1975-02-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-20, an act to amend the Territorial Lands Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which was originally brought to the attention of the House yesterday by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). A minister of the Crown has made statements, or it has been claimed that he has made statements which are clearly racist and discriminatory in nature and which, if true, put this parliament and all its members under the cloud of racism.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that in this House yesterday the minister in question denied that he said what was attributed to him. Subsequently, outside the House, however, the author of the article in question, who is herself an associate editor of Maclean's magazine, asserted that the minister not only made the statement attributed to him in her article, of which she has records, but made others even more damaging which were not included in the article. Mr. Speaker, if you agree there is a prima facie question of privilege, I would move:
That this matter be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that both the minister and the author of the article can appear to clarify this most serious question.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I thought I had made it clear to the House yesterday that I personally regretted the words that were used in that article just as much as the member for Yukon regrets those words-


An hon. Member:: The member for Northwest
Territories.


James Armstrong Richardson: I meant the Northwest Territories. But the words are not mine. The words did not express my sentiments. They did not express my feelings about the native people of this country. I said that in the House, I said it last night on television and I repeat that today. I can produce other statements I have made in which I said it is my hope that we can achieve a better life for the original Canadians, the native people of this country, within our society. Those statements reflect my true sentiments. That article, to which reference has been made, does not reflect my sentiments and I repudiate the statement as being mine.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has put forward what he suggests is a question of privilege. I cannot emphasize too strongly, of course, the seriousness of the matter with which the hon. member is dealing. However, the type of statement complained of does not, in my opinion, come under any of the definitions of privilege as I understand them. I do not want to discuss what other approaches may be taken if the hon. member feels that the matter should be dealt with further. But it does not, in my opinion, come within the confines of any definition of privilege, as I understand that. In any case, for the second time the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has denied categorically responsibility for the statement and, therefore, there does not seem to be anything further that the Chair can do about the question of privilege at this time.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. I was tempted to speak on the question of privilege just raised but felt that the matter might better be covered by a motion moved under Standing Order 43. This matter has to do with the serious allegations which have been directed to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) with respect to statements he is alleged to have made about the native people. I find the alleged statements particularly disturbing, as I know that many native people, not only in my constituency but from all over Canada, have distinguished themselves in our armed forces in the defence of our country. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):

February 28, 1975
Oral Questions
That the minister provide proof clearly indicating that he did not make these statements or, alternatively, make a public apology to the native people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is provision for motions of this sort to be moved pursuant to Standing Order 43. The motion requires unanimous consent of the House. I will, therefore, ask if there is unanimous consent for this motion to be debated at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TABLING OF INITIAL PRICES FOR WHEAT, BARLEY AND OATS
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), to table in both official languages proposed initial prices for wheat, barley and oats for the next crop year.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the President of the Treasury Board about his position on strikes in the public service now under way among the general trades and labour group arises from the fact that a good many Canadians in business, as well as others, are being seriously hurt or inconvenienced by the continuation of the strike. The Minister indicated he did not propose to budge beyond the position taken by the majority of the conciliation board. How long does the minister intend to maintain his position and let this strike continue? Can the minister indicate how long the strike will continue so that those people being inconvenienced or hurt will try to make some alternative arrangements?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long the strike will last. I am happy to say that this morning the people at Terminal A in Toronto returned to work. There is some inconvenience when there is a strike, but the right to strike has been given to these employees by the parliament of Canada. I respect that right. At the same time, I think we have come a long way. I hope the union will recognize that the conciliation report was made by an outsider who, in fact, tried to offer them a fair deal. That is my position. I hope that talks will be resumed in order to try to find an acceptable solution. However, if they do not want to

return to work, I do not intend to introduce legislation to that effect at this time. I respect the right that all members of parliament have given to those employees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister has made it clear he is not prepared to bargain with regard to his position. I am not necessarily criticizing the minister for that. However, the minister having taken that position, in his judgment what is the point of continuing? Is this simply a war of attrition between the government and the unions with the people of Canada, in the middle, getting hurt? How long is this war of attrition going to continue? With the minister taking the firm position he has, what meaning does the right to strike have in these circumstances?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long the strike will last. The employees are entitled to strike. I maintain and repeat that the Treasury Board and the government have not been adamant, on the contrary. We had made some proposals which were quite lower than those suggested by the mediator and we have been willing to meet the mediator's requirements. We are ready to negotiate on the basis of that report. I hope the union will recognize that we have done our share and that they should do theirs and consider the report as a satisfactory basis for agreement. My conciliators are ready to meet the union at any time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do I take it that the minister is in fact prepared to negotiate and that his position is not the apparently rigid position that he announced? Is he in fact prepared to negotiate? What steps are being taken to have negotiations reopened so that some progress can be made and the strike does not appear to be meaningless with the minister refusing to give any ground, if that is his position?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that my conciliators are willing to meet with the union any time. They invited the union to meet with them these last few days, but the union did not think fit to do so. I hope consultations will soon resume, because we are prepared to settle the dispute. Far from having been rigid, on the contrary we have been very flexible, but we believe the conciliation report represents a good basis for settlement. I hope the union will consider this position as being a considerable improvement over what the government offered at the beginning of the negotiations.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My supplementary is for the Postmaster General. It relates to the situa-
February 28, 1975

tion in the Toronto terminal-we are pleased to hear the employees are back on the job there. Arising from reports that truckers have refused and are refusing to cross the picket lines in Toronto because of threats of tire slashing and other acts of violence from the ideological element which is a small minority in the Tronto Post Office, and in view of the expressed desire of the majority of the workers there to stay on the job, what steps are being taken to weed out these bad apples?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Perhaps I could expand my answer in order to be more precise. The couriers or truck drivers were notified by me as Postmaster General that if they respected picket lines which were informational picket lines on philosophical grounds, that was their right, but the Canadian public was not to suffer because of their philosophy and if they refused to cross informational picket lines they would be suspended and replaced by drivers who did not necessarily share that basic philosophy.
As to the second question relating to violence on trucks to which the hon. gentleman quite properly referred, the violence occurred during the evening when the trucks were in the care of a private protection agency which has since been charged with negligence. There is no evidence that the damage to the trucks was caused by radical elements in the union; it could have been caused by radical groups outside the union. The point is that the truckers cannot have it both ways-respect picket lines on philosophical grounds and expect the Canadian public to suffer financial losses as a result of their conception of what is right and wrong.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the concern expressed by the president of the postal union which resulted in his absence from the Finkelman committee yesterday, is there any possibility of a rapprochement with the union to deal with the tendency toward violence in the Toronto strike situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: There is another and not unrelated issue and that is the negotiations within the Post Office itself. When I assumed the role of Postmaster General eight months ago my aim was to increase the efficiency of the Post Office by improving the morale of the workers, by introducing some form of industrial democracy at plant level and by reducing the unintentional interference of other departments of government. I had presumed I would get the co-operation of the union leaders who should be seeking the same thing. When the president of the union on one hand cancels an appearance yesterday before a committee of the House in order to go to Toronto on the ground that he has to prevent violence and at the same time issues a circular or bulletin inciting violence to begin, one wonder whether the leaders are working in the best interest of the members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When you add to this the fact that the union negotiating team has placed certain prerequisites before me, through our joint negotiating team-the Treasury Board and the Post Office-before they will sit down and bargain on behalf of the workers, conditions which are impossible such as that we become a Crown corpora-
Oral Questions
tion, that we give them retroactive money, that we prevent all automation during negotiations, conditions which are impossible, it is obvious they have no intention of bargaining in good faith and the people who will ultimately lose by this are the 98 per cent of the postal workers who are basically decent, honest Canadians who simply want to get on with the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday in the House, in reply to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northwest Territories concerning the quotation that was attributed to him in Maclean's magazine, the minister said as reported at page 3628 of Hansard:
There was no quotation by me in those terms.
I ask the minister-and I choose my words with care-is he saying, when he said that, that he did not say the following sentences even in a context which was somewhat different but which were run together in paragraph form, with reference to Canada's native people:
I mean, what did they even do for Canada? Did they discover gas? Did they discover oil? They didn't even invent the wheel. Why, when we came here, they were still dragging things around on two sticks.
Did the minister or did he not utter any of those sentences?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I did not utter those words in any way resembling the sentiment that is expressed in those words. I talked again last night with the author of the article and she admitted to me that we had not discussed native people, or my views of native people, in any way during our interview. She said that while we were talking of the Mackenzie valley pipeline I had made some remarks about the fact that American companies had helped develop Canadian oil, and that some of us in Canada had walked over the oil for a long time. But that was not directed toward native people. I repeat that the whole quotation is completely out of context. We were not talking about native people, according to the author, at the time that she made this report. What I am trying to tell the House is that those are not my feelings or my sentiments in any way. In fact quite the opposite.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Just listen to the question, because this is a serious issue.


An hon. Member:: Make a charge then.

February 28, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the minister correctly, he said he did not utter these words in the context of the discussion or with reference to what he considered to be the main purpose of the interview. He is not denying that he uttered these sentences in some form during the discussion. I put it to the minister that on national television last night the author in question said that she has a record in some form, either notes or in some other way, in quotation marks, prepared in the course of an interview with the minister, of words along these lines, and she said that other words which were not used are even more damaging. Is the minister saying that this may have come up in the context of an interview on a broader subject, and that he made passing reference of some sort to this issue and uttered words of this kind?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not passing reference, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that that quotation would lead one to believe that it was my view. I was not talking about native people. I did not use the specific words-whatever they are- about the two sticks.


John Edward Broadbent: What about the others?


James Armstrong Richardson: I just do not think in those terms and I have never used that expression.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is not just an ordinary reporter, but an associate editor of the magazine who has a serious claim-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is asking a question on a very important point. However, it is also a point that has some limitations and restrictions regarding the use of the question period. One thing is absolutely certain; I cannot permit the hon. member to get into a debate at this time. If he has a final supplementary question he should put it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will put my question to the government House leader, the Acting Prime Minister. I would ask him most seriously, in view of fairness to the minister, and I say that with great care-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: In fairness to the minister and to the native people of Canada I should like to ask whether the government House leader will refer this matter to a standing committee of the House before which the minister can appear to explain his comments or make clear that nothing of this kind was said, and before which the reporter who wrote this article can be called for testimony in order that this whole issue can receive the serious clarification it deserves?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know it is familiar to you, as it is to all of us, that in this House we accept the word of other members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we would not be able to conduct our business as the people of this country would wish. If, however, the hon. gentleman wishes to lay charges to say that the Minister of National Defence uttered those words, and wants to take the responsibility for that statement, then let him lay his charges.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Put up or shut up.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has raised a very important question, stating that if one member of the House openly questions the honesty of another there is the well-known tradition that he take certain serious risks if he is willing to make a charge. I want to make clear that I am not-


An hon. Member:: Make the charge then.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am not making that charge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Sit down then.


John Edward Broadbent: I am saying that if one reads Hansard and looks at the answer the minister has provided he will see that he said with care, I take it, that he did not utter those words in a certain context.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


John Edward Broadbent: The conclusion I draw from that, Mr. Speaker, is that it is at least possible that he uttered those words of a racial and discriminatory nature that have been attributed to him in a different context, and I think in all fairness both to the minister and to the native people of Canada the issue demands clarification.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I think it would be fair to all hon. members if the leader of the New Democratic Party would now say whether the Minister of National Defence uttered those words, otherwise he is simply spreading stories and promoting gossip. I challenge him to be fair to the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLISHING
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious muckraking style of Maclean's, as

February 28, 1975

carried into this House, I would ask the Secretary of State whether he will reconsider his position in regard to Reader's Digest?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I would point out that I ask this in regard to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has put her question quite legitimately, but I do not think she is entitled to make a comment on it, having put the question.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is no connection whatsoever between the legislation I am proposing in respect of Section 19 and the sort of article that has been written about the Minister of National Defence in that magazine. The sole intention of the legislation I am proposing and putting forward to this House is to provide general support to magazines in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Like Maclean's.


James Hugh Faulkner: I would seriously hope that the intention and the initiative on the government's part will not be compromised by that rather distasteful article about the Minister of National Defence.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in May of last year the government invoked the law to forbid grain handlers from going on strike because of the effect on the national interest, and in view of the fact that the government introduced legislation in October to end the grain handlers' strike, again because of its effect on the national interest, will the government House leader advise this House whether in the view of the government the national interest is being affected by the present stoppage of grain shipments due to the present legal strike?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly true that the strike is interfering with the movement of grain, but I support the position of my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, that this is a time for negotiation and not for the kind of action proposed by the hon. gentleman.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that since August 1, some 70 days have been lost because of work stoppages, and in view of the answers given to the hon. member for Marquette by the Minister of Justice on Wednesday, would the government House leader advise the House whether the number of plans being looked at to move grain include legislation to get grain shipments moving again, and also advise what form this legislation might take?
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take notice of this question in order to have the opportunity of discussing it with my colleague, the Minister of Justice.


HARBOURS
[Stage Direction]
PAYMENT OF GRANTS ift LIEU OF TAXES BY HARBOUR COMMISSIONS TO MUNICIPALITIES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the chairman of the National Harbours Board to myself in committee, later confirmed by a letter, to the effect that the National Harbours Board does pay grants in lieu of taxes, and in order to clear up the situation and have some consistency under harbour policy, will the Minister of Transport direct the harbours commissions to pay grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities consistent with the policy of the National Harbours Board which does make such grants; for example, the municipality of Delta under the National Harbours Board does receive a grant in lieu of taxes, but the municipality of Surrey and other adjacent municipalities cannot collect these taxes under the harbours commission?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this question a few times in the House. As the hon. member knows, the status of harbours and ports everywhere in Canada is not the same. Some of them are owned by municipalities, and I do not see how we can ask the National Harbours Board to pay taxes or allow grants for a port that is owned by a municipality. Other ports are owned by private interests, while some are under the National Harbours Board.
As far as the National Harbours Board is concerned, we do have a policy of paying grants in lieu of taxes. For the others I think we will have to await the review which the hon. Leader of the Opposition is expecting very soon. I think that we can have perhaps a more uniform policy so that those questions will no longer be put.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-NOTIFICATION TO GOVERNMENT PRIOR TO PRICE INCREASE BY IMPERIAL OIL-COMMENCEMENT OF MONITORING
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Could the minister tell us whether Imperial Oil consulted with his department before it announced the increase of 2.2 cents per gallon on a variety of products to come into effect on February 26th?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that Imperial Oil gave notification of its intention to increase prices following, of course, on the information that they had previously made available with regard to their costs over the previous period.
3664

Oral Questions


James McPhail Gillies: Can the minister inform the House whether the monitoring system was in effect before this increase took place?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


GASOLINE-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF PRICE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN SERVICE STATIONS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: My supplementary is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the wide discrepancies in the price of gasoline which now varies as much as 14 cents per gallon between service stations for regular gas, will the minister look into this ridiculous situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has never attempted to monitor gasoline prices at the retail level. It seems to me that, as the hon. member is aware and other hon. members will be, because of the current surplus of products, there is an extensive competition, at least in some communities, at the retail level. On the whole that kind of competition, I would think, would favour the consumer rather than work against him.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I ask the minister if the proposed CBC broadcasting station for the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia is being held up because a suitable site is being sought for a French television station?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that. I will do so and report to the hon. member right away.


George H. Whittaker: My supplementary is for the Acting Prime Minister. Is it government policy to continue holding up a CBC broadcasting station which would serve 150,000 people in order to put in a costly French television station to serve one per cent of the people?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this country it is desirable that we should have national television coverage in all parts of the country to serve all language groups. That is the principle that I support.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: When did you change policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Both of the official languages of Canada should be served by national television service.
(Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).|


INDUSTRY
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my question by wishing a speedy recovery to the former prime minister of Canada, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That will get you re-elected.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of the serious layoffs in the B.C. forest industry due to the weak American housing market, can the minister advise what discussions have taken place between his department and the department of economic development of the province of British Columbia on matters relating to the forest industry in B.C.? Have any trade delegations been sent to the OPEC countries to encourage exports of lumber to this very prosperous area?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there have been regular consultations with the B.C. government and with the Council of Forest Industries for the province of British Columbia. This week there was discussion with respect to progress on the five year overseas market development program and the benefits which have accrued from it. They have been substantial in opening up new markets for B.C. products.
As regards mission activity, on the last mission that I took to the Middle East two members of the Council of Forest Industries were present, and there have been other missions in other parts of the world, all of which are aimed at increasing the market for B.C. products.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-ACCEPTABILITY OF PRICE INCREASE BY IMPERIAL OIL
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, regarding the announcement by Imperial Oil that effective immediately they have introduced an increase of 2.2 cents per gallon for gasoline, home heating fuel and diesel. In view of the fact that I take it for granted that before removing the price ceiling the minister's department had estimated what increase would be justified for increased refining costs and increased marketing costs, I would like to ask the minister whether the 2.2 cents per gallon comes within the formula which his department has devised as being acceptable in light of the statement he made when he announced the removal of the ceiling.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
February 28, 1975


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-REQUEST FOR BREAKDOWN OF PRICE INCREASE BY IMPERIAL OIL
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister, if this is acceptable, what part of the 2.2 cents per gallon increase is attributable to increased refining costs, and what part is attributable to increased marketing cost including, I assume, such things as the very extensive advertising campaign which the oil companies have been carrying on for some months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the figures are broken down on a percentage basis, but I can certainly inquire from the administration to see to what extent that has been broken down, and perhaps it can be discussed in the committee if the hon. member would like.


PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-REASON FOR TIMING OF REMOVAL OF PRICE CEILING
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that, as the minister said in answer to another question a few moments ago, there has been a gas price war going on in various parts of Canada, I would like to ask the minister why he chose to remove the ceiling at this particular time which raises the wholesale price by 2.2 cents, which may not reflect itself in the retail price, but which will have to be borne at the expense of the retailers of petroleum products in this country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It seems to me that when there is pressure on prices and competition, that is the best possible time to move from the situation of control on the basis of costs, or a flat control on the basis of costs, to one where we are willing to allow prices to vary from company to company. It is true that in some cases the independents will be faced with higher wholesale costs. In the case of other independents-and we have had some pressure from the independent part of the industry-there had been the request that the increases be put through.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I wonder if the minister can hear me. I would like to ask him whether he has recently met with the representatives of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians in regard to extending the provisions of the community development program and whether he has yet made a decision to extend it.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There are three other provinces whose agreements expire at the end of June, so I have taken the decision, and the message has gone out to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians
Oral Questions
indicating that we will extend theirs from the end of March to the end of June prior to making a final decision.



SIGNING OF UNDERAGE PLAYERS BY PROFESSIONAL TEAMS- REASON FOR FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO ACT

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As we are aware of the government policy regarding the hiring of amateur hockey players under the age of 20 by professional teams, as enunciated by the minister in Vancouver a few weeks ago, could the minister advise this House whether he is in fact afraid to protect our minor sports leagues in this country from deterioration and perhaps eventual extinction by not taking any direct action regarding the signing of under age players by professional teams as he did to protect, in his opinion, the CFL? Is the minister afraid because such action-which is in fact government policy-is in fact inconsistent with section 32 of Bill C-2 of the Combines Investigation Act presently at committee stage, which would in fact allow all individuals to play for the team or league of their choice?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question, I explained first of all the position of my department on the matter. Secondly, the parties concerned, that is, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association and the two professional leagues, agree with this policy; it seems there is disagreement within one of those leagues but I feel it is up to the leagues themselves to exercise whatever control is necessary over their members. As for the second part of the hon. member's question, the answer is no.


Otto John Jelinek: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answers, and because of his past record in dealing with sports in general, could it be taken for granted that his interests lie more within the professional sports field than with amateur athletes and the grass roots physical fitness development of our youth in general, where it should be?


Marc Lalonde: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport is in regard to a matter of which we, as Canadians, I am sure are not very proud. In light of the present very
28996-27)4

February 28, 1975
Oral Questions
bad publicity regarding the recent train wreck of the CNR in Northern Ontario in which there were heavy losses from looting, will the minister or the CTC now lay down firm regulations for the security of private property exposed in any subsequent train wrecks?


Jean Marchand: I hope so, Mr. Speaker. I think I can promise that we will try to have some kind of independent inquiry that will bring out the facts in this case. I agree entirely with the hon. gentleman, and I hope this is not going to be repeated.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: A supplementary. Why did the CNR not immediately salvage the contents of the wreck that were exposed?


An hon. Member:: Because it was insured.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will get in touch with the CNR and they will tell me why.



SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION TO CONSTRUCT

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that federal government policy is resulting in a cutback in oil exploration in western Canada which will result in a shortfall in Canada's requirements in the foreseeable future, and in view of the fact that according to the minister the tariff on the Edmonton-Sarnia pipeline might be used to offset the operating deficit of the proposed Sarnia-Montreal pipeline, the cost of which the government is committed to underwrite and there may not be sufficient oil for maximum use of the Sarnia-Montreal line, will the minister be taking another look at the advisability of constructing that line?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the supplementary estimates to be tabled on Monday there will be an item for discussion by the standing committee on the question of the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline. We will be glad to go into the full details of that agreement and the implications of the shortfall at that time.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question. If the government decides to proceed with the construction of the proposed pipeline, will it be constructed in such a manner that it will move oil in either direction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board and it arises out of questions put to him by the Leader of the Opposition. The answers would seem to indicate that the minister is contemplating a long strike by the GLT. In view of the disruptions in the public service, and in view of the future negotiations being faced by the minister with respect to the public service of Canada, may I ask if he has formulated any opinion as to what the effects of the GLT strike will be on the economy in the long term? Also, will he be making a statement to the House so that the country will know in economic terms and in terms of wages, what it is going to be faced with as a result of this strike and others that will follow?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think statements of that nature will add to the situation at all.



STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-EFFECT OF ADOPTION OF COLA CLAUSE-WILLINGNESS OF MINISTER TO RE-OPEN NEGOTIATIONS

Walter David Baker: I think the minister is misjudging the situation. With a view to settling the strike has he obtained from the Minister of Finance a definitive statement on the effect of a COLA clause in terms of this particular group of striking public servants in order to weigh the effects of that clause against the eventual disruptive effect on the Canadian economy? Has the minister done those things?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at all possibilities. I am willing to negotiate with the union and I do not think I have to make any other statements than that. I hope the strike will be settled as quickly as possible, but at the same time I say, and I have to repeat, that the federal government does not intend to be the pacesetter in the country. We want to be good employers, but we do not want to give away the store.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect, the minister seems to be going around in circles. If he is willing to negotiate, as he says he is, he seems to be doing it through his conciliators and that is not working. Would the minister consider picking up the telephone and giving Claude Edwards a call in order to get these negotiations going again?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a mechanism in place for negotiations. We have the unions talking with my negotiators and I hope the talks will resume soon. Of course, the strike is disruptive, but it is a right the employees received from the House of Commons many years ago and we intend to respect that right. It was their choice. I might tell the House that I am very pleased to resume talks and to try to find a settlement. We have shown a lot of flexibility so far, and I hope the union will do likewise.
February 28, 1975



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment and her parliamentary secretary may I put my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Minister of the Environment has decided apparently at the last moment against intervening in the Berger Commission hearings in Yellowknife on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, can the minister indicate whether this decision was preceded by discussions with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern development and, if so, what was the nature of those discussions?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions with me rather than with the department. The understanding was that professional staff would be made available to participate in the hearings and that they would make all their environmental studies available. It was felt that this would be the proper role.



TRANSPORT


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Transport. In reply to a question yesterday, the minister indicated that he had ordered an investigation into the irregularities at Hamilton and as well had ordered an investigation into dredging in Quebec. That appears to be inconsistent with what the minister said outside the House. I should like to know if the minister did, in fact, order an investigation into dredging operations in the province of Quebec and in keeping with his responsibilities, has he ordered an investigation into dredging operations in other parts of the country?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned in the House or outside the House-I think I said exactly the same thing in both cases. In January, 1973, I ordered an inquiry following a report by the RCMP into Hamilton Harbour Commission activities. Later, while the inquiry was taking place, the police thought that the same thing might be found in the deal that took place on lies d'Orleans and Ste. Petronille. They asked to extend the inquiry. We then asked the RCMP to extend the inquiry to those places, I think between November 12 and November 18, 1974.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister if he is ordering an inquiry into dredging operations all across the country instead of waiting for the RCMP to request such an inquiry as happened in the Quebec situation. I might say this is completely at odds with the reply the minister gave yesterday.
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any contradiction. I do not believe that any person who has any kind of objectivity will believe there is a contradiction. I said there was an inquiry. I ordered the inquiry not only in Hamilton but in Quebec as well. I do not know if the gentleman is serious, however, when he asks if I am going to order an inquiry everywhere there is dredging in Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the federal government spends millions of dollars every year on dredging contracts all across the country could the minister, in order to set the public mind at ease, establish such an inquiry, to determine that this practice is not widespread across the country in cases where the federal government is involved in dredging.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is in this country a body known as the RCMP which makes inquiries all the time in various fields. If there is any kind of report which shows that there has been wrongdoing somewhere, I am going to order an inquiry.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answers of the Minister of Transport, may I direct a serious question to the Solicitor General which is related to problems concerning the Hamilton Harbour Commission. As the RCMP raided the Minister of Labour's office in Hamilton during the last election campaign and seized certain documents from that office, can the Solicitor General say what are the names of the persons charged with any offence or offences and what was the charge that enabled RCMP officers to take that unusual course; and it was unusual.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first part of the hon. member's question seeks information which ought to be sought some other way. However, the Solicitor General apparently is prepared to answer.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am told that the procedure adopted was not unusual. There was investigation into irregularities concerning the Hamilton Harbour Commission and the RCMP were pursuing their investigation. They were seeing witnesses and seizing documents. They felt that the Minister of Labour might have some documents which would be useful to the investigation. That tied in with other information they had. They obtained a search warrant to obtain those documents, and that is what they did.

February 28, 1975
Oral Questions
As I said in the House the other night, charges have been laid against five persons, three of whom have already been found guilty, which shows that the investigation has been successful up to this point. Two others are to go on trial shortly, and the inquiry is still continuing.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to know the nature of the case, or the evidence. I am asking a serious question. Under the Criminal Code, before you can issue a search warrant, particularly if it is to be used against a distinguished member of the House of Commons during an election campaign, a charge has to be laid and an affidavit or an information sworn. The necessary forms must be completed. I am asking, against whom were the charges laid and what was the nature of the charges that enabled the RCMP to obtain that warrant?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for specific information. I will try to get it and give it to him afterwards.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am asking the Solicitor General to measure up to his responsibilities, to stop acting in a cavalier fashion, to examine the facts and to let us have the information by Monday, so that the Minister of Labour may return to this House and deal with strikes. At present, there is almost economic anarchy in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In all fairness, the hon. member for Calgary North is making a representation and not asking a specific supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. Is the Solicitor General prepared to examine those documents and give us the information?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will do that, although I have some doubts about the correctness of the statement the hon. member made about the law.



TRANSPORT


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport arising from the answers of yesterday and today. He said that on the advice of the Minister of Justice certain payments were held up. I ask the minister if, subsequent to the date when he ordered the investigation of these companies, moneys were paid to the company in respect of which payment has now been held up?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday is that for the Quebec dredging, and I think this concerns only what we call the line north of Ste. Petronille, at the end of the island, the government owed, I think, $1.3 million or $1.4 million. I regret that I do not have the exact figure. It was thought, rightly or wrongly, in Hamilton, that the same kind of 
deal might have taken place in Ste. Petronille and they decided to withhold the money. That is all.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister cannot give me the information I seek today, perhaps he can take the question as notice and provide the information later. Were moneys paid to these companies subsequent to when an investigation was ordered?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, they were not paid after the time the investigation was started in Quebec.
* * +



FISHERIES


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I undertook to give the hon. member for South Shore additional information on the closed ICNAF area, Brown's and La Have Bank. Georges Bank, as the hon. member knows, has been open to fishing during February. This bank closes for three months, commencing tomorrow, to protect haddock stocks.
As for violations in the closed area, I can advise that we have escorted three vessels, two Spanish and one Russian, out of the closed area in the last two weeks and filed a citation of this closed area to the flag state responsible. Reports on fishing activity in this closed area are received from our Maritime regional office by my office on a daily basis.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of State responsible for Fisheries for his information. May I direct a supplementary question which is related to his answer to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the cabinet decided yesterday to transfer responsibility for the construction of 75-foot and longer ships from his department to the Department of Fisheries, does the minister intend to inform this House of any comprehensive program covering the government's over-all shipbuilding policy? If so, when can we expect this type of announcement?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think, very likely, it will be made by next Wednesday.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Has the government decided to conduct an inquiry into the operations of the SIU, into violence on the waterfront, and into related matters. I understand that the minister has considered this question for many months. I am asking the minister this question as I find it difficult to understand how a minister pursuing this matter conscientiously would not have come to a decision by this time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asks if any kind of inquiry is going on or whether a decision has been reached with regard to any kind of inquiry. The point is that an inquiry, in the sense of an investigation, is going on, but there has been no decision about a specific inquiry under the Inquiries Act, which was mentioned at one time. There has been no decision on that so far.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have always regarded the minister as a stubborn but straightforward man. Can he explain why it is taking him so long to decide whether there is to be an independent inquiry? I am not a suspicious man, but I find it difficult to accept this kind of delay.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will try to help the Leader of the Opposition by making the point that a formal inquiry is not the normal way in which we proceed in matters which may be the subject of the criminal process. Instead, investigations leading to charges constitute the normal way. If he would like another adjective to associate with what we are trying to do, the word is thorough. We want to be thorough, before reaching any conclusions, just as we ought to be thorough before laying any criminal charge. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is important not to jump to conclusions without full and adequate examination of the issues.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning a number of responses given today to a question asked by the hon. member for Peace River about dates, payments to particular dredging contractors, and contracts. It also relates to a series of questions by the hon. member for Central Nova which appear at pages 3621 and 3622 of Hansard. They relate to certain correspondence. In order to refresh the minister's memory, I quote from page 3622:
-I am the one who, in January 1973, two years ago, ordered the RCMP to inquire into alleged Hamilton irregularities. The same is true for the Quebec part of the dredging. I can produce the letters at any time.
An unidentified member then asked:
Will you table the letters?
Oral Questions The minister replied:
Yes, I can do that. I have them here. I will have copies made. They are very regular letters. We thought there was some irregularity.
Later in the question period, as I recall it, there was an indication that the Chair had interpreted that as an undertaking given by the minister that he would in fact table the letters. In view of what was said yesterday, and in view of the question put today by the hon. member for Peace River, I now ask the minister to fulfill his undertaking and table those letters in the House.


Jean Marchand: On the same subject, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member says is true. However, I had not read all the file yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: I tell you this in all honesty. If you want me to tell you a lie, I can tell you a lie. The problem is as follows and I hope the hon. member will accept the explanation. I have to consult with the Department of Justice and the Department of the Solicitor General because there are some names in these letters which may concern some individuals. As far as the letter is concerned, the date is there. I have it here. However, I want to be sure there are no legal implications for persons who might suffer if this letter were tabled.
Mb. Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the unanimous consent of the House to expand on a question that I answered on February 20 to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley which I think is ambivalent and misleading. I would like to expand on it at this time, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: The Postmaster General can only do so with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I believe the question should be
answered as fully as possible. The hon. member asked about the effect of the strike by Mint employees on series three of the Olympic coins. My answer leaves the impression there is no problem. I should make it clear that we have possession of all series III coins that had been completed at the time the strike began. It is a subtle but very important difference. The other question in his preamble was whether or not we had contingency plans for supplementing the unexpected losses being encountered in the overall coin problem. I would say that in my department we have certain contingency plans. They are unofficial in nature and not prepared at the request of the government. They are simply for my own benefit.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Northwest Territories



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
February 28, 1975

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-51, to increase the representation of the Northwest Territories in the House of Commons and to establish a commission to readjust the electoral boundaries of the Northwest Territories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide an additional representative for the Northwest Territories in the House of Commons, commencing with the next parliament, and to establish a means of dividing the Northwest Territories into two electoral districts. More generally, the bill is intended to complete the process begun with the Representation Act, 1974, of according equitable representation in the House of Commons to all provinces and territories of Canada, and to complement Bill C-3 which provides for representation in the Senate for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory in giving a greater voice in parliament to the territories.
The present constituency of the Northwest Territories is unique in Canada today. Its outstanding feature is, of course, its immense size; its area covers over 1,300,000 square miles and is far greater than one member of parliament can physically be expected to visit and to be thoroughly acquainted with. Communications and transportation difficulties add to the problems faced by the member for the Northwest Territories despite considerable advances in recent years.
Members are well acquainted with recent economic and social developments in the north which have been rapidly expanding the role of the Northwest Territories in the life of the Canadian nation. These developments have been accompanied by accelerated population growth. The population of the Northwest Territories was approximately 16,000 when the original constituency of Mackenzie River first came into existence in 1952, and was recently estimated by Statistics Canada to be 38,000 in July, 1974. This is double the estimate for the Yukon territory. Finally, it is well to remember the special federal presence within the Northwest Territories and the special federal role in the development and government of the Northwest Territories.
Many proposals for the division of the Northwest Territories into two constituencies have been studied by the government, including those suggested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) in private members' bills. Cultural and economic kinship among the people of the eastern and western regions, as well as geographical differences between east and west, seem to provide almost natural, though rough, constituency boundaries. The government has found, however, that the exact position of optimal constituency boundaries would be most difficult to establish without a comprehensive examination of all relevant factors. More importantly, it is

our belief that it is of the utmost importance to give the prime role in the determination of the boundaries to residents of the territories themselves and to provide a mechanism through which interested residents may present their views.
For this reason, the bill provides that this task be entrusted, under amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to an independent commission chaired by a judge and with two members to be chosen by the Speaker of the House from among the residents of the Northwest Territories. The representation commissioner would be the fourth member. The duty of this commission would be to consult with the residents of the Northwest Territories and to make recommendations for the setting of constituency boundaries with reference to ease of transportation and communication, to community of interest within constituencies and to maintaining a rough balance in geographical size between them. These factors have been selected as being of particular pertinence to the Northwest Territories.
In conclusion, I think we may be confident that the passage of this bill will, in conjunction with the Representation Act, ensure a distribution of seats in this House which not only will be just and equitable but also will provide Canada with a representative House equipped to face the challenges of the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I say at once that this party will give its support to the passage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Before I give some of the reasons why this is the case, may I make a suggestion to which the government House leader and my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) might give some thought. In light of the fact that the standing committee is seized with problems concerning other matters, in order to facilitate the passage of this bill I suggest some thought be given to considering it in committee of the whole and giving it third reading today. I offer the suggestion that on this interesting Friday afternoon we might deal in that way with this very important matter. We might speed its passage here and get it to the other place so that it may become law in ample time to carry out the studies to which the minister referred. I make this proposal on behalf of our party.
The Northwest Territories has always presented a very difficult problem with regard to representation. It has been fortunate, though, in getting good quality representation. I think back to the first member for the Northwest Territories, the late Merv Hardie, a friend of mine and of many people in this House. He was a good and effective member who did a great deal for the people of his constituency. Mr. Gene Rheaume, a member of this party, in the face of serious handicaps caused by the size of the constituency and other factors did a most effective job of representation in the opinion of most members of the House and, I believe, of his constituents.
February 28, 1975

The Northwest Territories needed people of this calibre because of its very nature, its vastness and extent. I have travelled through much of it. My hon. friend from Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), a minister at one time, is familiar with the stresses which can result from the sheer size of this constituency which, in itself, is enough to cause a tremendous amount of anxiety in those who represent it. I notice that clause 7 of the bill refers to certain criteria which are to be borne in mind. It provides:
In preparing its report the commission for the Northwest Territories shall be governed by the following rules ... the commission shall give special consideration to the following factors:
(i)	ease of transportation and communications within the electoral districts;
(ii)	geographical size and shape of the electoral districts relative to one another; and
(iii)	any community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the Northwest Territories.
I come from a constituency to which those words could aptly be applied, as do many of my colleagues in this House. I recall that when the first bill dealing with the readjustment of boundaries was going through its various stages, words of that kind were used by myself in an attempt to persuade the commissions to make certain dispositions as to constituency boundaries. I am sure other members made the same point. It is comforting to know that at this stage the government has recognized that these are matters which have to be taken into consideration when drawing up electoral boundaries. I would hope that some time when we are reviewing the provisions of the general legislation, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, criteria of this sort would be inserted because they constitute a very strong recommendation and one to which heed should be given by the commissions.
Representing, as I did, the old constituency of Peace River which occupied almost one third of the territorial mass of the province of Alberta, I can say that it presented, on a smaller scale, the same challenges in the way of representation as do the Northwest Territories, and these guidance rules would have been most useful.
We approve the legislation because we agree with what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has said. In addition, for too many years the affairs of the territories have been dominated by a form of neo-colonialism on the part of many of the officials of the department. I see signs, now, that this is disappearing but there is still a certain amount of it present. It constitutes a further problem for those who represent the constituency. I recall an old friend and colleague, the late Jack Sissons, the first judge of the territorial court of the Northwest Territories, engaging in a legal battle with the administration in an attempt to bring about an examination of a judicial matter of which he was fully seized so as to secure equity for the native people of the territories. One needs to read the autobiography of this distinguished jurist in order to understand how difficult it was for him, as it must have been for all the members from the Northwest Territories, to cope with this department. I am glad to see that some of the old attitudes are disappearing, and I think the process should be expedited. I believe the minister's intentions are good; the test will be his capacity to overcome the resistance which can still make itself felt in his department.
Northwest Territories
After long years of isolation because of conditions over which they had no control-I sometimes think they were fortunate-the native people of the territories have suddenly been faced with the impact of the twentieth century. In comparatively recent times the Northwest Territories have shown signs of yielding a number of valuable products which the outside world appears determined to discover, develop, process and send away to other parts of the country and the world. This has placed the Indian and Innuit people in immediate proximity to the benefits and also to the drawbacks of modern technology. They have not had an opportunity to prepare themselves over the years, and it has come as a tremendous shock.
Having spoken with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), and from my own experience travelling there and talking to the people, I know precisely how difficult this transition has been for them. It will take a great many years before the difficulties of adjustment are successfully overcome. Conflicts of a social nature as well as of an economic nature have been emphasized to an extent unknown in other parts of Canada, and it has been exceedingly difficult for one member representing such a constituency to do the job that needs to be done.
Let me seize the opportunity on this occasion to suggest to the government that it expedite Bill C-3, which adds Senate representation for the Northwest Territories and Yukon, as soon as possible. These two bills are companion measures, and I am sure the government House leader will agree with me, especially if he can get the kind of co-operation that this party is offering from the party of my hon. friend to my left, that this course should be followed. I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is just aching to urge that the distinguished body that is known as the other place should have among its membership a representative from the Northwest Territories.
For these reasons and a great many more that I could talk about for hours as a result of my knowledge of the needs in the north, we urge the House to give rapid passage to this bill at all stages and to send it to the other place.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to make one of the suggestions that has been put forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It certainly was not my intention to make the other one. If there is any doubt about what I mean by the one and the other, I shall make that clear in a moment. At any rate, we do favour referring this bill to a committee of the whole House instead of to a standing committee. We think that the bill can be given approval through all stages in a matter of a very few minutes.
I want to pay my particular respects to my colleague the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) for the persistence with which he has worked on this matter. As a member who has had to represent people spread over 1.5 million square miles, he is very much aware of how difficult it is for one person to represent that vast area and its far-flung population. He has felt that one of the best contributions he could make to his area and to his people is to insist that the Northwest Territories have two mem-
3672

Northwest Territories
bers in the House of Commons, and we are delighted that his goal is being achieved.
I appreciate the reference made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) to the bills that the hon. member for Northwest Territories has placed before parliament, both in the twenty-ninth parliament and in this one. Bill C-299 is the hon. member's bill in this parliament and it calls for two seats for the Northwest Territories. The hon. member for Northwest Territories would like to compliment the government on finally having seen the wisdom of this proposal, and we are glad that this present bill, C-51, is to be put through all its remaining stages today.
I believe my colleague would agree with the suggestion made by the government-in fact, I know he agrees-that there be an independent commission to draw the line between the two seats. There are certain problems that must be looked at. In his bill my hon. friend suggested the names Mackenzie and Franklin for the two ridings. He tells me that since then he has been thinking about it some more, and that perhaps the logical names for the two ridings would be Western Arctic and Eastern Arctic. At any rate, this will be a matter to be decided by independent commission that will be appointed under the terms of the bill, after it hears from the people of the north, and we are glad that this action is being taken. We think this is an appropriate way to bring the people of the Northwest Territories, whose population is growing, as the minister pointed out this morning, into the mainstream of Canadian life, and we look forward to the fact that in the thirty-first parliament we shall have in this House of Commons two members from this area as well as a member from the Yukon.
I could have stopped here and resumed my seat, Mr. Speaker, but for the reference that the hon. member for Peace River dragged in at the end of his remarks. I have too much respect for the people of the north to palm off on them members who would be appointed by the government to sit in a house that is not elected by the people of Canada. Therefore, we shall give unanimous consent to this bill going to committee of the whole and to its being given third reading today, but don't ask us to deal today with Bill C-3. We want the north to be represented where the action is-here in the House of Commons.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some brief comments on this significant occasion. What is happening here today represents decades of effort toward achieving broader representation for the Northwest Territories. I think what is happening today would not have occurred had not the present member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) been elected. He is the first member from this great, vast geographic territory who is of native descent. I have long felt, both as a former minister of northern affairs and also as one interested in the development of the north before being appointed to that position, that the need for broader representation was recognized particularly by the native population.
My real purpose in participating in this debate today is to refer briefly to some of the historic facts that have emerged in the pursuit of more representative democracy in the north. It is only 22 years since the Department of

Northern Affairs and National Resources was established, with its first minister being the Hon. Jean Lesage. It was only in 1959 that the Indian population received the franchise, a very recent historical development. Only as recently as 1962 did the Eskimo population receive the right to vote in this country, a quite recent development.
I think tribute should be paid to a former prime minister of this country, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who is not with us today, because he more than anyone else can claim the credit for constantly keeping in view wider and more responsible representation for the north. It was under his administration that both groups of our native people received the right to vote for representation in the Parliament of Canada. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) long sponsored a bill providing for two members for the Northwest Territories as well as for the Yukon territory, and his name should be mentioned in passing this morning.
To deal specifically with the bill that is before us, it is actually going to accomplish what we attempted to accomplish in 1963. Those members of far off days who are still in the House will recall that a bill was before parliament at that time to divide the Northwest Territories into two territories-not two electoral districts but two territories. The idea was to achieve adequate representation from the eastern Arctic which is made up primarily of native peoples. The complaint had been heard repeatedly that it was impossible for the native people to receive adequate representation in the House of Commons because, in the first instance, they did not have the vote until 1962 and, in the second instance, they would be overwhelmed by the voting strength concentrated in other parts of the country.
As I said in my opening remarks, that problem has been overcome by the fact that we have representation in the House of Commons by a member of the native people. This is a tribute to the comparatively rapid development that has taken place on the basis of the great upsurge in education as well as in the economy. It is a tribute that this situation has come about within the short space of two decades since this parliament and the Government of Canada became specifically interested in the development of this 3.5 million square miles that make up the Northwest Territories.
One point I should like to make before concluding is that there is ample information available as a result of the consultations which took place in preparation for the division of the territories contemplated in the legislation before this House in 1963. Prior to the defeat of the Diefenbaker Conservative government, consultation had taken place over a long period of time. A lot of information was accumulated which would provide the helpful background information required as the government contemplates the establishment of two electoral districts in the Northwest Territories. In those days, consultation was the order of the day. When there was a change in government, the new government decided to establish a commission, namely, the Carrothers commission, which moved around the northern half of Canada and brought in recommendations that resulted in the disappearance of the idea to divide the territories into two areas.
February 28, 1975

Proposals have been made about naming the new constituencies, calling one Eastern Arctic and the other Western Arctic. I do not think that is good enough, in view of the romantic and historic past of the Northwest Territories. I would suggest that the name to be chosen for the new territory should be retained in the name of the electoral district. It is an Eskimo word-Innusiaq. I think it would be ideal for the purposes contemplated in Bill C-51.
There are many problems in the Northwest Territories but there has been tremendous progress as a result of policies introduced in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Now that, at long last, some dozen years after the proposition was first put before this House, we are achieving the kind of representation that has been urgently required, I hope we will be able to move forward in dealing with some of the problems well known to those in this chamber.
I again congratulate the hon. member for Northwest Territories on his initiative in this regard and trust that the bill will receive speedy passage.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to say to those who have spoken on behalf of other parties that as far as this side is concerned, we would be agreeable to amending the order so as to have the bill considered in committee of the whole and, if possible, given third reading today.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development Committee, I would not agree. If it requires unanimous consent, I will not give that unanimous consent as I feel it should go to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is not designed to send the bill to that committee; it would send it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to make the same point, that this bill would not go to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. To do that would require unanimous consent, so I hope the hon. member for Laprai-rie (Mr. Watson) will give his consent and allow us to conclude the discussions on this bill today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let us give it a try. Does the House give unanimous consent to modifying the order so that the bill will be referred to committee of the whole House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mitchell William Sharp: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Farm Credit Act


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill at this time. From the bottom of my heart, and on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories, I would like to thank each and every hon. member of this House for giving speedy passage to a very important bill for the Northwest Territories and indeed for all of Canada. Thank you very, very much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mitchell William Sharp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, having in mind the co-operation which has been shown here today, I think there should be the reward of a slightly longer lunch hour. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
At 12.53 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-34, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting Bill C-34, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this the best in the world?


An hon. Member:: It is the biggest.


Mr. Epp:: It is the only thing in the world.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked, is this the best in the world? Compared to other programs, I would think it is one of the best in the world; and is for the best group of farmers in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize the importance of these proposals. The Farm Credit Corpora-
28996 -28'/2

February 28, 1975
Farm Credit Act
tion has administered this act for about 15 years and has made about 120,000 loans to farmers, totalling about $2 V* billion. That makes the Farm Credit Corporation the biggest single source of mortgage money for Canadian farmers, and it means that this piece of legislation is so important to Canadian farmers that it must be amended periodically to respond to the changing credit needs of the farm community. That is why these amendments are before the House today.
At the outset I must put in a plug for the pay-back record of farmers who have borrrowed under this program. In its 15 years of operation the Farm Credit Corporation has lost less than four cents on every $100 it has lent. I think this is something to brag about: we can brag about the honesty of the farmers who borrowed this money from the country, because they have been working under extreme conditions in order to pay back these loans. It also indicates that perhaps the Farm Credit Corporation was not taking the risks it should; just as the banking institutions do not take the risks that they should. Under the Bank Act they are allowed to charge interest rates that will cover a certain amount of risk, but if you ask them what they lose, the ratio is so small that you wonder if they are taking any risk at all. In this new Farm Credit Act we will be asking the Farm Credit Corporation to take more risks. I therefore ask the support of the House for the five major amendments which I propose.
The first amendment will increase the capital of the Farm Credit Corporation from $66 million to $100 million. This is important because the Farm Credit Corporation can borrow 25 times its capital from the federal Department of Finance. This, in effect, will allow the corporation to loan more money than in the past. This change is needed because farmers need more long-term capital today than ever before. Between 1951 and 1971, the total value of farm capital in Canada increased from $9.5 billion to $23.7 billion. The number of farms with annual sales of $5,000 has more than doubled. The number whose sales exceeded $10,000 increased by more than 500 per cent.
The second amendment is a technical one. Right now, the Farm Credit Act demands that the corporation take a first mortgage on land as security for loans. If this bill is passed, the Farm Credit Corporation could make loans on second or subsequent mortgages. It would give the farmers who already have a loan from the Farm Credit Corporation, or from some other loan organization, the option of getting a second and separate loan on a second mortgage. The first would not have to be renegotiated. A farmer who already has a first mortgage against his farm held by a lender other than the Farm Credit Corporation would also be able to borrow additional funds from the corporation on a second mortgage. If the first mortgage has a preferred interest rate, he would not have to change this. This would mean a saving to farmers who are lucky enough to have lower interest rates or better pay-back arrangements on their first mortgages than the Farm Credit Corporation could arrange if the two loans had to be consolidated as has been the case in the past.
Now we come to the most important part of the bill. There are three major amendments that will help young people to get started in farming. Look at the need. Between 1951 and 1971 the percentage of Canada's farmers

who were under 35 years of age dropped from 22 per cent to 15 per cent. This country cannot afford to let that trend continue. The demand for food will increase in our country and all over the world, so it is important for us to encourage more people to enter agriculture.
In recent years the Farm Credit Corporation has done a lot to tackle this problem. Between April 1, 1974, and December 31, 1974, 53 per cent of the corporation's loans were made to people under 35 years of age. We hope to make more than 5,000 loans to farmers under 35 years of age during 1975. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that according to letters received in my office and letters received by the Farm Credit Corporation and its district offices, many young people are waiting for this legislation to become effective.
Let us look at the three main features aimed at helping young farmers. Now, young farmers under the age of 35 who show above average management skills can get loans for up to 90 per cent of the productive value of their farm land and chattels. The amendments before the House call for even more, namely, for the making of loans of more than 90 per cent of the productive value of these assets to young farmers who have the drive and ability to make farming pay. In other words, we shall be lending money to young men according to their ability to farm, not according to how much money they have in the bank or in equity. That is the way most people think it should be.
We need this change because the market value of much of our best farm land has been forced to a much higher figure than its productive value. If we were to tie all our loans to the productive value of farm land, I am afraid this legislation would become worthless to many people wanting to buy a farm in the future. With the cost of land and chattels going up, it is also common sense to lift the maximum on our loans. This bill calls for maximum loan to farmers under 35 years to be increased to $150,000.
The bill also calls for a real breakthrough in our federal farm credit program. At present, loans can only be made to those whose main occupation is farming or will be farming once the loan has been made. That is no longer good enough. Many young men are able to get the backing they need to buy farm land, but need time before they can afford the livestock and equipment needed to make the farm generate enough income to cover both their farm bills and living costs. That is why we are proposing a new part to be added to the Farm Credit Act. Under it, we want to give loans to young people on condition that they become full-time farmers within five years. During this five-year period these young farmers will be able to hold regular jobs off the farm; this will help them get their farm operations under way.
As I have said, young farmers will be able to borrow as much as $150,000 under this legislation, plus an additional $50,000 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act for land, equipment, and so on. I think we should pass our stabilization legislation as quickly as possible so that both pieces of legislation can complement one another. If we lend money to young farmers, they must be assured that they will be able to pay back the money they have borrowed for land, equipment, and so on.
February 28, 1975

Some people in Canada have suggested that the state should own all the land. It would be terrible if that were to happen in Canada, if somebody decided that our farms should operate under such conditions. Our agricultural industry is the most productive industry in Canada; it has increased its productivity by 100 per cent per man in ten years, whereas the average industrial and commercial operation has Only increased its productivity by about 40 per cent per man in the last ten years. Our people deserve the right of private ownership. Most Canadians favour ownership of land. Most people who come to Canada from Britain, Europe and other parts of the world come here with the idea of owning land and being free to create something for themselves. To see that I am right all one has to do is examine conditions in countries where the state owns the land. Where the state owns it, there is not much incentive to produce: people are not prone to work so hard if they are not creating something for themselves; there is no incentive to work beyond a set time; there is no desire to run a combine all night if the weather for the next day is not promising. People on state-run farms prefer to stop in the middle of the afternoon. The same happens with the planting of crops. It is people who have pride of ownership, who want to create something, who are willing to work hard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: It is this, as I said earlier, which makes the 6 per cent of our people engaged in agricultural production our most efficient members of society. They have become so productive because there is the incentive to produce and create. Passage of this legislation, as well as of the stabilization legislation, is important if this momentum is to continue. Further, we can only guarantee the consumer that he will have a constant supply of high quality food at reasonable prices by passing legislation which will ensure a strong agricultural base in this country. The agricultural industry is extremely important for one third of our population in one way or another depends on it for jobs.
Any nation which does not have a healthy agricultural industry faces problems; its society is not healthy. So it is most important for us to pass this and other farm legislation as soon as possible. Our future food producers are the young farmers of today. They need this legislation which is important to all members of our society and I urge hon. members to give it to them.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has said in introducing this bill. He said this is one of the most important pieces of legislation on our statute books. I think most members of the House would concede that 20 years ago agriculture in all parts of Canada was in desperate straits. The government which assumed power in 1957 introduced a number of bills which still serve as guides for farm legislation: measures providing for stabilization of prices, for the Farm Credit Corporation, and so on, first introduced by the government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) stand as landmarks for all western countries to behold. A social scientist who examined legislation in the western world listed farm programs which we introduced as the most revolutionary type of legislation passed by any
Farm Credit Act
country in the western world in the last 70 years. I am glad the minister recognizes this.
We must deal with agriculture on a non-partisan basis. Agriculture is our main force for solving the world's biggest problem, that of feeding the hungry people of the world. This will call for maximum effort in which our agricultural industry must play its part. That means it is our duty to work in a non-partisan way, in the interests of the people of Canada and of all the world, and make sure that agriculture is given the tools and the freedom to finish the job.
The minister's comments about the importance of young farmers deserve to be dealt with at length. I would like to add to the views expressed by the minister by saying that we have not begun, in the western world, to farm the way we will have to farm in the next 20 to 30 years. We have always had unlimited land to develop. We have become very expert in extensive agricultural techniques. By "extensive" I mean extending over large areas of land and farming them with the techniques we have learned in dry land farming. It has been a great evolution in the field of science to see areas of the world that were once considered desert, like Saskatchewan, become among the most productive areas of the world. This great evolution of moving into dry areas, mastering the difficulties there and producing food is one of the great wonders of the modern world, particularly in respect of the people who did it. However, it is not enough. We must turn, now, to techniques of intensive agriculture in order to multiply two and three times the quantities we produced before with the same amount of land, water and air. Young farmers will be essential in this task. I know something of their flexibility, staying power and willingness to take the chances that will be required and, above all, I know the willingness of farmers to work, because I know something of the difficulties that we face in this field.
I am glad the minister recognizes that you cannot deal with a single item like farm credit and think that is the answer to all the problems. It has to be related to other fundamental parts of the program. The first fundamental part is marketing. It is on this most important, first function of agricultural policy that this government is weakest and has been for many years. Second is the question of stability of prices. There will shortly be a bill dealing with this before the House. We look forward to it; it is a move in the right direction.
The third principle is stability of income. We have a bill before us this session which deals with that problem for western farmers but not for eastern farmers. The fourth principle is a modern system of farm credit. That is what we are discussing now. The fifth principle is redevelopment. That is another subject on which I will have a lot to say during the next few months, and on which I think this government is very weak. I ask the minister, with regard to redevelopment, to take back into his department the branches and divisions that have been stolen from agriculture and have downgraded the department over the past ten years. These five principles are the test for measuring gauge that we in this party will apply to all policies produced by the government. If they meet the test of forward motion, the official opposition will support them.

Farm Credit Act
With respect to these Farm Credit Act amendments, I support the legislation. I wish to point out that we in the Diefenbaker administration started this type of modern farm credit program in 1959. However, three years after we passed the legislation it was in need of reform because changes occurred so rapidly. I recall some of the reforms brought in under the regulations whereby farmers were allowed to pay a share of crop payments instead of a fixed interest payment and capital repayment. We discussed the need of Indians on and off reservations having access to this legislation. We discussed the problems of city people, ex-young farmers who found no opportunity on a group farm of several sons moving to the city and wanting to come back but not being able to do so because the legislation insisted that a man had to be a 100 per cent farmer to get any money.
All these things began to be apparent within a few years of our passing this legislation. The tragedy is that it has taken us so long to get to the stage where knowledge of the need has been translated into legislative proposals. In the life of a nation, ten years is not very long. However, in the life of a young person on the farm or in the city whose hopes and ambitions have been frustrated, ten lost years do not refer to the recession or the depression; they refer to how long parliament took to reform this farm credit legislation.
I recall the changes brought in by the minister who succeeded me. His proposal was that we should increase the maximums. However, it was he who broke the original pledge of the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. In return for asking farmers who borrowed from the Farm Credit Corporation at 5 per cent interest when money could be borrowed at lower rates from other sources, we said if interest rates ever went above 5 per cent we would make sure that the farmers of this country could borrow at 5 per cent. It was an averaging or stabilizing device. The minister of agriculture who followed me broke the pledge and let interest rates rise. I will come back to that. Since that time we have had several amendments, mostly dealing with the size of loans, which have been of importance. However, today we have Bill C-34, before us. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we have several speakers on this side who will be making positive and, I hope, constructive proposals that will help improve this bill when we get it to committee.
My particular proposal deals with potential types of loans as opposed to loans on assets. I gathered from the minister's remarks that the criticisms of the Farm Credit Corporation in the past few years have dealt with the question of assets. We work like a group of bankers, on the assumption that before you lend any money you must have assets to equal the amount of the loan. Even though the proportion of assets is now down to 50 per cent or 60 per cent, I simply point out to the House-as I am sure thousands of farmers have pointed out to the government in the past ten years-that a young person, by no stretch of the imagination or in his wildest dreams, can ever accumulate the assets necessary for him to assume a huge loan.
What has actually happened is that the young man who wants to farm has had to ask his parents, uncles or neighbours to pledge their land in the taking out of a loan, even

though he is using the farm he is buying as one of the items of collateral. This means we have tied up the assets of the older generation who would like to move on to a little easier life after many years of hard work, but cannot get off their farming operations because their land is tied to backing a loan for a son or neighbour. The improvements in the bill really do not grapple with this problem. They do reduce the asset requirements and allow for second mortgages and other types of collateral. Instead of this, I ask the minister, who has always spoken up for agriculture, now to speak up loudly and clearly on this matter and say that he will see to it-he can do this without amending the act but through the regulations- that loans will be granted to young people without assets; that loans will be granted on the basis of a young man's ability to farm, to produce a good plan, to demonstrate that he knows how to succeed.
Is this idea so revolutionary? In 1934 the United States Congress during the Roosevelt period put such legislation on its books and it is still there. Any private lending agency in the United States is empowered to lend to any young farmer without assets the amount the lending agency feels fit for the type of operation contemplated. The only limitation placed on the application of that legislation is this: the young man has to bring in signatures of ten neighbouring farmers who know him and will vouch for his integrity and ability. They are supposed to put a nominal sum on the line as a guarantee of good faith when signing that document. I doubt whether in the last 25 years a United States bank or other financial agency has ever asked an individual to forfeit that deposit. When any young man can get ten farmers behind him, he is not very likely to fail: they do not do this to help a neighbouring lad unless they intend to ensure that he makes a success of what he is doing.
Here is another example. In the period between 1948 and 1959 the Ontario government had the young farmers loan act on its books, and even though the loans were not large they were granted mainly on the basis of the recommendation of neighbours of the applicant. I have not looked at that legislation for years, but my recollection is that in the 11 years of the operation, losses amounted to about $2,000. Millions of dollars were lent, yet there was only this minuscule loss. So these are not new ideas.
A third precedent was in 1958 when Canadian money was given to a foreign government, the government of Malaysia, for clearing the jungles for the farmers of that country as a means of preventing the infiltration of communists from the north. On selected ten-acre plots, bred rubber trees were planted on about seven acres and a variety of other plants on the remainder. Canadian money provided these Malaysian farmers with a monthly sum on which to keep their families alive until the rubber trees began to procedure seven years later. When these men obtained a cash flow equal to the cost of their farming operations, equal to the cost of looking after their families, the rest of their income was considered net income and the Canadian government asked for 15 per cent in return payment of the loan. That debt is now paid. Isn't it about time we did the same sort of thing for young Canadians?
February 28, 1975

I could go on to give other examples. However, I hope my proposal is acceptable to the minister. Let us see whether we can get away from all this red tape, tying up acreages all around the young people we are trying to help. Free the older generation to do as they like with their own farms. This is a matter which is on my conscience. I tried to make this change when I was minister of agriculture in 1962. I put it before the advisory committee of the Farm Credit Corporation on two occasions, but on both occasions it was turned down. I have regretted ever since that I did not use the power the people had given me to push it through: we could have had the legislation in place for the last 13 years. I urge the minister not to carry the load on his back that I have carried through my failure to get this help to our young people. I realize there have to be advisory committees. But they are only advisory committees; they are not our masters. The electors of this country are the people to whom we are responsible.
A similar thing happened to the minister of agriculture of Ontario. He proposed a scheme under which young farmers could go into the livestock business provided they stuck with it for seven years, at the end of which he would forgive them a large protion of the capital debt. His advisory board turned him down. I am saying to the minister, "Thirteen years ago I had my opportunity and I tried to push this proposal forward. I have carried this on my back for 13 years, and I hope you do not have to do the same thing."
It is about time we moved ahead in this field of loans and got away from the worshipping of assets. Other institutions, other interest groups have done so. The Bank of America, in California, developed its whole banking operations on the concept of lending money on the basis of cash flow, the earning power of the people to whom it was lending money. I would like to see this done for the young people in Canada who want to farm. If this was important 13 years ago when the average farm loan was around $10,000, it is even more important today when the average farm loan is around $45,000 with a ceiling of $150,000. It is not the amount of the loan which kills a borrower; it is the interest he has to pay because of high rates tied to the lending rate of the government with its inflationary ways of doing things. The effect is that over a 30-year period a young farmer will pay $3 in interest over and above the $1 he has borrowed; in other words, if he borrows $100,000 he knows he will have to pay $300,000 in addition by way of interest, under the present set-up.
I do not say farm productivity will not be able to afford this in the future, but it means that 75 per cent of a man's effort goes into payment of interest and only 25 per cent into repayment of money borrowed. The same thing applies to a person buying a home. The price of a home in Toronto now is $57,000. A person buying it will have to pay another $150,000 in interest. This is the logic of the capitalintensive economy in which we live.
I hope the minister is sincere when he tells us we have to support young farmers. I do not care whether the young man comes from a farm or from a city. With the tremendous emphasis today on knowledge of business techniques, some of our best farmers are coming from the cities. In the past we have discriminated against these people on the ground that they were city people, and very often they
Farm Credit Act
could get no help at all. This bill takes a big step forward. A young man may, if he wishes, continue to work in the city, but if it is understood that he intends to become a full-time farmer, money can still be lent to him. As I say, that is a big step forward. I hope we can tie it in with the proposal I have just made and remove this silly asset requirement. The asset requirement makes it impossible for nine out of ten young men to get a farm today; only one in ten has an uncle or a father on a farm.
Sitting in the gallery at the present time is a farmer with three sons who has already tied up his holdings to get two sons started. He has a third son now ready, but the farmer is still young and he wants to keep on farming. At the same time he is helping a neighbour lad. I know he is a young farmer because he is the same age as I am, but he has three sons and a neighbour boy who are ready. All his assets are tied up for all the years the sons will take to pay off the debts. So I plead not only for the sons but for the old man too.
Secondly, I suggest that besides the concept of potential lending, which has a record of little or no losses, we should look for a new method of payment. My second proposal is that if a farmer comes into a plan, particularly a livestock plan which means a five-year to seven-year pay-out period before he can get going, during that period we should not take any repayments from him. Then when he does get a cash flow, the first charge on that cash flow should be the cost of operation and an agreed amount for his living. The balance will be considered net.
I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and those gnomes who advise him will argue very strenuously against this type of proposal, but I also know that it is actuarially sound. If you allowed the farmer his cost of operation and family living, the government would get more money back at a faster rate if it took 15 per cent of the net rather than a 6 per cent interest rate. With a loan level of 8 per cent, perhaps it would have to be split 18, 19 or 20 per cent to the 82 to 80 per cent to get your money back; but there would be peace of mind for the young man who borrowed this huge sum of money. He would have the knowledge that his family would be looked after, that his operation operating cost would be looked after, and when he gets a cash flow he would not object to paying 15 to 18 per cent of his profit to the Farm Credit Corporation which lent him the money. This figure would have to be projected on a percentage basis, a calculation the Farm Credit Corporation is well qualified to make.
This new type of repayment proposal would mean that during a period of two or three bad years, such as the livestock producers are now experiencing, they would not lose their shirts or their farms. When crops and returns are exceptionally good, as they were two or three years ago in the livestock industry, a return of 15 to 18 per cent of the net to the government would be much greater than it would with a 6 to 7 per cent interest rate. As I say, this has been done in Malaysia and it can be done here. It would be up to the minister to fight it out with the Department of Finance to see whether it could be done.
We are talking here, admittedly, about young people. How many will there be? I have looked over the tables but

February 28, 1975
Farm Credit Act
I do not think the number of young people demanding these loans at the beginning will be more than 2,000 or 3,000, with perhaps an additional 1,000 a year from then on in, though I may be wrong about that. I suggest the Minister of Finance would be better off to take 15 per cent or 18 per cent of the net profit, though the exact percentage would of course have to be agreed upon. I would particularly recommend this proposal for those who come off reservations or farm on Indian reservations. In my district a farmer and his associates saved for ten years while on an Indian reservation. Finally they saved $10,000 and in 1974 received a very large loan; Indian Affairs was very generous to them. However, the interest rate and a fixed rate of return in the livestock business could break this man's and his wife's heart over the next two or three years. There are five or six other families on the same reservation fighting now to save a few dollars and their life's dream could also be destroyed. What I am describing in my own constituency I am sure could be described by other members with Indians in their areas.
I think the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), with all the willingness in his department to help if they only knew how, would be sympathetic to some kind of repayment scheme based on a share of the profit. I ask them not to worry about incentive. If you give a guy 80 to 85 per cent of the profit, he will work. I suggest these proposals are worthy of consideration and I hope they will be matched by other proposals from our side of the House. I conclude my remarks by saying that Bill C-34 is a good bill. The amendments in it are good amendments. All I ask is that in the committee the minister sit down on a non-partisan basis and try to make it a heck of a lot better.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be such a congenial atmosphere this afternoon that it almost seems like a love-in. Certainly a partisan politician would almost hate to participate in the debate. First of all, I must say that I am very happy to note that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was his usual very modest and humble self when he introduced the bill. Certainly he spoke in a sincere and low-key manner. At the outset I want to say that I and those of my party who are here endorse the bill before us.


An hon. Member:: Where are all the others?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Stanley and I are united on this point. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, we can deal with this bill very quickly. We support the amendments, particularly those relating to additional loans that are now being made to young people. They are worth while and they are, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said, long overdue. A debate like this gives us an opportunity to stress once again to all members of the House, particularly those from rural Canada, that we have an obligation to say to those from urban Canada that it is very important to build a strong agricultural industry; particularly in a country such as ours where agriculture is the economic base.
Canada is one of the few countries of the world that produces a surplus of food, and it should be our moral obligation to produce as much food as we can. This is our obligation to mankind, particularly at a time when so

many people in the world are dying from lack of food. We see expanding populations in all nations of the world and diminishing agricultural producing areas due to the madness with which mankind plans cities today by putting concrete over good agricultural land and topsoil. Thus, this country and the parliamentarians in this House are obligated to make the number one priority in this country the maximization of food production, not only for the people of Canada but for all mankind.
I urge upon the government that the only way it can do this is by providing farmers with a stable economy and price guarantees so they will know in the spring what they are going to get in the fall. The farmer, like anyone else in our society, is faced with many things he cannot determine. He is faced, first of all, with world climatic conditions; he cannot determine rainfalls and he cannot determine frosts; he cannot determine what conditions will be in China, the Soviet Union or elsewhere. He cannot control international markets. Because of these uncertain and unknown factors, the farmer needs from the Government of Canada and the provincial governments as many guarantees as they can possibly muster. These guarantees must be of the following order. There must be, first, a price guarantee for his produce. That is a basic necessity. Second, and this is where I disagree with members of the Conservative Party particularly, there must be very strong marketing boards so the farmer has some clout in the marketplace. The marketing board should be for the farmer what the trade union is for the worker, what the professional association is for the lawyer and the doctor, what the real estate association is for the real estate agent, and so on. The farmer needs that type of clout in the marketplace and he needs that type of vehicle to enable him to bargain for the best justifiable future. He does not have that advantage in the market structure of today.
If the farmer is guaranteed those things, he will produce food. If he produces all the food possible, Canada can make a real contribution for the hungry people of the world. In the past we have been faced with the disgrace of food surpluses in this country. It was scandalous a few years ago when the government paid farmers not to grow wheat. I think most members of this House now realize that was a mistake. Instead of putting money into growing wheat, the funds should have been put into storage facilities in this country and into developing programs to help farmers diversify into other areas of food production. I think it was a tremendous mistake to pay farmers not to grow wheat.
Last fall we experienced another surplus. That was the CEMA surplus of eggs which resulted in great controversy. We would not have had a surplus of eggs in this country if there had been proper storage facilities and a proper delivery system in order to channel the eggs to countries where they were needed. We could have powdered and processed those eggs for storage and provided them as part of our foreign aid program to countries which needed them. We can use all the surpluses of food we can produce in this country, through foreign aid, by establishing a world food bank, a Canadian food bank or what have you, and feeding the starving people of the world. That should be our number one priority. When it comes to food
February 28, 1975

production, we must maximize that production in this country for the sake not just of the agricultural economy but for all people in the world.
The bill before us contains a number of important amendments which, as I have said, all of us are willing to support and endorse wholeheartedly. We in this party have been suggesting for years that we should make credit available at lower interest rates, easier terms and fewer restrictions for our young farmers. If one looks around the farming economies, including my own riding, he will find that the farmers' average age is 57. What does that say about farming today? I am sure the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) and members from other cities in this country realize that when the average age of the workers is in the area of 57, something must be wrong with industry, in terms of planning.
If this trend continues in agriculture, for instance, we will have fewer farms and farmers. If that happens, we will have fewer small, rural communities, towns and villages and it will destroy the whole fabric of this lifestyle. That destruction will occur even if there is affluence in some farming areas because of the high price of wheat, but when that happens there will be an economic change. What will happen then is that the large farms will become larger because the owners or the farm corporations will buy out the small farms, put in bigger equipment and machinery and continue to expand their operations. That will continue unless we adopt programs which take chances on young farmers, giving them more money- hopefully, interest free. We must give them all the encouragement we can in order that they can firmly establish themselves in the farm business.
If I can get the minister's ear for one minute, I should like to tell him that the one thing he should be very concerned about is trying to get the Farm Credit Corporation and other branches of his department working in that way to improve the situation in practical terms. The land bank development program and the storage program in Saskatchewan are good examples of this. We must maximize co-operation between the provincial governments and the federal government. These programs in Saskatchewan are working very well, but they would work even better if we had more co-operation from Ottawa. I think the people of Saskatchewan will endorse these programs pretty heavily this June or July, whenever the election is held in that province, and I believe the minister is very much aware of that.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the Minister of Agriculture referred earlier to the great contributions the various parties have made to agriculture and the farming economy. I think it goes without saying that this party has always been concerned about the welfare of the farmer. In fact this party was, basically, born among the farmers and the urban workers on the prairies. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the late Mr. Coldwell and others of our party have represented farming constituencies and were elected basically because the farmers of this country wanted a change and a new political regime. They wanted some clout in the marketplace, some bargaining power. Our party fully realizes that if we are to have a sound national economy we must fulfil our obligations in respect
Farm Credit Act
of world humanitarian values, and the farming economy is where we must start.
I hope this bill passes second reading today, is moved expeditiously through committee and third reading stages and becomes law as quickly as possible so that the farmers of this country can enjoy the benefits of these amendments.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: After the statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) referring to possible improvements in farm credit, I realize this is needed in the present system and I shall certainly support the legislation, which is capable of improving the farmer's state of affairs.
He mentioned our young farmers, and I commend him for that. I also appreciated his reference to collective farming in certain European countries and all the drawbacks involved in such a system. He gets there my wholehearted approval. However, I should be very much pleased if we could have here in Canada a system where farmers would get some return from their farming operation without having to go into debt all the time. That is the current situation.
I realize that under present conditions loans are needed because the system is inherently stupid. But nonetheless, farming, as any other operation, should be organized in such a way that the operator could get his living out of it. How come it was found some 40 years ago that families of 12 children could live on the land but nowadays they cannot make ends meet with reduced families? All the problems they have come from somewhere. I find amazing we do not stop long enough to analyze that situation.
Credit is vital to many of our good operators, and even more so to the average farmer. I will give an example of how the Farm Credit Corporation's attitude can influence rural development in one area. One appraising criterium that biases the whole long term credit philosophy is the market value. The Farm Credit Corporation and the Farm Credit Board are similar agencies. Being in essence the only lenders, it may be concluded that they determine the market value of farms. If they do not lend, or not enough, clearly the selling price will be directly influenced by the amounts made available to borrowers. We are in a vicious circle. The officials will cynically say at times: "There is no buyer." Indeed, they are the only buyers, because no other business can compete with a Crown corporation funded with public grants. I wonder sometimes whether for the sake of profit we are not altering the objectives sought by the sponsors of this bill. Are the welfare measures which are mostly financed by the federal government not used to counterbalance the irresponsibility of some departments, such as the Department of Agriculture, and more specifically the Farm Credit Corporation?
When will the various branches of the federal government and the Crown corporations consider themselves as part of a single enterprise serving all Canadian citizens? Then, those mighty brains who work in complete isolation like independent private concerns and insist above all on profitability and efficiency would make the federal

February 28, 1975
Farm Credit Act
administrative machinery more profitable and efficient, and especially more acceptable to all Canadians.
Since now we see how rural life can avoid the miseries of urban life, the on-going crises between capital and work, the moral downfall of the capitalistic economy, we are still reluctant to grant the farming community full social and economic equality and allow them to organize their own environment and institutions.
Consequently, since the industrial organization of agriculture inevitably results in the disappearance of thousands of family farming operations at a time we should be filling the country with free and happy people, Montreal residents come down to settle in Kamouraska. Five families left the city to settle in Kamouraska in a rural environment. If I took a little time to relate the history of Kamouraska you would see that for a little over 50 years certain facts have been reminding us of circumstances which surrounded the establishment of the experimental farm in Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere. I could quote debates in this House relating that the then federal member for Kamouraska participated in the establishment of the experimental farm in Ste-Anne-de-la-Pocatiere. Those are facts and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, what is sad about all that is that farmers contributed to enlarging rural areas. I am talking about Kamouraska but that is also taking place in the whole province of Quebec, at least in the areas I had an opportunity to visit in Canada. Farmers managed 50 years ago with quite ordinary means to raise their families on lands of 100 acres or even sometimes 30 acres. Today those same families can no longer live without sinking deeply into debt. We must expand, we need pools to borrow, to organize the whole farming apparatus because very expensive machinery is required.
I am not against evolution, I take part in it, at least I try, and I keep up with the times. I try to follow the current evolution. But we must face facts as they are, considering the situation.
At this point in time, we should be populating our rural areas with free and happy citizens, to cultivate the soil instead of exploiting it, because there is a difference between the two. We should be taking care of the small and average units, according to their strength and the requirements of modern work and play. Instead, we are advocating solutions adapted to the industrial world, that is, increasingly cumbersome operations, which are economically delicate and humanly crushing.
Could it be that simply to decrease the democratic freedom and strength, the first for money and comfort of a class of society far too long deprived of them is being exploited? But what will be the ultimate results of such a policy on rural citizens and society as a whole?
One cannot go into debt indefinitely. It is unthinkable that a just society should stem from general indebtedness. To my mind, that is just common sense.
At a time when agriculture as a whole seems terribly complicated, where the answers given by the technocrats and politicians to rural problems seem increasingly remote from the needs and aspirations of a growing part of the population, might it not be advisable to come back to the basic principles of the social order our institutions strive 
to maintain, if only in an attempt to see whether the changes brought about through "a shower of laws" may not be contrary to the philosophy that has guided the organization of our rural society?
A society cannot be changed overnight. As any living organism, it can adapt itself to new conditions but gradually. To go too fast would threaten the organism with destruction from stress. In politics, contrary to what happens in the biological world, antibiotics cannot be used to cure ills quickly. That is why the passing of legislation must be approached with caution.
Social order is the result of thousands of painful situations experienced by mankind. Through the ages man clung to a certain number of principles. They enabled him to survive, guide his actions and bequeath a moral code to his descendants.
Today as yesterday, bread, science and religion are the three sources of human wisdom. Little by little man came to see himself as sociable, that is dependent upon others to fulfill his needs from birth to death. He thought necessary and best for him that individuals formed groups and took the responsibility of meeting various needs. Social classes defined themselves more or less successfully, with more or less control over the political power having become ever more necessary.
In this great scheme, farmers have always been the losers, in spite of the important part they were playing. As providers of physical necessities, isolated in their fields, farmers had to stay away from the market place where social and political deals are made and where the complex relations within the governing classes are established.
I remember the good old days of my youth in Kamouraska. We had politicians who apparently were high quality speakers. There is a sentence, among others, which still sounds fresh in my memory. A speaker was trying to win voters over to his side during a political meeting. Because these voters were farmers, he had chosen his words accordingly. Here is this sentence: "What profession is as noble as that of the farmer who, in the shadow of the parochial church steeple, ploughes a straight furrow to feed his family and mankind as well."
Such were the sentences used by Grit or Tory politicians in Kamouraska over 40 or 50 years ago. The man who uttered it was elected and was eventually appointed minister. Later, they came to realize the adverse effects of the current system: a whole population in debt. Try and prove me wrong!
The farming community shouldered more than its share of the nonsense of privileged classes, by letting them do sometimes the greatest stupidities. That is probably why the tyrants, who were aware of the farmers' restrained patience, have always attempted to maintain them in slavery. Without the latter's docility, the laziness and social vices of the groups in power would have not been possible. Let us mention incidentally that things have hardly changed, but for the refinement of methods and language to achieve the same purposes.
It is worth noting that farmers have never been able to get from society the proper price for their work. It is true. Let us just look at the current fight in all provinces in an
February 28, 1975

attempt to establish a reasonable price, a reasonable salary for the land worker.
A society can be considered free when its citizens can assume by themselves the responsibilities deriving from their lives, the lives of their families, from their paying taxes, and we know there are lots of those! They must assume the cost of the institutions necessary for the maintenance of their culture, their own social and economic progress, but without deeply sinking into debt.
One only has to look at what is going on to see a true reflection of our society: deserted farms, migration to the cities, which do not always give people the security they wanted.
One need not be surprised then that such a society finds it difficult to provide sound legislation made for free people but only offers to farmers as well as to other citizens the limitations of its industry and the instability of its liberal economy.
More serious still, it no longer provides farmers with the instrument of corporations, which encouraged responsibility and initiative, but with unions which can unfortunately be dominated and put to silence more easily because they invariably challenge an order they did not contribute to build.
We remember what happened last fall. I have here copies of newspaper clippings showing farmers killing animals and hanging them along the national highway. I say this myself. Cattle was killed by the hundred! They somehow repeated here what was done in the United States. Is this a normal situation? People complain, and it is true that a part of mankind is starving, and here we bury hundreds of animals, fattened calves that are ready for the market and that are destroyed. This happens here in Canada, in our system based on debt, which people do not want to change. We are going to suffer the consequences of that system, because it can certainly not bring about a just society. Again, we cannot found a just society on debt.
In the present circumstances, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, and with such a stupid system, we have to try to find the means to allow the farmers, the young people who want to go into farming-and I know there are some-to get the money required to purchase a property, develop it, put it in debt if they want. Everyone is in debt in our upside down system. This is not the answer.
In such a stupid system, we sometimes have to support legislation which can bring a bit of help and some temporary relief. This is not the answer. Can anyone think: My problem is solved because I am in debt. Come on! When you are in trouble and that a loan comes in handy, it might prove helpful, but does it solve the problem?
I shall conclude my remarks since I believe that I have said all that I wanted to say this afternoon about this bill. In passing, I would like to tell the minister that he can make all the necessary amendments to the bill to improve it, and particularly to avoid this famous bureaucracy and red tape. He should improve the bill so that the farmer who needs a loan may obtain it and so that the young man who wants to get into farming does not have to wait for months and go through a lot of red tape. Now, you have to wait indefinitely before obtaining a loan.
Farm Credit Act
I would like the procedures to be more flexible and I would like this bill, that I will support even though I am against running into debt, to be flexible enough to benefit the greatest possible number of Canadian farmers.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure, and with hope for the future of young farmers and of agriculture that I rise to take part in this debate. I can certainly give my whole-hearted support to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who has presented this bill, to amend the Farm Credit Act, in order that long term mortgage credit may be made available to farmers, particularly young farmers. It is important that young people be given the opportunity to enter agriculture, and indeed we must try to divert some from other fields of endeavour that they may have chosen as their life's work.
Many pages have been written in the press, and the volumes of Hansard have recorded the words spoken in this House about the outstanding ability of the Minister of Agriculture-


James McPhail Gillies: Usually by himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially by him.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Only by him.


Crawford Douglas: Of course there have been some words to the contrary, but they have been shown to be weak and insipid when tested against the measures brought forward by the minister and put into practice by the government. Politics aside, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that a man's true worth is explained and upheld by his accomplishments. If the minister continues to bring in legislation such as the bill before us today and the Farm Stabilization Act, which attempt to rectify serious problems in agriculture, then the future of that industry and the future of this country are in good hands.
We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that the future of this country depends on the stability of the people engaged in agriculture. We can make all manner of brave and gallant statements about petroleum requirements and the problems of people in that industry, of the people who build our cars and who run our trains but, when it comes down to it, unless we have a stable agricultural industry all else is meaningless.
People in this country and indeed throughout the world can do without many things now regarded as necessities. We do not all need an automobile or two television sets- but we all have to eat. I think the best thing that we, as a nation, can do to help world conditions is to ensure that our agricultural industry remains stable. It is an industry which should be capable of meeting the food requirements of the world population.
People have talked about what causes wars. We have seen wars, develop in the past. Basically, wars have been brought on because nations have been unable to feed their

February 28, 1975
Farm Credit Act
people. If we are to play an auspicious part in preventing war and hate between nation and nation, we must look to the future and encourage our young people to take up the business of agriculture. Let us remember that, no matter what we say or do, agriculture is the backbone of our national foundation.
We can get along without many so-called amenities, but we cannot get along without our young people, who are basic to our well-being. Members representing the rural ridings, whether in the east or the west, in British Columbia or the Maritimes, know that young people are leaving the land and going to the cities, often for education. I know this holds true in the ridings of Perth-Wilmot, Huron, Dufferin-Grey-Simcoe-Waterloo, and many others; young people are leaving the ridings and seeking an education in the cities. We must reverse the present trend. We must induce these young people, once they have obtained the education they so richly deserve, to return to the land and take up food production.
This bill represents an important step forward in encouraging young people to take up the production of food, for the benefit not only of this country but of all the world. I have talked to the Minister of Agriculture about this bill, and I believe him when he says that this is one of the best pieces of legislation he has ever presented to this House because it will enable him to induce young people to take up farming. The minister can say to them, "Your country needs you as farmers. You can provide a service which will be of benefit to your country and to the world. This legislation, together with the farm stabilization bill, will assure you of a place in our country's future."
An hon. member participating in this debate said that the average age of farmers in his constituency is 57 years. In some constituencies the average age is even higher. We are fast approaching the time when many of our farmers will want to retire, as they deserve to do. They have worked long and hard. Our farmers are unlike any other people because they do not work by the clock; they do not even work by the sun. They work as long as necessary, doing what must be done in fields and barns. We can now say, "You have the right to retire because young people will enter farming." They can take up the business of agriculture without dragging their fathers, grandfathers and uncles into debt with them. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) touched on this point.
That part of the bill which will allow prospective farmers to work in the labour force for five years and then take up full-time farming is especially deserving of praise.
Most members of this House come from some type of farm background, even though many of them do not represent rural ridings. Many come from a stable, farm-oriented background, including the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), and the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who comes from my area of the country, and is one of our most honoured citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: I hope the record shows the applause.


Crawford Douglas: If the Hansard reporters are doing their job, I am sure it will.
|Mr. Douglas (Bruce).]
This bill will also enable the minister to do certain other things. For instance, it will be possible to review mortgage rates from time to time, and to set mortgage rates at levels with which young people can live.
The new chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, whose appointment was announced some time ago, is a man of great competence and far-reaching ideas. He considers the farm credit legislation as being most important in ensuring that young people who go on the land have an opportunity to obtain what should rightly be theirs. This gentleman has been involved with many administrations, including that of the present federal government, and has performed all kinds of services.
I point out, in closing, that the Farm Credit Corporation has a strong champion in the person of Brigadier Rutherford, who was one of the first to espouse the concept of farm credit legislation and who said recently that the minister's proposals are a step in the right direction, a step we sorely need. I urge all members to consider this legislation as representing an important step forward for the future of Canada, Canadians, and agriculture, and to give it their wholehearted support.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) visited my riding some weeks ago he spoke of this legislation and hoped the opposition would not delay its passage. I have waited for it patiently and am glad that we can debate it today. The people of my riding enjoyed his visit, as did I.
As I have been personally involved in a farm operation, I can say with truth that farming requires management skills and capital. But, as well, many unknowns and variables enter into agriculture, and young farmers must be willing to allow for these variables. Fortunately the Farm Credit Corporation legislation provides for flexibility. This is necessary, as farm input costs are increasing rapidly.
People often comment on western farmers receiving, as they say, a bonanza of hundreds of millions of dollars for sales. That money is not really a bonanza, as the farmer has to pay ever increasing costs in order to grow his crops. Every farmer knows this is so.
Remember, as well, that when a young man takes up farming he must often live in an isolated area of the country where he will not have access to recreational amenities such as are available to people living in urban areas.
All these things are faced by a young man as he ponders going to the Farm Credit Corporation to get a loan. This is why I believe the government has to provide some incentives to young farmers getting into agriculture, in the same way it is providing incentives to industry. It is only right for the government to increase the limits for young farmers. However, it must also be concerned about the ability of the farmer to repay a loan.
I support the proposals put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). One proposal was to allow a young farmer to back his loan on the basis of the potential production of his land. He could
February 28, 1975	COMMONS DEBATES	3683
defer payment in a bad year and make a payment in a bumper crop year. It is important that a young farmer getting into agriculture should know that in a bad year he will not lose his farm and the amount of work he put into it.
Young people getting into agriculture today are burdened by debt. The initial financial outlay for land and machinery is increasing rapidly. The Farm Credit Corporation must realize that land around urban areas is generally the best agricultural land in Canada. However, because of the real estate value of the land the cost is escalating at a very rapid rate.
The Farm Credit Corporation allows loans on the assessed or appraised value of the land. However, that is not adequate. There are many examples of this in my riding. The assessed or appraised value of the land might be as low as $2,000 or $3,000 per quarter, but the land is selling in the real estate market for as high as $20,000 a quarter.
In and around the city of Edmonton the appraised value of agricultural land is $35,000, but the real estate value is upwards of $100,000. The land is productive. That is why I feel that the corporation must look at the potential productive value of the land. If 70 bushels of barley per acre have been grown for a number of years, that should be the base on which loans are made. It is not adequate to operate on the appraised value of the land.
Many young farmers come to me as their member of parliament. They complain that once the Farm Credit Corporation looks at what they propose to pay for land, it says it is too high and turns down any loans. If the loans were made on the potential productive value of the land it would be more fair and reasonable for young farmers trying to get into agriculture.
Some weeks ago I presented a private member's motion. I am sure the minister is familiar with it. I made four proposals. I do not intend to go into them in detail now. One proposal was with regard to deferred interest payments during the initial period. This is important to a young man going into agriculture. If in the first two, three or even five years he can pay back a certain amount of his principal without any interest, it will be reduced dramatically. He could then pick up the deferred amount of interest.
In the first few years a young farmer requires a substantial capital outlay. He may not have assessed all the input costs that come forward in the first few years of farming. If his interest were deferred he could put his profits toward the principal, and after a number of years start paying the interest. That would be a great incentive to a young man looking at such a large outlay of capital.
The minister is proposing that the amount of a loan to a farmer be increased to $150,000. In many cases this may be adequate. However, many people in agriculture today look at it as an industry. In many cases an economically viable unit costs more than $150,000. I will give an example.
A farmer and his two sons in my constituency are prepared to go into a dairy operation. The operation, including cattle, barns, silos and land, will cost somewhere around $400,000. However, Farm Credit will only allow them the maximum $150,000 because, no matter how many
Farm Credit Act
people want to operate that farm, it is still considered as a single unit. In situation like this the minister should allow each man to borrow the maximum. In this case, which involves three men, they should each be permitted to borrow the maximum $150,000. This would permit them to have an economically viable unit which would provide an income for all three. They would not have to go to other lending institutions which often charge higher interest rates than the Farm Credit Corporation.
I wish to make another positive proposal with regard to Farm Credit. The provinces have been filling the gap where Farm Credit leaves off. If a young man is outside the regulations of the Carm Credit Corporation, he has no alternative but to go to the province and make a loan from the Agricultural Development Corporation, or something similar. What is good about the provincial farm programs is that they have set up appeal boards. These boards are made up of local farmers and can consider each case individually.
The Farm Credit Corporation should take a long, hard look at setting up what I would call zone appeal boards. Respected farmers who have long established farms could sit on the regional board which would consider young farmers on the basis of their potential. They would have the final say as to whether a man would be approved for farm credit. This has worked well in a number of provinces. Perhaps the Farm Credit Corporation could work in conjunction with the provincial schemes.
Another proposal often put forward by members on this side is that a farmer who has attended college and meets some requirements, such as increased efficiency or increased yield, should be given a reduction in interest for principal. It would be an incentive to young men entering agriculture to attend Manpower courses in order to increase their management ability and efficiency.
It is also necessary to open-end mortgages. Many farmers going into agriculture for the first time have to start with a small basic unit. As they progress they find it is in their best interest to increase the amount of land or livestock on their farm. However, because Farm Credit is a closed mortgage, they have to pay lawyers' fees and again go through all the red tape that was necessary for the first mortgage. Therefore, open-end mortgages would be a saving for farmers.
Another proposal is the setting of a definite maximum interest rate, as proposed by my hon. friend from Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain, so that when a farmer looks at his loan he will know the interest rate will be a maximum of 6 or 7 per cent; it will never rise above that figure and he will never have to pay more, because if the interest rate goes down he would only be called upon to pay the lower rate.
We should take a hard look at these proposals in committee. In closing, may I say I believe this to be a good bill, one for which we have been waiting for a long time. I hope we can make it a still better one.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: I, too, join with my colleagues in welcoming this particular piece of legislation. It is something we have been hoping for all during

February 28, 1975
Farm Credit Act
the twenty-ninth Parliament and through the thirtieth Parliament.
I do want to express one very real concern to the minister. It is my opinion that the legislation may be too late for this crop year. I do not wish to be pessimistic, but it appears to me, in practical terms, that by the time the legislation is in place it is doubtful it will have the impact I know the minister wants it to have, or indeed the impact those of us who are speaking to the bill want it to have in the 1975 crop year.
I know the minister is anxious to have the legislation proceed through the House as expeditiously as possible and passed on to the committee. But I know, too, Madam Speaker, that it is unreasonable to expect this. Having waited in excess of two and a half years for this particular legislation, and having sat all through the twenty-ninth Parliament with only one agricultural bill before us, we sympathize with the minister over the fact that agricultural policies are on the bottom rung of the priority list of the cabinet. We will do everything we can to assist the minister to improve that priority.
It would be interesting to attempt to deal with some of the detail of the bill, but I simply suggest to the minister that second reading is not the time at which to do it. I hope that in committee we will be prepared to discuss not just the technical aspects of the bill but such things as legal fees, a problem Farm Credit has ignored for far too long, open-end mortgaging, as has just been mentioned, refinancing, the regulations and guidelines Farm Credit representatives are operating under, valuation, and so on.
With respect to the maximum amounts of $100,000 and $150,000 as the case may be, I was interested to see in the last report of the Farm Credit Corporation that while the size of the average loan had increased substantially in the last fiscal year, we were still operating with average loans of less than $45,000. I have to ask myself, as I am sure the minister does, whether farmers want a loan of the maximum amount in the face of the intolerable burden of interest.
In other words, will more benefit be given to the larger farmer while the smaller farmer is continually facing more discouragement? This has certainly been the situation with respect to some farm policies, and indeed some Farm Credit policies. I hope that the minister and those of us in committee will have a long, hard look at this aspect because it seems to me that a large farm operation can take greater advantage of the maximum loans by spreading the burden over a much wider operation than its neighbour who is operating a small family farm.
The particular point I wish to make with some emphasis-and I will try to be as brief as possible-has to do with the price of land which has been mentioned in the report of last year from the Farm Credit Corporation. The president pointed out that farm land prices rose more in the year ending June, 1973, than they had in any previous year since records were kept, starting in 1910. He pointed out that in that year ended June 1973, farm prices had increased 17 per cent compared to an increase of 2 per cent in the previous year. The increases ranged from 21 per cent for Ontario to 13 per cent for Alberta.
| Mr. Jarvis. |
I don't think it takes any kind of a genius to see why they rose. Larger farms were obviously getting bigger which increased the demand for agricultural land. There was another very disturbing demand for land for nonagricultural use by the non-agricultural buyer-the pressures on city dwellers were such as to encourage them to move into rural areas. There was the obvious demand by land speculators. Then again, I think likely the largest demand with which we have to come to grips is the purchase of farm land by individuals who are not speculating but merely investing as the best possible hedge against inflation.
Finally, increasing the demand for agricultural land have been the actions of government itself. I think that all of us realize that Pickering is a prime example because so many farmers from the Pickering area-good farmers- have moved into my area and I am sure into the area of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas), where they have bought land at prices which, in the opinion of our farmers, were simply not competitive. They have been able to do so because the Pickering farmers had the funds with which to purchase the land at those inflated prices. While I am reluctant, indeed almost afraid to quote Mrs. Plumptre to the minister, I thought the statement she made about the loss of farmland at Pickering was one which the minister and I could both regard with sympathy.
With respect to the supply of land I would also point out to the minister that according to some experts-and I have heard all kinds of figures as I am sure he has-we are losing the prime land of southwestern Ontario due to the expansion of urban areas at the rate of 28 acres per hour.
I simply have to ask myself and the minister: what will this bill do? In isolation it is a good bill. In terms of farm credit it is a good bill. But in the larger context of land use and total farm quantity I have some very serious reservations. There are those who say to me, and I am sure they have said the same thing to the minister, that higher ceilings on Farm Credit Corporation mortgages are in themselves inflationary in their effect on farm land prices. I do not think these statements come from irresponsible people or from people who have not studied the problem. If we increase the limit of a Farm Credit loan I think we should ask ourselves very seriously: is this, in itself, likely to be a factor in increasing the price per acre of our farm areas, particularly in southwestern Ontario? I am sorry I cannot suggest to the minister what the answer to these questions is, but in the larger context of the farm economy that it is something with which we have to come to grips.
I was very impressed, I believe it was in the twenty-ninth Parliament, to see either in the Speech from the Throne or in the budget speech, a whole paragraph devoted to the government's concern regarding land use. It went on to say that there must be consultation with the provinces. What disturbs me, is that since that time we have not heard one word about that particular problem in the federal context, and I do not think that we can solve a problem simply by increasing farm credit limits when we have that tremendous albatross of increased demand, lower supply and speculation around our necks. Until we get to grips with the larger problem the minister will be coming back to this House repeatedly with bills such as this simply to catch up with events.
February 28, 1975

I greatly welcome this provision for younger farmers. I think it is absolutely necessary. But I suggest to the minister in all seriousness that in large part this is simply a catch-up bill. If we continue with 17 per cent as the rate of inflation in farm and prices annually, the minister will have to come back almost annually to give us higher limits. I do not think that is attacking the heart of the problem.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, in the few minutes remaining to us I should like to discuss one or two points with respect to the Farm Credit Corporation. At the outset I would say that Bill C-34 has my entire support. I welcome the fact that it is before us today. I should like to see it become law and be proclaimed at an early date.
I should like to mention the need for capitalization, about which a number of members have spoken today, as well as the need for risk capital for young farmers. I should like to relate my remarks here to a specific problem in Manitoba. I echo the words of the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) when I say it is my view that even more money should be placed in the hands of the Farm Credit Corporation for loans to young farmers. I say that for this reason. In Manitoba in the last month we have run into serious difficulty as a result of the operations of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. As has been mentioned, a number of provinces have set up provincial agricultural corporations, not necessarily to supplement but to increase the amount of money available to farmers for farming purposes.
What is happening in Manitoba now is that farmers are reacting by asking me whether it would be possible to increase the amount of money available from the Farm Credit Corporation, not only through Bill C-34 on an individual basis, but the total amount of money made available. These farmers are not able to get sufficient money, and so are forced to apply for a loan to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation.
Within the last six weeks the Manitoba government came out with a white paper called "In Search of a Land Policy for Manitoba". In support of this paper the NDP government created a strawman in Manitoba by saying acquisition of land is so rampant in the province that land is being taken away from the farmers. This strawman was stripped during the first five minutes of a public meeting held by the farmers of Manitoba. What became very clear to them, and what has become very clear to the people of Manitoba, is that this strawman put up by the NDP government was not fear of foreign ownership but fear of government ownership of farm land.
According to their own statistics, approximately 93 per cent of all agricultural land in Manitoba is owned by Manitobans who are active farmers. The problem is that the average age of these farmers is well into the fifties, so more money must be made available to young farmers. Of the remaining 7 per cent, 4 per cent was held by Manitobans living in Brandon and Winnipeg; roughly 2 per cent was held by Canadians not resident in Manitoba; approximately one per cent of the agricultural land in Manitoba was owned by foreigners. That was their strawman,
Farm Credit Act
Madam Speaker and, as I say, it took the farmers about five minutes to figure that out. They are now asking me for more money from the Farm Credit Corporation so that they can get a loan based on business principles. They want to meet their obligations, but they do not want to compete with the government on ownership.
This very insidious plan of the Manitoba government is actually raising the price of land that farmers want to buy. For example, a farmer in my riding had made a verbal deal with another farmer to buy land at $130 an acre. A representative of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation approached this farmer, opened his little black book, and said: "We will pay you $140 an acre". So who do you think got the land, Madam Speaker? That is the kind of problem we are facing in Manitoba.
Then there was the case of a young farmer who wanted to get into farming. Here I commend the minister for the clause that allows a person to work for five years and become the eventual owner if his principal occupational activity is farming. This young man had a loan from the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, and like many young farmers he needed operating capital. He then asked for an additional loan and they told him to come back two days later, which he did. They then told him, "We think you should double the amount you have asked us for, but we will buy your land. We will take the equity you have in your land at the present time and then we will give you your operating capital". Then five years later he has an option to buy it back, but during this five years he leases it, pays for it under the leasing arrangement, and pays the property tax. At the end of the five years he pays the total accumulated tax or interest. On top of that he has to finance any improvements he makes on the land within the five years.
In conclusion, I agree with the minister-though I sometimes feel he exaggerates his own importance in this matter-that we have a moral obligation as Canadians to increase food production. There is a starving world out there. As I have said on many occasions, we cannot expect the farmers to finance the surplus. But let us get more money to our young farmers and avoid land ownership by government which takes land out of production and too often increases the price of food and land in Canada. To my way of thinking this is entirely contrary to the personal incentives that have built up rural Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills. Is it agreed that we stand all the motions previous to motion No. 21?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 28, 1975
Cultural Centre



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration, through its Crown corporation, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to establish on Cape Breton Island a cultural centre that would provide to the many and diverse ethnic groups and native peoples who reside in the area a vehicle to further develop their individual cultures in an atmosphere that would assure the full development, potential and appreciation of such culture by all those who reside on Cape Breton Island.
He said: Madam Speaker, at the outset I should like to express publicly my sincere thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) and his staff for making some changes and arranging that this motion appear at this time before the House; they have been most co-operative. You have read the motion, Madam Speaker, which I feel is self-explanatory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And should be passed.


Robert Muir: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) interjects, we hope the motion will be allowed to pass without dissent.
The present preservation of this nation is almost completely reliant upon the development, protection and promotion of the multicultural character of our people. For some time now it has been my belief that a more tangible method of retaining and projecting the tremendous contributions made by residents of Cape Breton Island has to be developed. It is my view that the best possible manner of meeting this challenge would be the establishment of a cultural centre in Sydney, Nova Scotia, or in the district.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about North Sydney?


Robert Muir: My leader asks, what about North Sydney? That is a question for those knowledgeable to decide, but such a cultural centre, I should think, would have to be in a location that would enable the greatest number of people easy accessibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Paproski:: Madam Speaker, there is a problem with the simultaneous interpretation. They are carrying on a little conversation and we cannot seem to get the hon. member's voice. We really do not want to take part in that conversation going on in the interpreters' booth.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I am sure the problem has been taken care of now.


Robert Muir: I did hope that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), would be here to assist me today as he is very fluent in the Gaelic language.
[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
The Cape Breton Development Corporation has shown a great deal of leadership, not just in programs associated with developing an economic stability on the island, but also in making residents aware of our cultural heritage. Because of this fact it would seem to me that if Devco were to give leadership in the establishment of such a centre it would find ready and willing allies in the many cultural and ethnic groups that exist now and have existed for many years in Cape Breton.
We have a long and exciting history in Cape Breton, which began with the landfall of John Cabot at Cape North in 1497. We have attracted people from almost every part of the world and of almost every ethnic extraction ever since.
Canadians of Scottish origin, like myself, take a great deal of pride in the fact that we have a very active and vigorous Gaelic Society in Cape Breton. We are also extremely proud of the Gaelic college of Celtic folk arts and highland homecrafts at St. Ann's. This college was established by the Cape Breton Island Gaelic Foundation in 1939, and it holds the unique position of being the only one in North America. It is said that Nova Scotia is the cradle of Celtic culture in the new world. Students from across Canada from every province, as well as from every state of the United States and from around the world, come to Cape Breton to study at this college as it offers courses in the Gaelic language, piping, drumming, highland dancing and weaving.
We cannot and would not want to denigrate the extremely valuable contributions made daily by the Cape Breton Folk Arts Council, the Industrial Cape Breton Multi-Cultural Association, the Irish Benevolent Society, and in the Ukrainian, Polish, Italian, Lebanese, Greek and Chinese communities, to name a few. They all actively pursue their cultural traditions which enrich our lives. Equally as important are the activities of the Black Cultural Club at Sydney Academy, and the Black United Front. The Union of Nova Scotia Indians plays an effective role too, probably because the Eskasoni Indian Reserve is the largest such reserve in the province of Nova Scotia.
It may seem strange to this House to have me say that the original coal miners of Cape Breton were from France. They came, they stayed, and they are with us today-not the same coal miners but their descendants. Their ancestors are busily engaged in promoting their culture and their language. As an example of just how long the French have been in Cape Breton and involved in coal mining let me read you an excerpt from a book entitled "First Things in Acadia":
Captain Poulet mentioned coal in Cape Breton in a report to the French king, and one vessel, La Bretonne, carried a cargo to France in 1687.
Incidentally, the first Jesuit mission in North America was located at a place, strangely enough now called Eng-lishtown, about 40 miles from my own home.
We also have the reconstruction of the Fortress of Louisburg by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This amazing and exciting project recognizes the value of the contributions by both the French and the British in the founding of this nation. I must say that it still gives me a tremendous amount of
February 28, 1975

pleasure and personal satisfaction to have been a member of the government party when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was Prime Minister, as it was that administration that saw the merit in the recreation of this fortress which will be an everlasting tribute to our forefathers.
The mosaic of our cultural being is dependent upon our recognition of the history and traditions of our peoples. If we are to remain uniquely different from our United States friends we must at all times and in every way possible care for and cultivate the varied contributions that produce the inspiration for our uniqueness.
The proposed cultural centre would not only be a forum for creative expression by our ethnic and native groups, but it would also provide the incentive for a still greater development of our varied cultures that, when united, produce Canadianism, and we are all justly proud of being Canadian.
It is my hope that as a result of this debate Devco will initiate, through its able officers, a program to spearhead the establishment of a cultural centre in Cape Breton, both financially and through their leadership, so that tomorrow Cape Breton will be a better place in which to live, and so that we may all get to know each other better by learning of the customs and traditions of our neighbours. This would be of fantastic value, not just to Cape Bretoners but also to all the visitors from across this land and around the world who come to visit Cape Breton.
The suggestion that federal funds be used for a cultural centre is not new or innovative. The National Arts Centre in Ottawa and the Confederation Centre of the Arts in Charlottetown were both funded to a great degree by the federal government. It is also my understanding that public money has been used for such projects in other parts of Canada.
This month an ethnic festival was held in Sydney at which there were 12 different performing groups. A very successful evening was held. I look forward to the day when I can walk into a cultural centre in Cape Breton, dedicated to the multi-culturalism of this nation, and listen to the "Men of the Deeps", who have performed all over Canada and in the United States, comprised of coal miners of many ethnic origins.
I look forward to the day when I can watch the "Stornaway Scottish Dancers", see the "Irish Folk Dancers", hear the "Young Gaelic Singers of Big Pond", observe the "Ukrainian Dancers of Sydney" and enjoy "Lee Cremo", a Micmac fiddler or, if you wish to be a little fancier, violinist, although there is a controversy as to whether you are playing a violin when you are fiddling. In any event, Mr. Cremo is a Micmac from the Eskasoni Reserve who has appeared at international competitions across this country.
I look forward to listening to "John Allen Cameron", and I do not have to tell you who he is, and to tapping my toes to the "Cape Breton Calypso Band". Those are just a few that come to my mind, even though I realize there are numerous other extremely talented groups and individuals one might also enjoy. Maybe I would even be able to hear my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a fluent Gaelic linguist, sing "Ho Ro Mo Nigh'n
Cultural Centre
Donn Bhodheach", literally translated "My Pretty Fair Maiden". Maybe we could open this cultural centre in the presence of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I look forward to seeing him wear his Elliott tartan kilt. I have been looking forward to that for a long time since it was presented to him, and I have not seen him wear it yet. That would be the occasion for him to wear it.
Before resuming my seat I wish to say how pleased I am to have had the opportunity of presenting this motion. I ask all hon. members present to give this matter their most careful consideration.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I am in a rather unenviable position this afternoon. I was asked to speak in this debate in support of the hon. member's motion. However, I cannot do that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Oh, shame.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: While I agree with the motion in principle, I cannot agree to it in practical terms. I realize and appreciate the importance of cultural heritage to many people, but I also realize-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are you against that?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Just listen. I also appreciate the importance of some more basic needs, and I refer to the necessity of providing for the basic essentials of life and health. Many of our people in the Atlantic area are still struggling in the face of severe economic handicaps to provide food, shelter and education for themselves and their families.
Cape Breton is indeed fortunate to have the Cape Breton Development Corporation to enhance the economic development of that part of Nova Scotia. I suggest that it is unwise at this time to divert any of the attention of this Crown corporation from what must be its primary goal, that is, to bring about the kind of economic stabilization which has come to be taken for granted in other parts of our vast country.
Certainly in the area of New Brunswick which I have the honour to represent there are many problems of an economic nature which urgently require attention. If I am going to be a responsible representative, I must insist that these bread and butter issues receive priority consideration in the distribution of the federal budget.
I ask the indulgence of this House to expose for a few moments some of these problems and the continuing adverse effects we suffer because of the absence of solutions. That may not be the best way to say it because solutions to economic problems are always present. It only takes the necessary finances to solve them. The first and most obvious problem confronting us is our highways. Northumberland county probably has the poorest road system of any place in Canada. I am well aware that this is a provincial responsibility, but it is now a well established principle that the federal government will help to finance road construction.


Mr. Coates:: Madam Speaker, while I appreciate that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
February 28, 1975
Cultural Centre
Dionne) may have many constituency problems-and he is certainly a member of the government, which should be taking some action on them-I do not believe that this notice of motion is the time at which we should be hearing a speech associated with a matter relating to the constituency problems of the hon. gentleman. It is strange to me that I did not hear his voice when there was an opposition motion just a very short time ago regarding matters relating to CIDA, which deals with the expenditure of many millions of dollars of government funds which are spent outside Canada. He is worrying about the bread and butter issues of his constituency, but I do not think he is doing this House or the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) any favour in presenting to this House a matter which is narrow and associated with something the hon. member waited a long time to raise. It is not fair that he should use private members' hour to discuss his constituency problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I thank the hon. member, but perhaps the hon. member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is about to come to the reasons why he opposes the cultural centre or why he wants to agree with this motion. We will listen to the hon. member for a few more minutes.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: If the hon. gentleman who interrupted will just be patient for a few minutes, I think he will see what I am coming to, Madam Speaker. There are bread and butter issues, and I have no objection to CIDA helping those people who are struggling for bread and butter in other parts of the world. I am trying to point out that that is what I am coming to, so if I may, I should like to continue.


Robert Muir: For the benefit of those who have not been here as long as others, I along with many hardworking representatives of the Atlantic provinces have been searching and working and speaking up on behalf of our people on bread and butter issues for many years. Man does not live by bread alone. He needs something else, and we want our share of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that this is not a point of order but a point of debate. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I hope to prove just what the hon. gentleman has been saying. It is a well established principle that the federal government will help to finance road construction in various parts of the country-that includes, incidentally, Nova Scotia-and not just my constituency. Indeed a special highways agreement was signed between Canada and New Brunswick less than two weeks ago, and of course we are very grateful for this federal assistance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It has not, however, done very much good in my constituency because the provincial government has consistently refused to apply any of those funds to our area. In modern

society one cannot over emphasize the importance of a modern highway system, not only as a means of transportation for goods and services but also as a means to protect life and health in these days of high speed travel. When my people are suffering the effects of this deficiency, I cannot speak in favour of the allocation of federal funds for the building of cultural centres.
Today, well into 1975, we in my constituency still do not enjoy the cultural advantage of having decent television service. Indeed there are communities there which receive practically no service at all. They cannot even receive a signal. Those of us who can receive a signal have two choices: we can watch the one channel, which is obsolete in its equipment, or we can watch nothing. For ten years we have been fighting for an alternate service, and we are always told that it is a question of money. However, it has never been suggested that we be given in our area a lower rate schedule in our income tax to compensate for the services denied us but which other parts of Canada take for granted. I cannot support financial outlays for cultural centres when my people have such primitive television service. We do not even have access, for instance, to FM radio.
Our economy depends on a base in which there is far too little diversification. It is predicated almost entirely on the exploitation of natural resources, either from land or sea. Almost without exception our precious resources are being shipped from our midst in a raw or semi-manufactured state. Why should this be so? Do we not have the talent and ingenuity to carry out these labour intensive stages in the utilization of our natural resources? Must we look forward forever to being providers of raw materials and buying finished products back to keep foreign and upper Canadian industrial wheels turning? I cannot agree to funding cultural centres while we do not have all the opportunities for employment we require.
Only last week I learned of a rather drastic cutback in the number of armed forces personnel stationed at CFB Chatham. For some areas of Canada this might seem an insignificant development, but for our area it is a real economic blow because our small service industry is very much dependent on these people as customers. When we have so delicate an economy that the transfer of 200 military personnel is a serious matter, we must get to work to develop that base upon which we depend for all our physical needs.
We hear a great deal about the Atlantic fishery from time to time. I know our Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) is keenly aware of our problems and is actively seeking solutions to them. But a rationalization of the Atlantic fishery is a far higher priority to me than the establishment of additional cultural centres. If there are any extra federal dollars floating around let us put them where they would provide the basic necessities of life. Then we can look after our cultural heritage.


An hon. Member:: Wait until the next election.


An hon. Member:: Now on to the next topic.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Just hold your horses. Madam Speaker, I subscribe to the view-
February 28, 1975


Robert Carman Coates: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, this is the second time on two successive Fridays that I have encountered the same thing. Liberal backbenchers have come into the House and used a notice of motion debate on a specific topic as an opportunity to make speeches that have no relationship at all to the topic under discussion. In this particular case the hon. member is attacking the government of which he is a representative. If we are going to have a private members' hour for which members prepare, and wait to have their subjects debated, I think the Chair must see that it is treated properly, and that hon. members do not speak from prepared texts, which are not supposed to be used anyway, and should insist that they talk about the subject before the House. The hon. member is not doing that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac) on the same point of order.


Mr. Mclsaac:: Madam Speaker, I have not been in the House that long but I have already seen a few habits demonstrated across the way that I am sure do not comply with the rules. I suggest that the hon. member who was speaking in this debate was speaking on the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). He is trying to point out that there are alternative ways of spending moneys from that proposed in the motion. Surely that cannot be construed as straying from the point. He was making comparisons all the way through.


Mr. Maine:: Madam Speaker, I take personal objection to the comments of the hon. member-


Robert Carman Coates: You should because you used my notice of motion last week to talk about atomic power.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: That is exactly the point. The hon. gentleman was not intelligent enough to know that I was talking about his motion on the Bay of Fundy tidal power and did not appreciate that my remarks were relevant.


Mr. Reynolds:: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I will not take very long. As a member from the west listening to these easterners debate, it seems strange to me that members on this side of the House did not once criticize the government, but the member from the other side who was supposed to be speaking on the motion spent half his time criticizing the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) rising to speak on the point of order?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes,
Madam Speaker. If I want to attack the government- which I have not done-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -that is my prerogative. We are free on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Cultural Centre


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, in terms of the word freedom I wonder if the hon. member has had an opportunity to examine the debate on the question of privilege raised a few days ago by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) when the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the former minister of consumer and corporate affairs, who had demonstrated his freedom had that freedom trampled upon by the parliamentary secretary.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I want to thank hon. members for their contributions but I should like to remind them that the motion is to establish a cultural centre. Is the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) rising on the same point of order?


Mr. Fleming:: I do not wish to prolong the matter, Madam Speaker, but with great respect toward the hon. gentleman who presented the motion, and to yourself and your wisdom in making a decision on this point, I might say that I heard the remarks of the member presenting the motion and found them sound. It was only after hearing the response of the hon. member on this side that some questions were raised in my mind. Surely that shows the value of debate, when it makes one have second thoughts about the problem before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. If hon. members wish to continue discussing this point of order it is fine with the Chair, but I would point out that we are using up the time available for private members' business. If the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) wants to continue his remarks about the establishment of a cultural centre, whether he is for it or against it, we will listen to him.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I have been trying to outline why I oppose this particular motion, and if hon. members would just take your advice we could get on with it. I will not be very much longer-


Robert Carman Coates: Can you find your place?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: No trouble at all-can you? Much is said about freedom, and I subscribe to the view that we live in the most free society on this earth. I submit to you and to this honourable House, however, that as long as there are festering sores of economic disparity on the body politic, the national spirit cannot be truly free. While any person is enslaved to a life of drudgery to earn his daily bread, his spirit enjoys no freedom.
Atlantic Canada is the oldest and, in many senses, the richest part of this great nation. We have given much to the building of this new nation in social, cultural, spiritual, political and economic terms. We appreciate the efforts of recent federal governments to close the economic gap, and the present government has done more than any other. We also need the equalization grants and the efforts of DREE, but we must continue our efforts-indeed we must re-dedicate ourselves to the eradication of the disparities of which I have spoken. To do that we must keep our priorities in proper perspective. We cannot afford at this time to dilute our efforts toward the development of a

February 28, 1975
Cultural Centre
sound, diversified and stable economy. If we do, we shall soon find ourselves wallowing in a sea of confusion surrounded by lost opportunities and broken hope.
If we lose our perspective, if we fail to order our priorities, if we spend our federal grants on social and cultural frills, we shall have betrayed our trust and subjected future generations to the same economic hardships through which the present and many generations of our Atlantic fellows have so steadfastly laboured.
I hope the hon. gentleman gets his cultural centre at some future time, Madam Speaker, but in my opinion it is the wrong project at the wrong time. As Marie Antoinette learned to her sorrow, you must not feed the people cake when they have no bread.


Walter David Baker: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would have them eat something else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I can understand a member from the maritime provinces, or indeed from the Atlantic provinces complaining about economic conditions in that part of Canada. I confess, however, that I find it a bit strange to hear a Liberal member doing this without realizing that in effect he is making the point that the federal government for far too long has failed to meet the needs of Atlantic Canada.
To suggest that because not enough has been done for the economy of the Atlantic provinces, for the unemployed, for the fishing industry of that area, for the various needs of the people, is a reason for not spending a few dollars on culture is more than I can understand.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne)-I do not think I am doing him an injustice by repeating these words-complained about money being spent on frills, instead of on basic necessities. Good heavens, that is what the government has been doing for years all across Canada-spending money on all kinds of things that are not necessary, when basic needs like old age pensions, health services, housing and adequate employment are not being met. I did not object to the points the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi raised. I did not raise any point of order. I am surprised that he is not aware how completely out of touch he is with the shortcomings of the government which he supports.
I shall speak for only a few more minutes. I support the motion presented by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir). I am as anxious as anyone, perhaps more anxious than many in this House, for dollars to be spent in places where they are needed, particularly in the field of old age pensions and other forms of social security. But, if I may quote my hon. friend who spoke on the point of order a moment ago, man shall not live by bread alone. I suggest that the concern for preserving the various cultures of an area like Cape Breton Island is a concern that this House does well to consider.
I am not as familiar with Cape Breton Island as I am with other parts of Nova Scotia, but I know enough of that island and I know enough of Nova Scotia to know that small as that province is, it is a place of many cultures. As

one travels, for example, along the south shore from Halifax to Yarmouth, one moves within a very few miles from one type of culture to another.
My own people happened to live for a couple of hundred years in Barrington township, which is a little bit of puritan New England. To the east of Barrington township one runs into Shelburne, an intensely Loyalist area. Going further east, along the south shore you come to an area where the background is German. Going the other way you come to Tusket and Argyle, to Yarmouth and then on Digby. In each of these areas there are different cultures that make up the great province of Nova Scotia.
I believe that anything which helps the people of that province to preserve those cultures is all to the good. I should like to see the same kind of thing done on the mainland. Of course we who descend from the mainland of Nova Scotia have always had a problem trying to persuade the Cape Bretoners that there is a mainland. In any case, this is a good start and I am happy to give my support to this excellent motion.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join in this debate and I support most heartily the motion before the House.
Having heard the kind speech of the distinguished and senior member, I am prompted to use the Gaelic phrase, Is shin uilig shin, and then move on to something else, because he said just about everything a member of parliament should say on the subject. I approve his emphasis on the multicultural background of Cape Breton, that place which we generous Prince Edward Islanders salute as the other island, an island of beauty and history.
Since biblical expressions seem to be in vogue this afternoon, this being Friday afternoon, such as that man does not live by bread alone, I must point out, of course, that we must live by bread. As a supporter of the government which did something about Louisburg Fortress and dealt with other vital issues by establishing the road to resources program and Atlantic provinces adjustment grants, let me say that, for those reasons, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is and always will be very popular in the Atlantic region.
The hon. member who moved the motion spoke about cultural centres already established. May I say how very much the life of Prince Edward Island has been enriched by the Confederation Centre of the Performing Arts which was built with the assistance of the governments and the people of all provinces, and with the assistance of the federal government. The centre has added greatly to our cultural heritage and to the quality of our lives, and we cherish it. We regard it as a wonderful memorial to Charlottetown's finest hour, that day in 1864 when that beautiful city hosted the meeting of the Fathers of Confederation, from which sprang this parliament and this dominion.
If the hon. member had confined himself to just one of the great cultural ingredients of the area-I believe he excluded the English, although there are a few English in Cape Breton; I was not upset by the omission-he would still have talked about a tradition worthy of preservation. One of the greatest honours done me was when I was invited to speak to the Gaelic mod at St. Ann's, Cape
February 28, 1975

Breton Island. I was introduced by my colleague who moved this motion. I ran into a certain hard aspect of the Scottish heritage. I had checked out of my motel, near St. Ann's. As I was to be guest speaker I had assumed that I would be put up at St. Ann's, but my assumption proved ill founded. I discovered that no such thing was contemplated and I had to. hustle back to my hotel where I was lucky enough to be given a room. Clearly, Scottish frugality has not left the people of Prince Edward Island or of Cape Breton.
That any member from the Maritimes should find this motion not acceptable is beyond comprehension. After all, because of confederation-and we knew from the beginning that this might be so-we have been deprived of many commercial and economic advantages which are available to the larger community of which we are proud to be one part. In many ways we have grown accustomed to economic disadvantage. But that, surely, is no reason for someone to suggest that we should cut down on our cultural aspects of life. Even though the great and perhaps lamented Walter Gordon suggested, when a royal commissioner, that Maritimers might be better off moving out of the area and looking for jobs elsewhere, he saw a certain quality of life down there. This motion seeks to preserve that, and to honour and enlarge the cultural contribution which has been made by that fine and beautiful part of Canada.
Hon. members can visit Prince Edward Island on their summer holidays and then take the Wood Island ferry to Nova Scotia and visit the mover of this motion. I am sure that they will receive fine hospitality in both these fine communities.
Nova Scotia has produced some good men. Some of our greatest men have come from Cape Breton. I suppose every one of us can think of the four great public men who have come from Nova Scotia. They are Joseph Howe, Charles Tupper, Angus L. Macdonald and Robert Stanfield. The one who came from Cape Breton was a man of great presence, great charm and great wisdom. I remember two things about Angus L. Macdonald, which gladden my heart. When Ramsay Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Britain, came to Halifax on his way to Washington, he was greeted by Angus Macdonald in Gaelic; but the man from Scotland did not know a word of Gaelic although the man from Cape Breton knew it well. I do not think there is much wrong with a man who was too busy in Canada to attend the coronation of the King in London but who, a couple of months later, found it possible to spend three weeks at a Gaelic mod in Edinburgh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even if he was a Liberal!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: We can support members like my colleague who has directed us to some of the important things, things which will last longer than the most sturdily built road or the best constructed building, things of the heart, things of the spirit.
This is an area in which Canada has been far, far too reluctant to move. We have allowed things to leave the country. We have allowed historic buildings to be
Cultural Centre
destroyed. It has only been a matter of two or three years since we did not do a thing when the beautiful home of Sir Robert Borden, which he occupied for a whole generation, was torn down and apartment blocks put up in its place.
All across this country we find that historic sites have been wrecked, ruined and forgotten. Any move that this parliament makes to support the people who are interested in the heritage of Canada, who want to enrich our cultural appreciation and enlarge our historic dimension, people like the mover of this motion, should not be condemned. They should not be cast aside for not building roads or not bringing in enough bread and butter, but hailed as men of the future, men who can see these things which are eternal and significant in this great country of ours.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam
Speaker, I wish to enter this discussion briefly, not to make any pronouncement on what is needed most, a Cape Breton cultural centre or better roads, but in the broader concept of the cultural concerns and some of the things that I hope, if and when the cultural centre proposed by the hon. member goes forward, might be included in it.
What the hon. member is proposing is important now and will be much more important in the future. More and more Canada will be depending upon immigration for its population growth. Each one who comes to our shores will bring a new type of culture, a culture that every Canadian wants to see preserved, one which can be shared in a very real and meaningful way.
I agree wholeheartedly with the previous speaker who said thank goodness that at this point in time we are starting to have some appreciation of our culture and heritage. I have a particularly strong feeling about preserving heritage, our old buildings and old customs. Anything that adds support to this certainly should be commended.
I wish the mover of the motion had expanded a bit in terms of the concept of the cultural centre he was talking about. I am not entirely clear in terms of what conditions he might have on it. I would like to put forward my one concern in terms of the motion. It is really one that I spoke of in a debate during private members' hour last week. I refer to the role of crown corporations financing many concepts for which they are not really charged with the basic responsibility.
I am not totally knowledgeable, or even as knowledgeable as I should be with regard to the terms of reference of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. It may very well be within their jurisdiction that such a cultural centre would be something justifiable not only to finance but to operate and promote. If it should not be, I would have some concern about whether that should be the vehicle the hon. member would be promoting to bring this about. If it is not within their terms of reference, there must be other government departments, approaches or avenues that would be more concerned.


Robert Muir: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am enjoying what he is saying. Just to clarify the situation, it is indeed that. They have engaged in the promotion of culture in a small way so far.

February 28, 1975
Cultural Centre


William Ross Milne: I think it is good that communities set up cultural centres, a place where people of various cultures and backgrounds can meet with each other and share their respective cultural heritages, working together for a better understanding of Canada's heritage.
In my constituency there are many different ethnic groups and cultural backgrounds. While I think it is a good approach to have a cultural centre such as this, we should be very careful that each group has a facility to keep its own culture and promote that, as opposed to having a large cultural centre which pressures cultural groups to blend together, perhaps losing some of the distinctive things we strive most to preserve.
In terms of the broader context of establishing cultural centres across the country, there are three needs. One is to preserve traditional customs and heritages. The second is really a language situation and the third is an educational centre for the benefit of people coming to this country.
As this is International Women's Year any cultural centre should be very attuned to the role of woman. That has not always been done. We tend to structure programs and so on to the benefit of the male. I feel that this year we should recognize this as an objective.
A cultural centre should not be the be all and end all. One of the very great strengths of this type of approach would be if a cultural centre had an extension program to reach out into the community and make its presence known. By that I mean a very large community in terms of the cultural needs they are preserving, the arts and crafts they are promoting.
Judging by many of the facilities which are perhaps not as large in scope as the hon. member is talking about, perhaps the ethnic group that originally promoted it, that knows about it and that uses it is not as large a factor in the community as it could be. An active promotional outreaching program should be a part of this.
Perhaps the hon. member is aware that in the city of Toronto there is an annual caravan program that is really a promotional program on behalf of each of the cultural and ethnic groups in the city. They invite the rest of the community to share that with them. It is a very successful program. It is the type of program that should be part of any cultural establishment or program.
Something that is perhaps apropos of what the hon. member mentions is that in many areas of the country new Canadians have great difficulty adapting to Canadian society. One of the greatest problems facing new Canadians is often an acquisition of basic skills in one or other of the official languages, whether English or French.
There is an active group in my own riding which spends a great deal of time helping immigrants to our shores to acquire language skills. One handicap often faced in such efforts is the lack of suitable facilities, the halls which are available are simply not suited to these purposes. This is an effort which is surely deserving of encouragement. I am sure the hon. member would agree, though, that close co-operation with provincial legislatures is required in this connection since we are dealing with an aspect of education, and every care must be taken to reflect the

priorities and intentions of the provincial government involved.
The government services provided for new Canadians are badly needed, but we should remember that it is a long walk for these new arrivals to go to some of the official offices and talk about the things which concern them. I hope we might be able to establish centres of a type where these people could feel more at home in the presence of people at the official level who spoke their language and shared their traditions.
Many of us are concerned about the large numbers of immigrants who have come to Canada in the last 15 years or so and have not yet taken out citizenship. If citizenship judges were able to attend in centres such as I have described, it is probable that more immigrants would take advantage of the opportunity to become Canadians. We are all concerned, too, about manpower training and the upgrading of technical skills. It is possible that this work, also, could be carried out in such centres.
I am wholeheartedly in support of measures to preserve the customs and traditions which enrich our cultural heritage, and I approve the setting up of facilities where people from both sides of the border can share this inheritance. I hope that in due course a facility of this type will be built on Cape Breton Island.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I believe my hon. friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys has contributed a great cultural event to a day which has been concerned with other things. It is very important that the movement he is attempting in Cape Breton should have the support of all members of the House as a matter of principle. We are looking at cultures which because of neglect, because of abuse, because of wrong headedness will soon be classed as endangered species.
When we consider cultural centres we might consider a cultural centre in the middle of Montreal because of the difficulty those who want to know the English language culture in Quebec are experiencing with respect to Bill 22. There will be an opportunity to debate that matter at some other time. It is heartening to know that we are so mature in Canada as to be mindful of the traditions of the past, traditions of excellence in literature, the arts and all the other things that made up our past. There is something worth saving. There was a society created in the early days of our history which is worth remembering and worth building upon. That is why, all over the country, buildings are being preserved, works of art are being dusted off, old ways are being revived.
In my own Township of Nepean in the riding of Grenville-Carleton we are now considering the establishment of a cultural centre, and I hope this will be representative of not just the two main cultures in Canada but of the many cultures which make this country so rich. I hope this will still the fives that emphasize only two cultures in this country and which are injuring the unity of confederation.
I congratulate my hon. friend for emphasizing this concept, one which ought to be followed in every area of the country.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I read the motion of my hon. colleague and I
February 28, 1975

agree with his suggestion although I doubt he has chosen the proper means of achieving his objective. What I mean is that the Canadian Secretariat of State already has a national policy on museums which, to my mind, could achieve the purpose of my colleague, that is, to set up a cultural centre on Cape Breton island.
Indeed, that museum policy, as announced in 1972 by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), indicates clearly that in that year a credit of $750,000 was provided for local exhibition centres that would offer, to the public, travelling exhibits coming from larger museums or the national loan collection.
Government communiques stipulated that the national exhibition centres had to be maintained by members of the communities they served, therefore, by native communities where they were to be established. Most of them should be set up in community centres or city halls which would but rarely have collections. They will feature mobile exhibitions composed of pieces from either important collections or the national loan collection created under this new policy.
Madam Speaker, I think my colleague should be invited to make his request under the program of the Secretary of State of Canada. In my opinion, we undoubtedly have
Business of the House
programs meeting the cultural objectives that I support and my colleague has set forth in the proposal whose contents we are debating this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being five o'clock, the hour for private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology or the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council can tell us what we are doing on Monday.


Mr. Reid:: The items of business suggested are Bill C-10, the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act, Bill C-43 dealing with the Law Reform Commission, Bill S-6 dealing with the Wheat Board, and the recent paper on immigration. That is not the order in which the items are to be called-the order is still subject to negotiation between the House leaders.
At 5.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Monday, March 3, 1975