meeting with the Treaty 7 chiefs, buying them a steak dinner in a hotel in Banff and, as the meeting ended, by handing them sealed envelopes which contained his response to their recent proposals. There are hardly words to describe the disappointment which was felt when the chiefs opened those envelopes and found that the minister had declined to respond to the suggestions they had made. I would like to quote from a respected spokesman for the Blackfoot Band, Chief Leo Pretty Young Man, who said:
We are dismayed by the lack of thought and interest displayed in the minister's return to us. We raised new concepts and ideas-We got back a letter which describes present programs and refers us to existing staff. It wasn't much of an answer.
Chief John Snow, respected chief of the Stoneys, called the minister's response, and I quote: "irrelevant, meaningless and unbelievable," adding, "Our problems began with the district office and now the minister has referred us back to them."
This indicates the severity of the problem which exists in Alberta with regard to Treaty 7 Indians both on the reserves and in the city centres. The minister's response to my question indicates that either he does not appreciate the seriousness of the problem or else he refuses to respond to it.
The question of treaty Indians living in urban areas is a major and menacing new social problem for Western Canada. It affects all the major cities of the prairies. The incident discussed here happened to occur in Calgary, but it could have occurred in Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, or Winnipeg. It is complicated by the fact that no government, federal, provincial, or local, has addressed itself to the problem. No government in Canada has a right to feel proud of its response to the new and menacing situation of treaty Indians trying to live in urban areas.
What makes the problem more dangerous is that a climate of hostility toward our native Indians is developing across the country. It has not become large scale yet, but it is developing. We have militancy among our native people in response. It is not enough, in face of this problem, simply to lay criminal charges and deny that the problem exists. There has been-I will admit this to the minister and his representative-some very good work done on economic development and other things, but most of this has been done in-house without the involvement of the people most directly affected.
What is most critical, and what I wish to draw to the attention of the House of Commons tonight, is the fact that no attention is being given to the serious and growing problems created by the movement of more and more status Indians into urban areas that they are not equipped to live in, and which are not equipped to respond to them. This is a social problem of already serious proportions, with a capacity to grow. It is a problem that is occurring not in any one province or region but all across Canada.
What is required is a national response, and I raise this matter tonight to ask the representatives of the Government of Canada when they are going to start realizing the

very serious and menacing problem that is being posed by the growing movement of treaty Indians into urban centres that are not equipped to receive them.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, we were treated tonight to the eloquence of my good friend from Rocky Mountain for the second time. I appreciate very much the points he made in his reference back to his question to the Minister of Indian Affairs some time earlier last month.
I can well appreciate the hon. member's concern. I think he also indicated that he appreciates the difficulties faced by the minister and the government, no matter who the minister is or which government it may be, in dealing with the very legitimate grievances of the Indian people in this twentieth century. We must remember that the problems of the Indians today were not foreseen, and could not have been foreseen, at the time the treaties were written a century or more ago.
The question of who is responsible for band Indians who leave the band and go to the cities has been with us for the last decade to a much greater extent than ever before. I am
Adjournment Debate
sure the situation in Alberta is not much different from that in Saskatchewan. Through the years I have had something to do on the provincial side with finding solutions to this situation. It is regrettable that to some extent a federal-provincial jurisdictional squabble has arisen from time to time. Here again some of the representatives of the Indian people have themselves generated some of the difficulties, and this does not help resolve the situation.
In a brief sentence or two, may I support the present minister. He has been in my riding and is doing his level best to deal in a calm and rational manner with these problems. I am advised by departmental staff that in the particular situation referred to by the hon. member the minister's responses to the Treaty 7 Indians bands were, to the best of my knowledge, fair, direct and very positive ones.
I might add that the preparation of the various responses to some 20 briefs was done within a period of a month or so by officials in the minister's department as well as by himself, and a great deal of serious consideration was given to these briefs at the band meetings.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.11 p.m.

Friday, May 2, 1975