1975-05-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact recent statements in the House by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) have undermined native participation in the Berger Commission, and in view of the fact that Mr. Ian Scott, counsel for the Berger Commission, has stated that the inquiry was advised by the Department that the minister does not wish to support environmental organizations through the inquiry's operating budget, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the critical matter of funding for the native and environmental groups be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent of the House. It there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED AMENDMENT IN SENATE OF BILL TO INCREASE MEMBERS' SALARIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43 which is of urgent and pressing necessity. The urgency has to do with the state of our economy and also the need to establish the credibility of the leadership being given at this time. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman):
That this House calls upon the government to instruct the government leader in the Senate to propose an amendment to Bill C-44 imposing a limit on any increase under that bill of 12 per cent or $2,400, whichever is the lesser.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion. It being proposed under Standing Order 43 it
cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43, namely that an Air Canada DC-9 on flight 223 departing from Ottawa at 2.35 p.m., May 1, destined for Winnipeg and Regina, was abruptly returned to Ottawa airport due to faulty equipment in the depression components, causing upheaval in the luggage compartment and concern to the passengers. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to conduct an inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of the 21 modifications performed on its fleet of DC-9 aircraft by Air Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! The motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, it requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion which is self-explanatory. In view of the existence of a report labelled "Restricted and Privileged" made by the Dominion Fire Commissioner and submitted on October 2, 1974 to Parks Canada, which declares in part, with reference to all canals operated by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that a boat fire occurring any time during a locking procedure would bring a major loss of life, and which makes four specific essential recommendations for immediate adoption for human safety, the House requests the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) to make a statement as to why

May 6, 1975
Oral Questions
this report has never been made public, why the recommendations contained therein have never been carried out, and assuring the House that immediate steps will be taken to remedy this shockingly dangerous situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In early April he advised the House that the first stage of the consensus talks was over. Yesterday the minister alluded to the idea of a final stage of the discussions. Would the minister tell the House whether we are now witnessing the middle stage of the discussions and, if that is the case, how long will this non-defined middle stage continue?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that if it appeared that there was a possibility of getting into the final stage by the end of the week, the final stage would be concluded by the end of the month.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that for the Minister of Finance, of course, all the world has become a stage and he will understand that I am only trying to play my part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the minister having said yesterday that if he accepts an invitation to sell his consensus program to organized labour it would be at a later stage, I should like to know whether that would be part of a new stage, whether it would be part of the final stage, or is it some undefined stage of some other stage?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that if the leaders of organized labour felt it would help matters after their meetings today and tomorrow, I would be quite willing to appear before them to do what I could to explain the process.


INFLATION-LACK OF PRECISION IN GUIDELINES FOR RESTRAINT TO SECTORS OTHER THAN LABOUR
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Just one final supplementary question at this stage, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the documents which apparently have been sent to representatives of organized labour for their consideration seem to set forth quite precise forms of restraint for them to consider but very imprecise forms of restraint for other principal sectors of the economy, I should like to ask the minister, in all seriousness and very earnestly, whether he is supplementing the restraints he proposes for other elements of the economy in order to avoid what I would call the comedy the government has been going through all winter and spring, now degenerating into a real tragedy for the people of this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the documents to which the hon. gentleman refers must have been earlier working papers, because the documents now being discussed include moderation on the part of all sectors of the economy.


INFLATION-METHOD BY WHICH UNORGANIZED WORKERS WOULD BE GIVEN EIGHT PER CENT INCREASE ACCORDING TO GUIDELINE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance concerning the interesting guidelines that have been circulated. These guidelines propose a minimum increase of some 8 per cent. I should like to ask how the government plans to have unorganized workers in particular get even that 8 per cent to which the government says they are entitled when they are outside a trade union movement and do not have anyone to bargain for them? More particularly, if the minister wanted to get acceptance of the principle of certain minimums for low income Canadians why was there not embodied in the proposal the suggestion that the federal minimum wage be increased and that the guaranteed minimum income program which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been talking about for some years now should be implemented as soon as the program is brought into effect?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the document to which the hon. member refers, as I said yesterday, is among working papers that have been circulated over a period of time. They do not represent a definitive position on the part of the government, which is still considering these documents, nor a definitive position on the part of leaders of the labour movement, leaders of the business community or other segments of the economy. I might just add that in so far as organized labour is concerned, the leaders have been particularly anxious to ensure that any consensus which is arrived at takes into consideration the unorganized labour force of the country.
May 6, 1975


INFLATION-REASON FOR SPECIFIC PROPOSALS TO LABOUR CONCERNING INFLATION BUT NOT UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since according to the expert opinion of many there is now a turn-around taking place in the North American continent with the problem of inflation diminishing in comparison with the problem of unemployment, which most people expect to increase, and this is supported by most recent indicators, will the minister inform the House why the proposals that were sent to organized labour and provincial governments contained certain specific targets for the reduction of inflation, which is not likely to be the increasing problem, but contained no specific targets or other suggestions, and not even an intimation of them in respect of the reduction in unemployment levels?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am just suggesting to the hon. member that a large number of working papers have been circulated, but I am not going to sustain or base my position on any alleged working paper that may have been published by the media. What I am saying to him is that inflation and unemployment are equally difficult problems for this country to face and unless we can solve the problem of inflation, unemployment will become worse in terms of the stimulus injected into the North American, particularly American, economy. Inflation remains a recurring problem in terms of our competitive position with the United States and other major competitors and the disadvantage we will incur and are incurring in terms of our costs will become very dangerous for this country in the next 12 to 20 months unless we do something about it now.


INFLATION-REASON FOR FAILURE TO MAKE PROPOSALS CONCERNING RENT INCREASES AND HOUSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since one of the major aspects of the recent increase in the cost of living, and presumably in the near future, is the question of housing and the level of rentals, could the minister explain to the House why there was nothing in the several proposals that would have dealt with the problem of restraining rent increases and increasing the supply of housing, both of which steps are essential if we are to bring down the cost of living as affected by the cost of housing accommodation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition, the documents to which he was referring were incomplete because every segment of the economy is being called upon to exercise moderation.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Oral Questions
Parliament passed an act on capital punishment for murder of policemen. Now, after having voted for that act, the Solicitor General stated last week that he would not respect the decision of Parliament. Since the minister has decided not to respect the laws of the land, would he at least have the decency and courage to resign as minister?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, Parliament also adopted a law which provides for commutation of sentences. I must say in voting for the law the last time I felt we were moving in the right direction toward the policy I approved of, but I have no intention at this time of taking the step indicated by the hon. member.


POSSIBILITY OF REFERENDUM ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Since those two bills were passed and bearing in mind the commutation provided for, according to a recent scientific poll on public opinion, 70 per cent of the Canadian people are in favour of keeping the death penalty. Does the Solicitor General intend to have more serious consultation with the people?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have no plans to have any kind of a referendum, but we are in consultation on a continuing basis with citizens and citizen groups. As a matter of fact, last month I consulted two groups of policemen on this subject. I propose to continue consultations but have no intention to have a referendum.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a last supplementary.
Has the Solicitor General been in touch, in any way, with the six Toronto idlers who have pitched their tents and continue their hunger strike? Finally, have the police forces of Canada had some influence over the behaviour of the minister?


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have had no communication with the group which is demonstrating in front of the Don Jail in Toronto. With regard to the second part of the question, yes, I have been impressed with the position of the police on many matters but the one position that some of the police maintain with regard to capital punishment I cannot accept.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As we pass through stage after stage of consensus discussions while unemployment rises, inflation continues and our trade

May 6, 1975
Oral Questions
slumps into deficit, would the minister indicate when we may expect the budget and whether he is still hopeful it will be brought down in May or must we wait until June?


John Napier Turner: Roughly that is the case, Mr. Speaker. I hope to be able to present a more definitive date in due course.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary again is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the urgency of the matter would the minister indicate if it is likely that the budget will be presented in the first two weeks of June or in the last two weeks of June?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman will just have to wait.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With the background of Canadian consensus chats and their inflation orientation, would the minister indicate whether, in his consensus discussions with the OPEC countries, the possibility of an oil price increase in September was raised and, if so, did the minister tell the representatives of those countries that he felt that a price increase was not warranted and Canada would not follow their lead, if taken, or did he in effect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even the hon. member would recognize that there is great difficulty in connecting that as a supplementary question to his first one.


OIL-REASON FOR REDUCTION IN EXPORT TAX-EFFECT OF DECLINE IN EXPORTS ON EQUALIZATION OF DOMESTIC PRICE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the decision of the National Energy Board to reduce the export tax on Canadian crude by 80 cents any implications for the government's policy with respect to the export of crude oil at the rate of 680,000 barrels a day in mid-summer? In other words, was the reduction made because of the decline in markets there or has there been some fundamental change in our decision regarding the amount of oil we want to export?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the target we set for 1975 was 800,000 barrels a day. In fact, the level has been much lower, around 650,000, and indeed in the last several months it has been in the neighbourhood of 500,000 barrels a day. The decision to lower prices was made partly because of the representations received from western Canada and partly because of the desire to maintain the exports at a certain level. That was the basis for dropping the price, to meet the competition in the U.S. There has been no fundamental change in the maximum levels we had in mind.


James McPhail Gillies: As I understand it, basically the answer is a softening in the market rather than a change in policy.

What implications does this decline have on our policy of equalization of oil prices across the country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The decline in exports will have an effect on the extent to which resort will have to be made to the general revenues for the purpose of paying compensation. If indeed there is an increase in exports, it is believed that the increase in volume going through would more than counterbalance the revenue dropped through the export tax. The over-all level of exports being somewhat lower has meant a greater exposure for the treasury, than was the case when the export tax was at a higher level.


James McPhail Gillies: May I ask for a clarification of the last answer, Mr. Speaker? Is it the minister's contention that the reduction of 80 cents will stimulate sales sufficiently to reduce the demand on the general revenue fund in terms of the compensation program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A more accurate description would be that the deterioration in the export tax receipts would not continue.


OIL-POSSIBILITY OF CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON REDUCTION IN EXPORT TAX
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As I listened to the answers given by the minister I was wondering whether the decision to cut the export tax by 80 cents per barrel of crude was taken by the National Energy Board, or was it arrived at in consultation with the provinces and, if so, what provinces were consulted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have had representations from the heavy oil producers and from Saskatchewan. They stated that because of the shut-in of capacity there they were suffering economic hardship. The decision, of course, is made by the board from month to month on its analysis of the U.S. market. The figures produced represent the board's conclusions as to the appropriate price levels for Canadian oil, with the consequent effect on the export tax.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question to the minister related to consultation with the provinces, but the minister spoke about submissions from the provinces. Was there consultation by the federal government with the provinces and, if so, with which provinces? That was my question. Was there consultation or was it a unilateral decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The decision, of course, was that of the Energy Board and the government, but it was based upon representations received by me from the province of Saskatchewan, and as I recall, by my officials from the province of Alberta with regard to the levels of exports.
May 6, 1975


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises from the fact that the nurses at Camp Hill Veterans Hospital in Halifax have rejected a conciliation award and are considering strike action. Would the minister consider, in making up his mind whether to make a new offer to them, that all his Liberal colleagues from Atlantic joined Progressive Conservative candidates in the last federal election in calling for wage parity? That is what the nurses want.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the conciliation report has been a unanimous report from the president, the representative of the Treasury Board, and also the union. We have accepted it, and we believe it is fair to all nurses throughout Canada.


NURSES IN YUKON-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO MAINTAIN SERVICE IN VIEW OF STRIKE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I will ask the shy and retiring minister what steps his department is taking in connection with the Yukon-wide strike of federally employed nurses, which is effectively shutting down all hospital services in the Yukon save only for emergencies.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all essential services are guaranteed in institutions and hospitals under the responsibility of my department. A number of nurses have been designated to provide the necessary services to those who need medical care. We will, however, respect the right to strike given to all other nurses.


NURSES IN YUKON-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF REQUEST FOR PARITY OF SALARIES
Erik Nielsen: My supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. By way of enlightenment for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, even the designated nurses in the Yukon are on strike. Is the President of the Treasury Board actively considering the crippling strike now under way in the Yukon with respect to health services, and if so, is he taking any steps to bring the nurses' salaries to parity, as they are asking, or as a minimum, to raise their salaries to the amount being received by garbage collectors in the city of Whitehorse?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a conciliation board presented a unanimous report on that subject and we accepted it. We think that this report gives justice to everyone. As for those who do
Oral Questions
not have the right to strike, I ask them to go back to work, because the government's policy is that we will not tolerate people going on strike when they cannot legally do so.


STRIKE OF WORKERS AT CHARLES CAMSELL HOSPITAL-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SETTLE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be parochial, but in view of the recent strike of 100 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in Edmonton which has halted all surgery at the Charles Camsell Hospital, has the minister, or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, done anything to bring the two sides together in order to restore this vital service?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's question as notice.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Judging by the work papers or discussion papers which have been distributed to labour unions preparatory to a meeting to be held tomorrow, the government appears to be very willing to be specific regarding limitation on wage increases. Is the government equally willing to be specific on price increases, and does it have in mind any penalties which it would impose for non-compliance with regard to either limiting wage increases or price increases?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to move toward a voluntary agreement in this country.


George Harris Hees: As this appears to be about the same kind of approach as was made by the government in 1970, which failed dismally, does the government have any indication that the present approach will be any more successful? If so, what reason has the minister for feeling confident-the government is dealing with the same people in the same kind of way?


John Napier Turner: I think the situation facing the country today is far more apparent, Mr. Speaker.

May 6, 1975
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


CONFERENCE ON TREATY ON NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS-SUGGESTED AGREEMENT NOT TO SELL REACTORS TO NON-SIGNATORY COUNTRIES
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the statement issued by the minister today regarding the important conference at Geneva to review the provisions on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, will the Canadian government, in addition to the proposals and policies outlined in the statement, give consideration to putting forward to the conference a proposal that the signatories of the treaty, including Canada, agree not to sell nuclear reactors or other materials capable of being diverted from peaceful purposes for the creation of materials for nuclear weapons to any country which is not a party to the non-proliferation agreement and which does not accept the safeguards prescribed by the International Atomic Energy Agency?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will realize, the way his question is asked, there is no provision in the treaty covering the case he mentions. But it is certain that many countries interpret the treaty, in particular Canada, or promote an interpretation of the treaty according to which the government which signed the treaty do not accept to sell any atomic products to nations that did not sign the treaty, unless the transaction includes the very strict safeguards Canada applies to all transactions of this kind.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Will the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs seek consideration of Canada's trying to get an amendment to the treaty that will make it clear that the nuclear reactors and similar devices that can be diverted to the production of nuclear weapons, will not be sold to countries that will not sign the agreement nor accept the inspection and safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Commission. I suggest to him that this is a very practical matter because I understand that Canada is contemplating sales to some countries which have not yet accepted either the treaty or the safeguards.


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will convey this suggestion of the hon. member to the proper authorities. I want to be very precise, however, and repeat that each party to the treaty does undertake to provide nuclear equipment or material to other states only if it is subject to the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Commission.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the minister said that it is still premature to speak about precise guidelines on all forms of income and prices. Earlier today he said that his policy would call for moderation on all sectors of the economy. Has the government made the decision, in principle, that the program must be comprehensive, must include all forms of income and prices or is the government now envisaging a kind of selective program with no specific guidelines on certain areas such as dividends, metals, shelter and others?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that if there is to be any long term program it should embrace the total economy.


John Allen Fraser: A further supplementary. Can the minister assure the House that this is in fact government policy and that it has been clearly put forward to the representatives of labour who are meeting tomorrow?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is the basis on which we are discussing matters. There is no government policy until we are assured of agreement.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of certain statements that the minister made to the Independent Petroleum Association in Calgary last Thursday, can the minister advise the House to what degree discussions were held between officials of the oil industry and the government before he made his statement concerning the proposed profit-sharing plan for northern oil and gas exploration and development?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some ongoing discussions, without actually getting into the precise details, about the type of regime that we are planning. This was the general nature of the discussions.


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. To what degree will discussions be held with industry officials before the details of the profit-sharing plans are finalized?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it is not only a question of the profit-sharing plan but the total regime or system that we are dealing with at this time. There will be ongoing discussions prior to the matter being finalized.
May 6, 1975


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Now that certain allegations, information and evidence have been before the government for several months, and in particular before the minister for several days, respecting blacklisting, hiring hall practices and other employment practices of the SIU, is the minister going to order an inquiry under section 65(1) of the Canada Labour Code or some related section or one of the other statutes under which he has power to order an inquiry?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had the report for several days-since last Thursday, I believe. It is receiving active consideration and I hope to be in a position to announce the government intentions within the next few days. In the meantime, I should like to remind the House, and the hon. member, that as far as any abuses connected with hiring hall practices are concerned, I have already indicated that in our next batch of amendments to the Canada Labour Code, which is fairly new, will be included amendments to deal with the whole question of abuses in hiring hall practices. As I said, I hope to have a report for the House within a few days.


FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and concerns the prolonged difficulty experienced by the forest and wood fibre industries in Canada. In light of drastic cutbacks on purchase commitments for pulp and paper products recently announced by our three major trading partners, Japan, Germany and Great Britain, and in light of the continued recessionary trend in the lumber industry, can the minister advise the House today what measures, if any, the government intends to take to stabilize this commodity group which represents by far the largest manufacturing capacity in the country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have been reviewing this matter continually with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I should say to the hon. member that it is a little difficult to sustain export oriented industries when the economies of our three largest customers, the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom and some other countries that are markets for wood products are in a state of recession.


Frank Oberle: A supplementary question. Since this commodity group represents not only the largest capacity of manufacturing in Canada but also employs one million people, can the minister tell the House if the difficulties we are presently experiencing will be reflected in the
Oral Questions
forthcoming budget and in the consensus discussions with labour?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the subject the hon. member raises is, of course, relevant.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment.
Considering that a number of Quebec industries have to face river water pollution problems and that they shall have to spend considerable sums of money to process such waste waters, can the minister inform the House whether or not an agreement has been signed between Ottawa and Quebec to offer financial assistance to such industries so as to help them fight more effectively water pollution in our rivers?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there already exists a program to facilitate the fight against water pollution so that industries wishing to obtain anti-pollution equipment may do so. The program was established by the Minister of Finance and its aim is to allow depreciating the cost of such equipment over a relatively short period of time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary.
Are the industries concerned authorized to deal directly with Ottawa on this matter, or does the government of Quebec have authority to intervene so that the projects involved are first accepted at the provincial level?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, this is a federal program, and the industries may contact directly the federal Minister of Finance in this regard.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS FROM DUMPING MATERIAL INTO HAMILTON HARBOUR
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow my supplementary question. We are talking about the pollution of waters and it concerns Hamilton Harbour. In view of the recent court decision which indicates that the law passed by the province of Ontario regarding the conservation authority is ultra vires of the province of Ontario in so far as that law purports to apply to the CNR, and as, by way of an order in council approved by the minister's department in 1973, the CNR is still dumping or intends to dump in Hamilton Harbour, will the minister use his influence with his cabinet colleagues to see to it that such order in council is revoked.
5508

May 6, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to hold new discussions on this matter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the confusion arising from the complexity of the jurisdiction which involves the city of Hamilton harbour, the Hamilton-Wentworth region, the province of Ontario and the federal government-a confusion brought about by the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Act which was set up in 1912-will the minister assure the House that he will meet with representatives of the Hamilton-Wentworth region, the city of Hamilton, the province of Ontario and the CNR, in order to determine how best we can update the Hamilton Harbour Commissioners Act and meet the several needs existing within the several jurisdictions just referred to?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in his first question the hon. member asked me to authorize the revocation of an order in council of the cabinet. This authority I do not have. Now, he wants me to organize a federal-provincial conference, which is not my responsibility. But I can promise him so far as CNR is concerned, for which I am responsible to the House, that I will talk with them and try to convince them not to do these things.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the great anxiety caused by the acknowledged deficiencies in the production of biological products by CONNLAB, can the minister now assure us that these deficiencies have been corrected and that CONNLAB is following procedures required by the producers of other high quality pharmaceutical products and by other CDC subsidiaries selling comparable products in this country and abroad.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, to the last part of the hon. member's question, the answer is an unqualified yes. As to the first part, I do not know whether deficiencies are still being corrected or whether any correction which was required has already taken place. I will inquire; but I can assure the hon. member and the House that we have had the full co-operation from CONNLAB in that respect, as good co-operation as from any other firm in the country with which the health protection branch must deal.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister state how many vaccines have had to be discontinued by CONNLAB because of quality or otherwise and if the manufacture of any of those vaccines has been transferred to other countries? If so, does the minister have the figures?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but I will inquire for the hon. member.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he say if the report of the advisory committee on bilingual districts will soon be tabled in the House? If so, when? If not, has the government temporarily put it off and why are we waiting so long to bring in this famous report?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the latest information I have on this interesting question is that both the English and the French versions of the prospective report will be available for the printers in June.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of Canada's support of the UN position regarding South Africa's continuing occupation of Namibia and in view of the fact that Falconbridge Nickel Mines is being permitted, under section 126 of Canada's Income Tax, to claim foreign tax credits for taxes and royalties paid to the South African government because of its Namibian mining operations, can the minister inform this House what steps the government intends to take to put to an end this practice which only strengthens South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been studying the recent declaration on Namibia of the United Nations official concerned with this matter and we are looking at the implications, to see what effect this will have on the operations of Canadian companies in Namibia. When this study is complete we will make the results public.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is obvious that this government does not intend to interfere with Falconbridge's and South Africa's exploitation of Namibian material resources, is the minister prepared to use the good offices of his position to intercede on behalf of the Namibian workers and insist that Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. end its pernicious practice of using contract labour in its Namibian mining operations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question. After all, I have answered that the government was studying the particular report which has been made. Since the hon. member does not agree with that position, I have nothing to add.
May 6, 1975


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has to do with the policy circulars which have been issued by his department concerning Indian rights and obligations. As the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians as well as the chiefs of the various tribes in that province have taken strong objection to those circulars, on the ground that they were drafted without Indian consultation and represent an arbitrary, bureaucratic action, and that the implementation of the guidelines would result in the loss of their tribal identity, would the minister be prepared to hold back the application of these guidelines and circulars until there has been the fullest consultation, so that the Queen's wards shall not have their rights sacrificed in any way.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member has, I take it, referred to the local government guidelines and the education guidelines. First, I do not accept the suggestion that there has not been consultation. There has been considerable consultation on these guidelines.


John George Diefenbaker: With whom?


J. Judd Buchanan: With the Indian people, or the National Indian Brotherhood. I indicated to them in a letter that the ones which have been proclaimed will remain in force, but we regard them as being of an interim nature and will review them at the end of the year. With respect to the ones which have not been proclaimed, we would wait for their response, which would be in addition to the discussions we have had to date and we shall give them until June 1 to respond to the ones which have not yet been put into force.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, consultation in the mind of the minister and consultation in the minds of Indians are two different entities. They are at two stages, if that is the proper expression to use today.
In view of the fact that the Saskatchewan Indians and the Federation have been consistently law abiding and reasonable in their representations, will the minister not reconsider what will obviously result in a feeling of deep resentment among the Indians for failure to consult in the true sense of the word?


J. Judd Buchanan: I share the high opinion the right hon. gentlemen has expressed for the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians. On the other hand, to balance this, there are the requests which many chiefs and councillors have been making to us to lay out the guidelines related to all these funds they are now handling on behalf of the department. We are prepared to regard these guidelines as being of an interim nature. If they create difficulties and problems, we are prepared to change them.
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


DREDGING-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF ADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF CONTRACTS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works who, by his own admission, says there are four separate agencies responsible for the letting of dredging contracts in Canada. In addition, mention has been made of the many reports and comments of the Auditor General since 1963. May I ask the minister why, in these circumstances, his department made no attempt to bring together all these agencies to supervise dredging contracts and contractors?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: The new
interim policy was brought about only as a consequence of police activity last fall. The suspicion of collusion against which these measures are now directed did not exist prior to that.


John Raymond Ellis: My understanding is that in 1971 there were already suspicions. Will the minister assure us that from now on these four agencies will be working together to supervise dredging contracts, or, preferably, that one agency, the Department of Public Works, will be doing so?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can give an assurance that there will be continuing co-ordinated supervision with regard to all these contracts.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A few days ago I posed questions to him with regard to the lay-off of over 200 workers by the Sysco Steel plant at Sydney and the possibility of assistance by his department being provided in this unfortunate situation. Can the minister now advise me whether contact has now been made, as he assured me would be the case, and, if so, what has he to report?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Contact has been made and discussions have taken place between my officials and the company. At the moment I cannot report any specific program of assistance for the industry.


Robert Muir: Knowing that the minister is interested in cutbacks and lay-offs if they happen anywhere in Canada, may I ask whether he made a point of obtaining an assurance from the officials that there would be no further lay-offs by Sysco?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not know whether such an undertaking was given or volunteered by officials of the corporation or not. If the hon. member would like me to do so, I will find out.
29561 -5'/2

May 6, 1975
Oral Questions


SYSCO STEEL LAY-OFFS-POSSIBILITY OF REQUEST BY NOVA SCOTIA FOR SPECIAL PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE EFFECTS OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: supplementary on the same subject to the Minister of Public Works. Having regard to these recent heavy layoffs in the Sydney steel plant, can the minister inform us whether the Nova Scotia minister responsible for development or the prime minister of Nova Scotia have requested a special program to offset the additional unemployment in the Cape Breton area?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Not to
my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister have his department conduct a review of the decision of Canadian National to reduce during the next few months the number of its employees in New Brunswick and will he instruct this Crown corporation to continue services which are not provided by other firms, especially when provision of those services is not placing a strain on the corporation's financial resources?


Jean Marchand: This is a matter I have decided to discuss with Mr. Bandeen, President of CNR.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: A question to my old friend, the Postmaster General. In the light of recent statements by the President of Canadian Union of Postal Workers to the effect that such matters as automation, job classification and job security are not being considered in the course of the current contract negotiations, and in the light of the Postmaster General's constant assurances that these matters will be covered in the negotiations, can the hon. gentleman set out his position on this matter in crystal clear fashion? Can he assure us that the current sources of irritation, such as the casual earnings issue and the suspensions arising therefrom, will also be considered?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Beginning with the last reference, the reference to suspensions, that is the 49 or 50 indefinite suspensions which Mr. Davidson says must be retracted before any settlement can be reached-may I say that these indefinite suspensions are now a month old, and during the coming week I hope they

will become definite suspensions related to the infractions at the time of the original suspensions. They are not negotiable, even in return for a national collective agreement. In other words, I am not wiping the suspensions out of existence in order to please Mr. Davidson. The quickest way to deal with the problem of automation and all the other problems is for him to stop running around the country and go back to the bargaining table were he belongs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In the light of the acceptance of the recently negotiated contract by the large majority of the Letter Carriers Union, in spite of provocation by the Montreal local, can the minister give an assurance that the same terms of reference will apply in regard to the negotiations now under way with the Union of Postal Workers?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am not certain what the hon. member means by "the same terms of reference". If he is asking whether the government, or the team negotiating on behalf of the government, is prepared to sit down and negotiate in good faith, the answer is, definitely, yes. There is no particular reason why a settlement could not be achieved in a matter of a couple of weeks if, for instance, that union were to bargain on money, and bargain on fringe benefits, and come up with a viable formula to deal with technology over the life of the contract, as suggested by outside observers. If, however, one of the conditions of arriving at a settlement is that we waive or cancel the suspensions, I suspect we shall still be waiting for a settlement in 1980.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Fox.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,227, 2,270 and 2,278.
May 6, 1975

I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each year since the inception of the Canada Manpower Training Programme, how many persons have received (a) part-time (b) fulltime training?
2.	Has a record been kept as to whether any of these persons have received more than one course of training?
3.	What is the approximate average weekly cost of full-time training?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. For each year since the inception of Canada Manpower Training Program, the following numbers of persons received training:
Year	(a) Part-Time (b) Full-Time	Total1967-68	Statistics not available	183 5401968- 69	147,2001969-	70	71,6621970-	71	76,2231971-	72	49,8791972-	73	71,4541973-	74	83,5081974-	75*	55,537
'April 1, 1974-February 28,
154,000	301,200
233,237	304,899
268,623	344,846
302,231	352,200
281,377	352,831
236,218	319,726
202,768	258,305
only.
Western Grain Stabilization
Housing Corporation as follows: The provincial government has sought an extension to the lending program under Section 40 of the National Housing Act, and a draft agreement is now with the province for execution. The agreement to extend the program will cover the same terms and conditions as provided for in the original agreement, with the previous restrictions related to the number of units and time limitation being deleted.


Mr. Lachance: Was Public Service Competition 74-AGR-CC-HA-19 as advertised held and, if so (a) how many candidates made application (b) was there an appeal against the competition on the basis that certain requirements were not met (c) on what date will the next competition be held for the position advertised in competition 74-AGR-CC-HA-19 (d) who is holding the position?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: (a) Seven; (b) Yes; (c) As a result of the first appeal, interviews were scheduled a second time. Thereafter, further appeals were lodged and upheld. It was therefore planned to conduct a new competition in January 1975, but this was delayed by a further action on the competition before the Federal Court of Appeal, (d) No one is holding the position.
2.	Yes.
3.	The approximate average weekly cost of full-time training per trainee for 1974-75 is estimated at $60.42. Until recently the costs for full-time and part-time training, as paid by Canada to the provinces and other contractors, were not maintained separately. Consequently to arrive at approximate costs for each fiscal year the total number of training-days purchased has been divided into the total cost of training to produce a cost per training day. This in turn has been multiplied by five to produce a cost per training week per trainee. This is a very rough figure, since it ignores shifts in the mix of institution-centred and employer-centred training and in the mix of full-time and part-time training. Subject to these limitations, the approximate average weekly cost of training per trainee by fiscal year is as follows: 1967-68, $28.28; 1968-69, $33.10; 1969-70, $33.52; 1970-71, $35.09; 1971-72, $46.80; 1972-73, $58.13; 1973-74, $64.60; 1974-75, $58.44. It should further be noted that these figures do not include the costs of training allowances, for which full-time trainees may be eligible.


Mr. Marshall: Has agreement been reached between the government and the Province of Newfoundland to extend the mortgage lending programme beyond March 1975 and, if so, what are the details of such agreement?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I have been advised by Central Mortgage and



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton) (p. 5468).
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate last evening on the amendment to Bill C-41, I mentioned a number of things. First of all, I suppose I should state clearly that the amendment is asking for a referral of the subject matter to committee without the bill being dealt with in principle. If there is one time in my 17 years of political debating in the House of Commons that I wish the government would adhere to the wishes of the opposition, this is the occasion. I am not given to begging very often, but if it would do the trick I would beg the government to comply with the amendment now before the House.
I intend to deal, within the next 30 minutes or so allotted to me in this debate, with my reasons for this request. But first let me say that something very interest-

May 6, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
ing happened last evening. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) was speaking about inventory and the difficulty of equating just what inventory really deals with. The minister in charge of the bill, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), interrupted the hon. member and asked him this question which is to be found at page 5495 of Hansard:
I wonder whether the hon. member can tell me how he develops the fear that any bin measuring is required-
The minister then asked: "Where is the inventory?" and the hon. member for Moose Jaw replied: "I would assume the inventory is in the farmer's bins." To which the minister replied: "Nonsense".
The minister is piloting the bill through the House and we must deal with the legislation that is before us. At page 11 of the bill, subclause (4) of clause 9, paragraph (A) refers to "the opening inventory, in bushels, of farm stocks of such grain". How do you find a farmer's stock of such grain, Madam Speaker? You measure it in bins most of the time. At least, I hope most farmers keep their grain in bins. The paragraph continues, "for the year under review, determined as being,the closing inventory". Paragraph (B) refers to the "closing inventory, in bushels, of farm stocks of such grain determined in December of the year under review".
I do not know whether the hon. member for Moose Jaw is interpreting that particular clause correctly, but I do not know how else to interpret it. When the minister who is piloting this bill through the House says that the equating of inventory in bins is sheer nonsense, one can realize why we on this side of the House would like the whole subject matter of the bill dealing with grain income stabilization sent to the agricultural committee so the committee can hear briefs from farmers and farm organizations.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) said in his speech that all farm organizations agree with the bill, that all farm organizations think it is a necessary piece of legislation. He said the same thing of Bill C-19. As reported at page 26 of issue No. 4 of the agriculture committee's proceedings of November 7, 1974, the hon. member said:
It is interesting to look at what the farm reaction has been in fact. According to the announcements and pronouncements of the various farm groups with respect to this two-price wheat program ... every farm group that I have heard of endorsed it. At the moment I cannot think of an exception that voiced a contrary opinion last fall to this legislation.
That is what the hon. member said about Bill C-19, Madam Speaker. I have with me quotations from all the farm briefs, and if time allows I should like to read them. Every farm group that appeared before the committee, including even the Palliser Wheat Growers which the hon. member for Assiniboia brought down here, wanted changes made in the bill. The National Farmers Union wanted changes made, so did the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Unifarm of Alberta and the Ontario Wheat Growers. So it is only logical that we cannot take the word of the hon. member for Assiniboia in regard to Bill C-41.
To emphasize the conflict of jurisdiction in the field of agriculture, this very afternoon the agriculture committee is sitting. Members of the opposition have stated that this grain income stabilization bill is very complex and confusing and that members of parliament knowledgeable of

agriculture should be here, either explaining it to those who do not understand it or listening to the explanations of the experts on the government side who are proposing the legislation. But the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said, "To heck; that's not even agriculture. The agriculture committee sits". So it is sitting. It is with regret that I have to point that out to the House, because I have always believed that as grain income goes, so goes agriculture for the whole of Canada.
Last night I was saying that the Minister of Justice has not done anything beneficial for Canadian wheat farmers during the whole of his political career. The only major piece of legislation that he ever got through parliament was an enlargement, to take into account the costs of production and inflation, of a piece of legislation put forward formerly by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was prime minister at the time the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was minister of agriculture-namely, the cash advances legislation. What else has the minister done? He brought forward this bill about four years ago. Last night I stated that defeat of the bill four years ago saved the farmers a great deal of money. I went to the trouble of looking up exactly how much money was saved, Madam Speaker. I found that in the crop year 1970-71, under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, $39 million was paid out. In the crop year 1971-72, under the same act, $86,135,000 was paid out.
The defeat of the grain income stabilization bill four years ago carried a price tag: the cancellation of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act, the cancellation of PFAA and the cancellation of the government's right or ability to pick up the barley deficits. Those three measures were cancelled in lieu of this grain income bill. Yet in those two crop years alone, over $100 million was paid out through the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. In the crop year 1972-73, $2,918,000 was paid out under the same act and the money went into the Wheat Board pool account. In the crop year 1973-74, $5,832,000 was paid out into the Wheat Board pool account. So somewhere in the neighbourhood of $129 million has been paid out under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. In other words, members of parliament who contributed to the defeat of the grain income stabilization bill saved the farmers $129 million on that basis alone.
That is only one aspect. Another relates to payments under PFAA. In the year 1971, nearly $5 million was paid out to the farmers under PFAA. If we had passed the grain incomes stabilization bill four years ago, that money would never have gone out. In 1972, the amount was $5.4 million, and in 1973 it was $524,000. I have not done the mathematics-I could, because the figures are here before me-but this amounts to about $11 million that would not have been paid out to the farmers had this House of Commons passed the grain incomes stabilization bill of four years ago.
There is another matter involved, and that is deficiencies in the barley pool account for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72. If this House had passed the old grain stabilization bill, the government would not have had to pick up those deficiencies. In 1970-71, the barley pool account lost
May 6, 1975

$9,945,000, and in 1971-72 it lost $3 million. If parliament had passed that bill, the government would not have picked up those losses or paid out those amounts, so in effect parliament saved the farmers millions of dollars which this minister tried to take away from them, and would have if we had readily passed that bill.
The reason I am making this case is to show beyond a shadow of doubt that the complexities of Bill C-41 are not understood by members of this House, so the subject matter should be referred to the committee. Let us take a look at operation LIFT, that other great measure the Minister of Agriculture sometimes likes to boast about while most people realize that it was a colossal error. The minister says this had to be done. I heard him recently in Saskatchewan say that it was just one of those necessary things. He said that world wheat production had to be contained back in 1969. What are the facts? Farmers cut down their wheat acreage at the direct order of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I say it was a direct order, but that is a polite term; it was as a result of browbeating and blackmail by the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
Let me give the House some figures from the 1973-74 annual report of the Canadian Wheat Board. The total acreage in wheat in 1969 was 24,400,000, and in 1970 this had dropped to 12 million acres. That was a reduction of over 12 million acres as a direct result of the order of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. What happened in the rest of the world in respect of wheat production? Reading from page 3 of the same annual report, we find that world production of wheat back in 1969-70 reached about 10 billion bushels. Production has increased successively each year since, until in 1973-74 world wheat production reached 13.6 billion bushels. In causing the Canadian farmer to reduce the production of wheat by reducing the number of acres, the minister effectively lost markets and sales at higher prices for Canadians. This cost the farmers quite a bit.
Wheat seeded in 1970 would have sold in 1971, 1972 and possibly in 1973. The price to the farmer at that time varied from $2.15 a bushel to a low of $1.60 a bushel. According to this report, the 12 million acres yielded an average of 26 bushels to the acre. Anybody with a pocket computer can figure out what that reduction in Canadian wheat cost the Canadian farmer. The equation is 26 times 12 million times about $2 a bushel. That is colossal amount of money which this minister cost the Canadian farmer. Let me be specific by saying that it was a direct loss to the farmers of Saskatchewan, the very people the minister attempts to represent sometimes in this House.
The most soul-saving thing I can say as a member of parliament representing farmers in my constituency is that I cannot be blamed because the minister did not bring into operation the LIFT program in my area. I was not asked to recommend it to parliament or to vote for it. I was not asked to say whether it was good or bad. At the time I did say it was bad. There were newspaper headlines to the effect that as a result of the LIFT operation some $60 million would be paid out to the farmers. I remember headlines two inches high in the Globe and Mail at that time. The money paid out under the LIFT program was closer to $64 million. I have given the equation regarding
Western Grain Stabilization
how much was lost, and it appears to me that about $600 million was lost of the prairie farmers.
Is it any wonder that with that kind of track record we on this side ask the minister not to bring forward this complex bill and ask us to vote yea or nay on it? Please do not ask us whether we fully understand clause 11 which gives a calculation on the aggregate amount of stabilization payments. We want it worked out. It is not good enough that we understand it; the farmers must understand it. When there is a crop failure the farmers will, without a shadow of doubt, come to their member of parliament and ask why they are not getting some of this money. They will tell us they paid 2 per cent on last year's crop and the government contributed 4 per cent, so they expect to get something out of the fund. We will have to convince those farmers that clause 11 is being interpreted correctly by the officials-and that will not be an easy task.
The farmers have to understand this bill, and they do not understand it today. I suggest that no farm organization today understands either clause 10 or clause 11. In fact, the minister last evening proved beyond a shadow of doubt that, rather then the hon. member for Moose Jaw not having read the bill, the minister has not read it. The minister has to go on his past record in respect of the old stabilization bill. He gave us an equation, in his speech, in relation to his old grain stabilization bill of four years ago. I think I proved beyond doubt that the old bill should have been defeated. Perhaps this one is an improvement. The old bill referred to gross sales, as this one does, although from time to time when reading it I have noted some reference to net income.
I am not suggesting I fully understand the bill, and I am not ashamed to admit that I do not fully understand it. I have a rough idea how it is going to work. However, it is not surprising that farmers in western Canada do not understand it. One of the biggest jokes you can tell farmers at a meeting in western Canada is that whenever the government suggests they should do something, if they do the very opposite they will come out better. That joke goes over well with the farmers because this minister has proved it to be accurate.


Mr. Lang:: They laugh, but they don't do it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggests that they laugh, but do not do it. I suggest that if they work out the equation I gave which shows that the minister cost the farmers some $600 million as a result of his LIFT operation, they will realize that if they do not do the very opposite of what he tells them to do, then they should. There is no question about that in my mind. The minister says they do not do it. Let me quote from the February edition of the Country Guide, a well known publication, one of the better ones. This magazine does not go off half-cocked in respect of its editorials. Generally speaking, research is carried out: the editors of the magazine research articles which they write, having in mind the betterment of agriculture in Canada. This is what appears in the editorial section. The heading reads, "Don't go 'All out'". This has reference to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice telling the farmers to grow all the wheat they can this year. The editorial reads:

May 6, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
Spring isn't far way. The time's approaching when farmers will make final decisions on what crops and what acreages they're going to seed this year.
Since last fall, there's been plenty of advice on that second point. It's mostly come from the mouths of politicians; it revolves mostly around one central message: "Grow everything you can. Canada and the world rely on the heroic efforts of you farmers to keep us from starvation".
That is what the politicians have been telling the farmers. The minister says that the farmers listen to him. This magazine, which publishes and researches articles on western and Canadian agriculture in general, does not quite agree. The article ends saying:
This is not the year to sacrifice the future, or take abnormal risks in order to grow extra grain. At least not unless there's something more concrete than politicians' promises at the end of the road.
It states pretty clearly that the farmers should not buy the promises of politicians but should look for something better. It is as though the farmers listen to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and then proceed to do the very opposite. The request by the opposition to refer the subject matter of this bill to the agricultural committee or another committee of the House of Commons bears very careful consideration by the government for another reason. A committee which has before it a piece of legislation can amend its clauses. I should know, because I have moved amendments on a number of occasions. However, if one should amend, say, subclause (b) of a clause, this would affect subclauses (a), (c) or (d). But if the subject matter were referred to committee and the committee heard witnesses, then the legal minds of the Department of Justice and the Department of Agriculture could draw up a bill which would comprise roughly what the farmers and the farm organizations want. This makes much more sense than the proposals of some members of parliament who may have great legal backgrounds.
It is difficult to amend a bill that is already drafted, in order to meet the very divergent views which may exist in the farming community. Prior to this amendment being moved, I stated my opinion that the bill is not regional enough. That question could be dealt with. I have asked myself how we can amend Bill C-41 and equate several regions within the Canadian Wheat Board area. I have looked at this bill and tried to figure out how it could be amended so there would be 14 different regions within the prairie area. I could not figure out a clause which would have that effect. If the subject matter were referred to the committee, a bill could be drafted to deal with the geographic areas which naturally exist on the prairies. The area of the Wheat Board extends from Manitoba to the interior of British Columbia. The Peace River area is a natural geographic area. The inner lake region of Manitoba is another natural geographic area, as is the area around the Carrot River in the Mackenzie District. None of these areas is the same as the Regina plains area.
This bill is not regional enough. Therefore, many farmers feel they could have a crop failure and would not be able to obtain a payment. This bill also deals specifically with the question of sales. Sales depend upon the volume sold and the price. If twice as much is sold at half the price, the total sale is the same as if you had sold half as much. Therefore, it is not good enough to deal strictly with

sales. We saw in Canada, during the last 365 days, the west coast tied up for 206 days. This greatly affected sales. In a study entitled "Transportation Implications of Canada's Trade with Japan" by Keith A. J. Hay and S. R. Hill, we find this statement:
This strike, along with a strike by lakes crews, which totally eliminated water movement from Thunder Bay, continued into the next crop year. Bottlenecks have been particularly severe upon westward movement of prairie grain. The Wheat Board estimated that about $350 million of wheat sales were lost in 1974 as a result of transportation difficulties in the west, and countless potential sales were jeopardized with the decline in the Canadian reputation for reliability.
I wanted to put that specifically on the record because this bill deals with sales. Sales can be affected by conditions which have nothing to do with the farmer. The farmer can grow the wheat and pay his costs in respect of fuel, production, machinery and taxes. The Lord, I suppose, can interfere with his crop and instead of bringing rain can bring hail. However, the farmer has other problems with which he must deal which are far beyond his control, such as the problem of moving his grain through the normal pipeline to the markets. We have seen these problems this year.
We have also seen this Minister of Justice interfere directly with collective bargaining. Last May 8 he directly interfered with collective bargaining by telling the unions they were right and the company was wrong. Therefore, he prohibited meaningful negotiations taking place in a two-month period between May 8 and July 8. He deliberately cost the farmers $350 million which the Canadian Wheat Board says it lost in the calendar year 1974. So, is it any wonder that members of parliament become pretty leery about anything this minister touches with regard to agriculture?
The minister was born on a farm, but he left the farm because he hated agriculture. I say to you, Madam Speaker, and to all members of this House of Commons, that he still hates agriculture. He has done nothing for agriculture in western Canada. Every piece of legislation in which he has been involved, with the exception of the cash advances legislation, has cost western Canada money. Every time he turns around he costs western Canada money. The greatest thing the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) could do would be to leave him strictly with justice or some other department. While I do not advocate that the Canadian Wheat Board be placed in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, I do say: Give me Whelan or anybody other than this minister who has cost the farmers money with respect to every piece of legislation he has attempted to pilot through this House.
The minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan says that we should not rush this bill. All the prairie ministers say that we should look at it because it is not fully understood. All the amendment says is that we should study the subject matter and then determine what we really want. If the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Justice are prepared to put in 4 per cent of the gross sales in the form of government money, the farmers can use that money. Since we do not particularly trust the track record of the minister and the government, this makes sense to me.
May 6, 1975

Normally, legislation before the House must be dealt with in a hurry because of the need for change. Labour unions must tell their men to go back to work, so parliament has to deal with it; corporate rip-offs take place, so parliament has to deal with them. This is a long-term measure, in the minister's own words. Since only four or five payments will be made in the next 20 years, why tie the farmer that length of time to a piece of legislation which demands that he pay in 2 per cent of the sales without giving him some warning in this complicated bill? No payments will be made in 1975 or 1976 because probably sales will be good and prices may hold up. Payments will be made when the bill has been in effect for a number of years.
Then there is the question of compulsion in the bill. In clause 5 it is stated that by 1978 the farmer must make up his mind whether he wants to opt in or out of the program. I say that if the minister is not careful, farmers will not understand the bill and will not know whether to exercise the option. However, if the committee travels across Canada, studying the subject matter of the bill and discussing it with farmers, farmers will have a better basis for understanding it and they will know whether they prefer to opt in or out of the program and run their own insurance scheme.
For all these reasons, I believe that the amendment before us is justified and in conclusion I should like to plead with members of the House to pay heed to it and vote accordingly.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise again to take part in this debate because I have some additional reasons to put forward for the subject matter of the bill being referred to the standing committee. It is my strong conviction that if that were to happen, as a result of the proceedings of the standing committee and what its members would hear, the minister and parliament would wish to make substantial changes to the legislation before it was brought back to the House. I also want to present the views of one of the provinces which will be affected by this legislation, views that the province is presenting today in Ottawa.
One reason that I think the subject matter of the bill should be referred to the standing committee is that I think members of the committee, farmers and farm organizations in the Wheat Board area, must realize that what the bill does in one area of the western grain industry is to shore up and insure operations on the open market. I know that what I will now say will not be supported by the Conservatives or, for that matter, by the Liberal and Social Credit parties, but it is my opinion and that of my party that this legislation should be applied in such a manner so as not to benefit those who are selling grain on the open market: I must protest this bill being used to shoreup the Winnipeg commodity exchange. If any farmer is foolish enough to sell his feed wheat, oats and barley on the open market and wants to take his chances with the fluctuating, open market prices, I see no reason whatsoever why we should use federal legislation to stabilize income which is obtained on the open market rather than
Western Grain Stabilization
through the orderly marketing system of the Canadian Wheat Board.
So far as I am concerned, if the farmer wishes to become involved with grain speculators, then he should damn well take his chances and forfeit his opportunity to receive any payments from the grain income stabilization plan. The payments should go to those who deliver wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board. The government should licence feed lots and feed mills as agents of the Canadian Wheat Board, so that farmers who deliver directly to a feed lot or a feed mill would be eligible to participate in a proper grain income stabilization plan. As is obvious from the bill, that matter has not been considered by individual farmers and farm organizations.
The major difficulty with the legislation before us is the fact that those who do the best in terms of income, collect the most whenever there is a pay-out. Surely that flies in the face of any principles of a good insurance or stabilization program. One has only to look at any unemployment insurance, health insurance or a host of other programs: this provision in the bill flies in the face of the principles underlying any such program.
In 1970-71, and again in the past few weeks, the New Democratic Party proposed that any grain stabilization program should be integrated and meshed with crop insurance programs. This is the best, easiest, simplest and most understandable manner in which to operate. The two fit logically together. I would point out that with the repeal of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act which was a form of crop insurance-everyone out west called it the "dry bonus" that worked reasonably well and although it was not all-inclusive in the risks it covered, at least it was a beginning, the federal government, to its credit and it is to be commended for it, increased its contributions to the crop insurance programs to cover 50 per cent of the premiums under crop insurance in all provinces. The rate of participation in crop insurance was 66 per cent of farmers in Manitoba and 62 per cent in Saskatchewan. I suspect it was somewhere in the same neighbourhood in Alberta. Each year, thousands of additional farmers come under it and I predict that in another year or two the plan will be almost universal.
When we have that amount of participation, the program will become that much better because under it we will be able to provide greater coverage and greater benefits when crop losses occur. It is logical and proper for an income stabilization plan to be integrated and meshed with a crop insurance program. Crop insurance covers the risks that Mother Nature sometimes inflicts on farmers. Income stabilization will cover economic risks such as the world situation and other conditions over which the farmer has no control.
I agree that the government should be commended for being prepared to put up $50 million or $60 million a year-it might be more than that in some years-out of the national treasury, from all the people of Canada, toward stabilizing the incomes of western grain producers. We all support that idea. But the content of this legislation makes a farce of any proper grain income stabilization program. It completely betrays the principle of a real grain income stabilization program.
5516

May 6, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
I think the government did a deplorable thing when it repealed the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. When it increased its contribution to the crop insurance program it deserved commendation. But there was some $8 million to $10 million left in the old PFAA fund. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) does not want to put that into crop insurance. That is what it was raised for. Levies were imposed on farmers and they contributed to the PFAA fund. It was to help them in the way of pay-outs when they suffered crop losses due to weather conditions and natural hazards. That is what the crop insurance program does now. I would like to know why the minister will not put the money left over from the PFAA fund into the crop insurance program, where it rightfully belongs.
What does the minister want to do? He wants to start his grain income stabilization fund with that money. That money belongs to the crop insurance fund and not to the minister to do with as he pleases. This matter needs to be considered in committee; it is part of the subject matter of the legislation before this House. Even though I have commended the government for its intention to put up $50 million or $60 million per year toward a grain income stabilization program, I want to remind the House that it will not be additional money from Canadian taxpayers; it is money the government had already saved when it succeeded in disposing of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. When that legislation was in operation, the Government of Canada paid anywhere from $20 million to $65 million per year as its share of the cost of grain storage in the terminals of Canada. That was a good principle: it should have applied to all grains, not just wheat. But the notion as a whole was to contribute toward the cost of a national inventory or national pantry-storage for the world's hungry.
The burden of those storage costs was not borne by farmers alone; the nation as a whole contributed. For the last two successive crop years the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), through the Canadian Wheat Board, has not had to pay a nickel toward the cost of grain storage. The federal government has saved somewhere between $40 million and $120 million just in two crop years. The government plans through this legislation to give out with one hand money it has already taken away with the other hand. I think it is a disgrace that the government no longer participates in a meaningful way in the sharing of grain storage costs from coast to coast, not just in western Canada. This is a national inventory or pantry which is maintained for our customers, for the aid programs we have and for the needy and hungry of the world.
That kind of program should be reinstated, instead of the minister saying that the government is prepared to pay up to $40 million toward grain storage. The problem is that I am afraid he plans to pay up to $40 million toward grain storage but also to hand out grants, loans and whatnot to private enterprise commodity exchange types who want to put up inland terminals which will cost farmers more and will destroy hundreds of communities in the prairie provinces which can and should be viable. These communities are composed of two, three or four generations of people who have put in a lifetime of endeavour.

When I was listening to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) the other day, he said that the old grain stabilization bill of 1970-71 was withdrawn by the government because it was compulsory. He was talking about the participation in the plan proposed under the bill before us. I want to remind the hon. member that that is not why the bill was withdrawn. It was withdrawn because the opposition parties in parliament were unanimous in their opposition to the way it was structured and to the way it was intended to be implemented. Every farm organization was opposed to it, all three western provinces were opposed, and the Minister of Justice was stubborn and refused to listen. It required a court case, involving four farmers taking the government and the then minister of finance to court and applying for a writ of mandamus to force the minister of finance to pay $92 million owing to the Canadian Wheat Board by the federal government. That is what forced the withdrawal of that bill, and thank goodness it happened.
While I admit that the minister has made some improvements in this legislation over the old legislation, it still flies in the face of the principles of a good grain income stabilization plan. It may be called a bill guaranteeing incomes, or whatever expression comes to mind. I notice the Minister of Justice has left the chamber, but I see the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) is here and I want to put on record the position of the province of Manitoba. I should tell the hon. member that Manitoba is presenting its position right now to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I expect he will receive a copy of this tomorrow, or perhaps I can make one available to him tonight. I want to put on the record Manitoba's position as follows:
Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation and the Government of Manitoba are very concerned over the proposed Prairie Grain Stabilization Act as set out in Bill C-41. While we commend the Government of Canada for its intention to provide a greater degree of stability for the prairie grain producers, we have serious reservations with regard to the type of stabilization program that is being proposed.
We said earlier that the objective of crop insurance is to provide farmers with a means to protect themselves against serious financial losses caused by acts of nature.
One would assume that the objective of the grain stabilization plan would be to provide farmers with a means to protect themselves against serious financial losses caused by economic events beyond their control. Indeed, Bill C-41 is being portrayed as having that purpose.
We regret to say that if that were the objective of the proposed Prairie Grain Stabilization Act, it could not be achieved by the measures envisaged in Bill C-41. What is more serious in our view, however, is the fact that Bill C-41 does not have as its specific purpose the protection of farmers against losses due to economic events beyond their control. One of the most exasperating aspects of the bill is that it is next to impossible to detect the rationale behind it, and this lack of rationale together with the extreme complexity of the bill makes any attempt at explaining this important legislation to farmers an exercise in frustration.
Yet, since the scheme proposed in Bill C-41 is a contributory plan, farmers should know what insurance they are buying; in other words, the plan must relate to the needs of individuals, and it should be possible for individuals to determine what benefits would accrue to them if the events against which they are insuring themselves should occur. That is a cardinal principle of all insurance plans, be they private, mixed private and social such as crop insurance, or universal social insurance schemes such as workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, hospital or health insurance.
May 6, 1975

A second cardinal principle of all such schemes is that indemnities are paid to those who experience the ill effects of the event against which the plan provides insurance, and not to others. The proposed Prairie Grain Stabilization Act sins against both these principles; in fact it completely ignores them.
For example, a farmer who insures his crop with Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation knows what he insures himself for; he knows to what level he will be indemnified if his yield is below the insured level. A worker who pays unemployment insurance knows what he may expect in benefits in the event he loses his job and fails to find another. That is as it should be. In contrast, a person participating in the proposed Prairie Grain Stabilization Act has no way of knowing when he will receive benefits, how much he will receive, or whether he will receive benefits when he really needs them.
Secondly, Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation will indemnify only those insured farmers who suffered specified losses but will make no payments to all insured farmers because the over-all yield in the province was below the five-year average. Similarly, the Unemployment Insurance Commission will pay benefits to insured persons who lose their job, but will not make payments to all those making unemployment insurance contributions on the basis that there is a slack in the economy. Yet that is precisely what the measures proposed in Bill C-41 purport to do.
In a nutshell, payments will be made by the grain stabilization fund if the proceeds from the sale of a proportion of the prairie grain crop in any year falls below the average proceeds in the previous five-year period, after adjustments have been made for changes in certain-but by no means all-expenses incurred in production. Participating farmers will receive payments proportionate to their contributions. Whether individual farmers actually suffered declines in receipts or income is immaterial under that plan.
If Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation operated on that principle it could conceivably have taken the $8.2 million paid in indemnities in 1974 and distributed them to insured farmers on the basis of their premium contributions. It is quite possible that farmers with very high yields would have received large payments and farmers with a total crop loss would have received far less.
I am sure the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) will be interested in what comes next:
If the Unemployment Insurance Commission operated on the same principle as the grain stabilization plan, it would calculate for all of Canada the average annual bill for wages and salaries on which unemployment insurance contributions are made, adjust it for changes in the number of unemployment insurance contributors and for certain changes in the consumer price index, and if the adjusted total wage bill fell below the average of the previous five years, the Unemployment Insurance Commission would make a payment to all wage and salary earners. Each would be paid proportionate to this contributions; those who had paid the maximum would receive most; those who had paid less would receive less, and the unemployed who had made little or no contributions would receive little or nothing. We doubt whether such a scheme to "stabilize the net proceeds from wages and salaries in Canada" would meet with the approval of the Canadian people. Yet this is precisely the method "to stabilize the net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain" that has been presented as Bill C-41 to the Parliament of Canada for approval.
Earlier in our submission we commended the Government of Canada for its intention to provide a degree of stability for the prairie grain producers. We are appreciative of the willingness of the federal government to ask the Canadian people to set aside some $50 million or $60 million per year-perhaps more-to be channelled to prairie grain producers if at some future date economic factors beyond their control cause a severe decline in receipts from the sale of prairie grains. While we appreciate the intent, and while we approve of the establishment of a prairie grain stabilization fund, we respectfully suggest that a more rational, more equitable and more effective plan should be adopted than the one proposed in Bill C-41.
Now we come to the meat of the argument presented by Manitoba, and to their proposal. Indeed, this is what we proposed in 1970-71 but the minister refused to listen. I
Western Grain Stabilization
mentioned it again last Tuesday night. The Manitoba brief continues:
We suggest that the present all-risk crop insurance programs operative in the western provinces could be broadened to include price guarantees. Prices for the various crops could be adjusted from year to year to reflect changes in the cost of production and to protect profit margins so that net farm incomes would be kept commensurate with the general standard of living in Canada. By adding price guarantees to the present yield and quality guarantees of the crop insurance program, farmers could be offered a complete package of basic income protection.
The program could be operated by the crop insurance administration presently existing in the western provinces. With a slight addition to staff, Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation could administer a much more equitable crop and income insurance program than is envisaged in Bill C-41. It would also make it unnecessary to establish a complete, new administrative organization to administer a separate western grain stabilization program.
Above all, the approach suggested by Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation is consistent with the cardinal principles of mixed private and social insurance, that the insured knows what he is insured against and what his benefits will be, and that payments are not made at random but to those who need them.
Madam Speaker, if that does not tell us that the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, I do not know what does. If you were to apply the principle of this bill to unemployment insurance or any other social program, the people just would not stand for it. It provides for making payouts to those who get the most-the ones who get the most, get the most; and the ones who get the least, get the least. If that is stabilization of income, I'm a monkey's uncle!
The subject matter of this bill flies in the face of its title and flies in the face of the principle of income stabilization. Surely a simpler and more equitable system would be to guarantee prices. A member of a crop insurance board told me that if they were to administer crop insurance and income stabilization together, all they would have to do is add one column on the crop insurance form. I am not an overly suspicious fellow, Madam Speaker, and I would not want to accuse the government of any political designs on western Canada, so I will give them the benefit of the doubt and accept their intentions as being good. I commend them for trying to stabilize grain incomes.
In the dirty thirties we on the prairies had a bitter experience with the organization of the relief inspectors and the separate, little, private administrative machines. I do not know why the Minister of Justice needs a separate, massive administrative machine to implement a grain income stabilization plan when the machinery is already in place. All four western provinces have viable, functioning crop insurance programs. To its credit, the federal government pays half the premiums but the provinces administer the programs and bear that cost. As well, the farmers contribute to the program.
This is what should be done when grain incomes suffer as a result of things other than natural hazards. If the world market crashes or other economic disasters over which the farmers have no control take place, at that point the crop insurance administration-let us call it a crop incomes insurance plan-should step in. This would be a step in the direction of a real incomes policy in Canada. This is what farmers and farm organizations want to talk about, and they could do so if the subject matter of the bill were referred to the standing committee.
29S61-6'/2

Western Grain Stabilization
This bill is a real mare's nest. I had a couple of good lawyers look it over and they are still scratching their heads. If anything would cause farmers to lose confidence and withdraw their support from any proposal for grain income stabilization, this is it. That is why we ask that the subject matter be referred to the standing committee. The way the minister wants to apply this legislation flies in the face of the principle of grain income stabilization or any kind of income insurance and opposes the title of the bill. As the Government of Manitoba has said, it would be an exercise in frustration to try to deal with this legislation as it stands. To have farmers ask questions and give information would be a complete waste of time if the legislation were to pass in its present form, because within one or two crop years the majority of grain farmers in western Canada would be so fed up and angry that they would start opting out of the plan. They would realize they had been had again; that this is not an effective way to deal with the wildly fluctuating incomes of grain farmers.
All parties in this House agree we must do something; that never again must the grain industry be afflicted by the wild variations of income which it has experienced in the last 40 years. Although we agree, surely this is not the way to do it. The legislation must be as simple as possible. I submit, on behalf of my party, that the simplest and most practical way of doing it would be to guarantee prices and bring in adjustments related to costs of production so that the incomes of farmers are comparable with the incomes of the other people of Canada. It is as simple as that. The government's payment of $50 million, $60 million or $80 million a year will cover half or two-thirds of the cost of the program. But you will still need premiums. You can make the 2 per cent deduction from the income on grain sales. This could be done when deliveries are made at the elevator, in just the same way as it was done in previous years under the prairie farm assistance program when there was a 1 per cent deduction. That method is simple, efficient and, most important, fair.
I submit that pay-outs should be made on an individual basis and not on a total area basis. I know that the minister and his officials want to come up with some system which will provide for pay-outs on a regional basis as opposed to a basis involving the whole Wheat Board area. That would be an improvement but it is still not good enough. Having a crop insurance and incomes plan will allow for individual pay-outs. Again, it remains contributory: the farmers will put up the money and pay into the plan individually and the deductions are made simply when they sell their grain. Actually, I suspect that a 2 per cent deduction from farmers would be sufficient to cover the premiums of both the income stabilization and the crop insurance programs. I did a little checking this morning and learned that less than 1 per cent of deductions based on grain sales in the province of Manitoba would have more than covered the premiums for crop insurance. If you raised the deduction to 2 per cent or 3 per cent, you would cover the premiums for all-risk crop insurance and income insurance.
A guaranteed price based on the cost of production has been an article of faith of my party for a long time. It was

in our election program of 1935, would you believe! We have raised this issue ever since, in every election. We have raised it in every parliament since then. Many countries of the world have done this. It is not socialistic. It is civilized; it is a proper way to deal with such an essential part of the economy of our nation. Moreover, it is the essential and proper way to deal equitably with grain farmers. In my opinion, that principle should apply to all agricultural production.
We are in favour of a system of guaranteed prices related to costs of production, and there should be variations in that to protect the farmer's net income. Since the end of the Second World War Canada has lost 400,000 families from farming; in other words, well over 1.25 million people have been driven from the land because of inadequate economic policies for agriculture. All parties can take some blame for this. Here we have a golden opportunity: we are legislating the beginning of an income program for grain farmers and it can lead the way and be an example to all other sectors of agriculture. Indeed, it can lead the way for all other parts of our economy. This could be a sensible and civilized incomes program.
Unfortunately, the bill is inadequate. Surely, in view of the attitude of the Government of Manitoba, which has criticized the contents of the legislation and pointed out most lucidly how the bill flies in the face of the principles of income stabilization, income guarantees or income insurance, unemployment insurance, hospital and medical insurance and principles to which private plans adhere, the government should listen. The members of the National Farmers Union have said the same thing. I have talked to members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and made it a point during the winter to talk to as many farmers as I could. These people are all perplexed and frustrated. They do not know what the legislation involves. They do not know what will happen. They do not know what the benefits will be if and when the bill passes.
As the bill now reads, some farmers could be adversely affected. Let me give an example. In my constituency a piece of railway track was washed out over a year ago and still has not been fixed. If the farmers of the area cannot deliver their grain and if their income drops as a consequence, they will not be covered under this legislation. They are not covered unless the whole grain industry suffers. You could also run into this situation: say that in one small corner of the western provinces, grain crops are of poor quality. We know that our customers want high grade, high protein grain. Assume that the rest of the Wheat Board area has grown high grade, high protein grain. Farmers in general have delivered lots of grain and farm incomes generally are high. But in this small corner where the grain is of low grade, low protein content, sales are poor and farm incomes drop. As the bill now reads, there will be no pay-out for them. The province of Manitoba makes the point that pay-outs should be on an individual basis; I submit that point is well taken.
Surely this is the sort of thing we should consider in committee. That is why, before this legislation passes, it should receive the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The standing committee could spend all summer and fall talking to farmers; it is too late now, because the boys have just about finished spring seeding.
May 6, 1975

But the committee could start its work in late June and could continue holding meetings during the summer. The offices of farm organizations are open all summer. This might mean that a few members of parliament would have to work for a couple of weeks during the summer, but that is all right; we are already more than well paid and it would not hurt us a bit.
We could meet farmers and farm organizations all summer and return to this House in early September with a report and recommendations to the House on the basis of which the minister and his officials could draft a bill. We could get it through quickly and it could be the law of the land. We could establish a real grain income stabilization program which would be a crop insurance and income insurance program. It would be administered by the four western provinces, and the farmers would contribute to it. The government would contribute, but the provinces would pay the cost of operating the plan and each farmer would be eligible for benefit on an individual basis. The farmer's income would be protected.
Surely that is the least we can do. It is what we must do. Attempting to deal in committee, let alone in the House, with the legislation as drafted will result in nothing but frustration for farmers. As Manitoba says, it will be an exercise in frustration for all. So far as I am concerned, only the organizational genius of an ex-dean of law could implement a bill which reads as this one does. That reminds me of a story which happened in Britain. When the British parliament brought in rationing under Sir Winston Churchill's government during the Second World War, Nye Bevan got up and said something like this, "Mr. Speaker, England is an island full of coal, set in a sea full of fish, but only the organizational genius of the prime minister can see to it that we shall ration both."
Well, farmers in western Canada can grow grain like you wouldn't believe. Sometimes it is good quality, and sometimes it is not so good. Sometimes the crops are poor, and sometimes they are affected by events over which they have no control, whether is it weather or international developments or the Liberal government. But they have the ability to grow the stuff and they have the wherewithal, the machinery to ensure their incomes.
I can just see what the workers around London, Ontario, would say if you implemented an unemployment insurance program the same way as this grain stabilization program. You would have a riot on your hands. There is not a worker in the country who would stand for it. It is sheer nonsense for any government to be so dumb as to try to bring in legislation of this nature. I urge the government to study carefully what Manitoba is saying today before the committee on agriculture: they have five or six pages on what is wrong with the grain stabilization bill and what an income program should be, and they put it most succinctly and, I know, sincerely and positively. They are not looking for any fight with the federal government. They are, in a positive way, asking parliament and the government to reconsider its approach to a grains stabilization program.
The least we can do is take the subject matter of this bill to the farm organizations, the municipal organizations, the
Western Grain Stabilization
provincial governments and the crop insurance boards of all four western provinces, ask them how they would like it done and if they would like it done this way. If we did not get an almost unanimous negative response, I would be very surprised.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House deals with one of the most fundamental problems facing farmers in Canada. We have just seen the government apply the whip to the Liberal members to vote against the interests of farmers whom they are supposed to be protecting.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the
amendment which was just defeated, government supporters turned down a simple request that before we decide on the important principles in the bill farmers should be given a chance to express their views.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In
speaking on this amendment, I made it very clear that all [The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin).]
parties in the House wish to provide for agriculture in all parts of Canada some form of insurance against instability of income. Yet, when we asked the government to let the principle of the bill be put before the farmers and let them decide whether they want it, the government refused that simple, democratic right to the farmers of western Canada.
When we proposed that one of the things that was concerning farmers in western Canada was that this was an agricultural matter, and agricultural matters should be the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and not of the Minister of Justice-the latter should look after matters such as abortion, which has nothing to do with grain income-the government refused to consider it. If we could only get the Minister of Justice off our backs a great deal of confidence could be engendered in the agricultural industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: On the
vital principle of voluntary or compulsory participation, the government refuses the farmers the right to decide what they want. Now we have to go into the committee with these principles established as the will of parliament; but I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that they are not the will of the farmer.
I did not speak in the early stages of the legislation for the simple reason that I wanted the House to hear the viewpoints of members of parliament who represent the farmers of western Canada, and most of them are on this side of the House. For 70 years, western Canada has borne the burden of Liberal parties on its back. For 70 years we have felt in the west that no one gave a damn for the interests of the western people. For years western farmers tended to be Liberal. Now you can see all across the country the reason why they are not any more, because when you ask for a chance for the farmers to express a view it is not given to them.
In spite of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) and in spite of the whip the government applied to its members today, this bill is required in western Canada although not in the terms in which it is couched. This bill aims to do something that we have been talking about in the west for 35 years. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will agree with me when I say that one cannot solve the problems of agriculture piecemeal; they must be dealt with as a package. Just as we in the west know that we cannot attack the problem of the costs of agriculture, which are rising at 20 per cent a year, until we have resolved the problems of the people who live in the high-cost areas such as cities, so the city people in the east should recognize that they cannot solve their problems until we give a fair and equitable economic basis to all sections of the community-and that includes farmers. This bill should be part of a package; and the five points in that package are clear. The first point in building an agricultural policy should be the marketing of the produce of the farm to the people of the world who need food. The second principle should be stability of price. Over the last number of years, parliament has tried to deal with that problem through the Agricultural Stabilization Act which was put into place in 1959 and is being amended
May 6, 1975

Canada Elections Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
by the House now. It stabilizes prices to a degree and it is an insurance purely against disaster. It is a type of "stop loss" legislation, but it is fundamental as a base on which to build.
The third principle is stability of income. We have tried to deal with it under crop insurance. Crop insurance deals with the weather, and if you look at the statistics for western Canada today you will find that nearly two-thirds of all the farmers in the three prairie provinces have now educated themselves to the advantage of contributing to a fund that will protect them in times of crop loss. But that alone is not enough. The tremendous dips and dives of income over the last 70 years in western Canadian agriculture have made it the most risky of any industrial segment in Canada. It is this question of stabilizing incomes that this bill is all about. Before concluding the question of stability of incomes I should mention the other points in the package.
The fourth point is a modern system of farm credit. During the last 15 years, governments led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and Liberal governments have tried their best to give us a modern system of farm credit, and in general it is doing very well.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Immigrant medical students-Request for data on willingness to serve in general practice and in remote areas; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-National parks-Rideau-Trent Canals-Authorization of tolls-Estimate of revenue; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)- External Affairs-Namibia-Government action to prevent Falconbridge Mines from exploiting workers and end privilege of claiming foreign tax credits.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Third reading of Bill C-208, an act respecting National Heritage Day.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there would be agreement to considering Bill C-232 standing in the name of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Shall orders Nos. 8, 34, 3, 4, 10 and 24 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: They stand at the request of the government.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
John (Jack) Henry Horner: that Bill C-232, to amend the Canada Elections Act (proxy voting), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Madam Speaker, a member of this House putting forward a private members' bill in the first instance wants to do two things: he would like to accomplish what his bill outlines, and if he is not successful in that he would like to direct the attention of the government toward the problem with which the bill deals. In this case the bill deals with the question of proxy voting. To me, the principle of one man, one vote is a sacred privilege which is part and parcel of most western democracies, and is a principle we should not tarnish in any way.
Many arguments have been made in the cause of proxy voting. Proxy votes are sought after and fought for in corporations and corporate empires. Some bitter feuds and fights take place over proxy votes in the corporate structure. It is not impossible to envisage proxy votes causing fights and squabbles within a constituency. It is a matter of who gets to the person who is unable to vote first, and in some instances who has him sign the paper. Then he is locked in, in the sense that his voting privileges are taken away while the facts or issues of the election may not have been explained to him. A voter may say, "It is nice of you to call. You knew I could not vote because I will not be in the country on voting day"-or it may be because of ill health-But it was nice of you to call and for that reason I will give you my vote." Three or four days later somebody may come along and reveal a different situation to the same voter, and the voter would have to say, "I am sorry, but I have given my proxy vote to your opposition." That situation could arise.
Much argument for proxy voting is sometimes centred around the thought that people who are hospitalized during an election cannot get to the polling station to vote. That is true in a federal election. It has never been

May 6, 1975
Canada Elections Act
explained to me why, in the province of Alberta, for example, ballot boxes in provincial elections have for years been taken to hospitals and hospitalized people have voted, but that in a federal election we are repeatedly told that that cannot happen, that the person has to appear at the polling station. In cases where they cannot, we now have the provision of proxy voting.
I think before the principle of one man, one vote is eroded in any way-this is merely a very small way but everything starts somewhere-all other avenues should be examined very closely. A case can be made in regard to invalids; they must have a doctor's certificate. A case can be made for a fisherman or prospector who is out of the country and therefore not able to vote.
It is interesting that from time to time we have 75 per cent or 78 per cent of the population taking part in a federal election. Sometimes the figure is closer to 70 per cent. In provincial elections it is lower than that, and in municipal elections lower still. It is interesting to note how many more people proxy voting has brought to polling stations and how many more fishermen and prospectors really wanted to take part, and took part, in the democratic procedure of voting. In the 1974 election, 6,915 people made use of the proxy voting privilege. That, to me, is a minuscule number. I would suggest that those who did use that privilege were badgered by political legmen from various political parties. If they had not been badgered, they might have showed up on voting day in any case.


An hon. Member:: The Conservatives are guilty of that.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Conservatives are guilty of that, yes, but I would like to think they are no more guilty than Liberals.
I do not appreciate the erosion of the principle of one man, one vote. The other system works fine in a corporate structure where big business deals with money; money buys power, power buys votes, and so forth. That kind of thing has gone on for years within the corporate structure, but I do no think it enhances our democracy to see it within out voting system.
Proxy voting will remain if my bill tonight is defeated, but if it is sent to committee I would suggest that the committee consider its application. With proxy voting today, the returning officer has to witness the signature of the person who wants to give up his right to vote. That may work well in a city riding where there is a high population density, such as in downtown Toronto, Montreal, Calgary or Edmonton. I can say that it does not work very well in a widely scattered riding where the returning officer may live in one corner of the riding.


Mr. McKinley:: He has to drive miles and miles.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is quite right; the returning officer had to drive miles and miles to an invalid, to people who are not going to be in the constituency, to people who are leaving on holidays or for prospecting, and to students who are out of the constituency. Students out of the constituency now have the right to vote at the university they are attending. There should be greater safeguards if proxy voting is to continue. The committee should propose greater safeguards against abuses which may arise. That will certainly make the application of proxy voting apply

more fairly throughout the various parts of one's constituency and throughout Canada.
I believe that proxy voting opens the door to widespread abuses which will only grow as people become familiar with the concept. It is interesting that in the 1972 election there were 1,309 people in rural areas who used proxy voting. In urban areas-basically, city and suburbia-8,389 people used proxy voting. I think that clearly demonstrates that it is a privilege given to those living in proximity to the returning officer and not to those living miles away.
It is of value to our democratic system that steps should be taken to allow hospitalized people to exercise their federal vote as they do their provincial vote. We should not weaken the importance of the duty of the citizens of Canada. We should not minimize that duty by allowing them to barter their vote to someone who may suggest that their interest will be looked after; that if they sign a piece of paper the right man will be elected.
This bill is a small thing, but so are most initial steps. We must face the fact that the abuses of proxy voting will increase. I choose this way to register my opposition to anything which lessens the duty that each man assumes when he accepts citizenship. We see lobbying for votes going on within the power structures of corporations. Sometimes such votes are bought and sold, and there is nothing to stop this happening in our democracy. While we might say it will never happen, that such things do not happen in elections, we all know that elections cost money. A voter wants to know what promises the politicians will give in the way of legislation or better treatment for people.
We have just witnessed the evils uncovered by Watergate in the United States and I think it is safe to say that most Canadians were upset. I am not suggesting that proxy voting at some future election would cause a similar situation in Canada, but it could be the beginning of something nearly as bad. I know, Madam Speaker, that my conscience will rest a little better from having put this bill forward at this time. I hope the House will send the bill to committee so that the whole question of proxy voting can be examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and I disagree on the substantive issue of proxy voting, although there might be some disagreement on the procedural aspect of the question. The history of democracy is tied to the right to vote, but the right to vote should not be moulded to fit a system. Rather, the system should be flexible enough to permit that all qualified people, all citizens, will have the opportunity to vote. The hon. member for Crowfoot said that voting is a privilege. I might add that it is also a right and duty. It is not a right that was arrived at by simply talking about freedom. He also said that due to the abuses of proxy voting, people might be badgered, I think was his word. It is my understanding that in a democracy such as we have in Canada, we subscribe to the idea of advise and consent.
May 6, 1975

The hon. member pointed out that only 6,900 people voted by proxy in the last general election. That is a minuscule number compared to the total number of voters, but it was an important opportunity for those 6,900 people who exercised their right to vote. This is about the same number as voted by proxy in 1972, but we should remember that in 1972 many more students used the proxy vote because school was out at the time of the vote.
In a press release of September 12, 1972, Jean-Marc Hamel, the Chief Electoral Officer, estimated that at least
10,000	eligible citizens studying overseas would be left out of the voting procedure: a great number of people living or working overseas before the date of the first advance poll would be left out as well. The only people outside Canada who could vote in the election were civil servants, members of the armed forces and dependants of both categories. These numbered approximately 110,000. Their ballots were taken prior to election day so that they could reach Canada in time to be counted with the regular election returns.
The problem for students arises in determining the place of ordinary residence, particularly in the case of the single student living away from home but who still has his residence in the home of his parents or guardian. In the instructions to student voters away from home, four categories are defined. Married or single students living at home offer no problem; they simply vote at the polling division in which their home is located. In the case of married students, this would be the residence where they were physically residing on enumeration day.
The single student on his own, in other words financially independent of his parents, can vote where he is physically residing on enumeration day. The single student living away from home but dependent on his parents or guardian is the only one eligible to vote by proxy. This is a multistep procedure involving a variety of forms and is outlined in the Canada Elections Act.
Many people who were interested in having a voice as to who would govern the country were disappointed at the timing of the last election. I do not place the blame on either side of the House for that, but accept it as a fait accompli. These people felt cheated, however, because they were not able to vote and because as the law stands they were not treated as equals.
I suggest that proxy voting is not the only way we can get around our problems, but it is the one way we have devised to solve the problem of those who want to take advantage of their rights as citizens of Canada to have a voice in their government. I put forward another suggestion: perhaps we should consider establishing a permanent voters' list. It does not seem fair that we should do all this in such a rush. The hon. member mentioned that there were abuses.
Of course, errors may be made but they are errors of omission and commission. Efforts must be made to ensure that all Canadians have a chance to vote for the men and women who will represent them in this House.
Canada Elections Act

I urge, as does the hon. member for Crowfoot, that more consideration should be given to this question. Let us assure all our citizens that they have a voice; that they have a chance to mould the future or our beloved Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, there are occasions when my hon. friend from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) comes into this House with good ideas. There are days when he makes an awfully good case, whether the idea is good or not. I do not think this is one of those days. Actually, so far as this bill is concerned it does not matter whether it is rejected or talked out. I do not think it should get any more consideration than it will be given during the present private members' hour.
The hon. member for Crowfoot talked about abuses. No doubt there are abuses under the Canada Elections Act and there are abuses in election campaigns; but I submit that the percentage of abuses involving proxy voting is perhaps the lowest there is in the whole election machinery. The hon. member gave the statistic I wanted, that in the last election 6,915 persons exercised the proxy voting privilege. If you divide that figure by 264, it comes out to an average of 26 per constituency. That makes sense to me, because in my constituency, Winnipeg North Centre, the number was about 18.
I can go further and say I checked the list at the office of the returning officer in my constituency. I found that I knew, or knew of, just about every name on the list; I knew those who were for me and those who were against me. Most, of course, were for me. It was clear to me that every one of them was a person who was in hospital or in a nursing home, or confined to his own home and, hence, not able to cast his vote except under the provisions of the proxy voting regulations. The 18 votes in Winnipeg North Centre did not make any difference to the outcome of the election in that constituency, and I suggest that the 6,915 votes across Canada did not make any difference to the make-up of this parliament. But, as the hon. member who just spoke so well put it, their privilege to vote made a great deal of difference to those particular persons. They were given a right to participate in a general election, a right which previous to 1972 such persons did not have.
Actually, I think this is one of the most humane improvements we made to the Canada Elections Act the last time we revised it. We did not make a sweeping change that could result in a different outcome at an election, but we respected the right of the ill, the handicapped and the shut in to exercise their franchise at election time. It was the humane and decent thing to do, and I hope that under no circumstance will this House consider revoking that right. That, of course, is what would happen if the bill before us were passed.
Some changes still need to be made. Perhaps the proxy voting system needs to be enlarged. I found that a half dozen or more people who wanted the right to exercise a proxy vote under the regulations were not able to do so because the regulations are just a little too strict. I remember, when we were enacting this legislation, that we accepted the proposition that we had to tie it up so tightly that there would not be abuse. Perhaps what we should

May 6, 1975
Canada Elections Act
look at is not a proposal to cancel this right but a proposal to extend it.
In the same way, we must consider the whole question of advance polls. In this area we run into many frustrating experiences. The advance polls are further ahead now than they used to be, and they do accommodate quite a number of people, but in every election there are individuals who will be away and who will not be able to vote either on the general polling day or at the advance polls.
We must also consider the question of absentee voting, which now takes place in a number of provinces but still does not apply in a federal election. My hon. friend from Crowfoot says we must guard against abuse and make sure we do not erode the integrity of our electoral system. But, on the other side of the coin, we must make sure that every Canadian citizen who has the legal right to vote has that right in a practical sense. Therefore, I hope the House will not support this bill. I have no objection to the hon. member's introducing it, in the sense that by doing so he has raised election issues. It gives us a chance to air some of these things, and I express the hope, already expressed across the way, that we will take another look at advance polls, absentee voting, and so on.
When we talk about proxy voting, I think mainly of those who are ill. I think particularly of a quite well known woman in Winnipeg, a victim of multiple-sclerosis who spent a long time in hospital and who worked for this right to vote for many years. I think of how much it meant to her when, after years of not being able to vote, she was able to do so. I think that a large percentage of the 6,915 people who voted by means of proxy in the last election were Canadian citizens who suffered from illness of one kind or another, and they feel just a little better as Canadian citizens because they had the right to vote.
I emphasize that under the proxy regulations there are serious restrictions: the proxy has to be obtained in advance of election day; there must be a visit to the office of the returning officer; there must be various signatures, and so on. The person who will do the proxy voting has to be on the list in the same polling division as the person for whom the proxy vote is to be cast; he must be acceptable to the person for whom he will vote, and no one may cast a proxy vote for more than one person. I suggest that the protections in the regulations are pretty good; that we should not restrict this right but, rather, that we should look at the other side of the picture and make sure we are providing all possible ways for Canadian citizens who have the legal right to vote to exercise that right, in fact, on election day.
I have been rather strong in my criticisms of the bill proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot. Perhaps he likes it that way. I am glad he raised the issue and gave us the chance to have this discussion, but hope this bill will not pass. I want the proxy vote to remain.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on Bill C-232 introduced by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). First I want to congratulate him for the courage he has demonstrated in introducing this bill. At first sight, I had felt that proxy

voting would provide a few more people with the right to vote. This legislation is very difficult to administer. In my own riding, a number of people tried during the last election to avail themselves of this proxy voting. It is quite an involved process, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated a while ago: obtain the necessary papers from the returning officer, meet the person who will not come to vote and obtain a proxy to cast a vote on his or her behalf. There are people who will cover 100 or 125 miles to fetch a little piece of paper. During the last election, in my own riding, a farmer with the best intentions wanted his son, a university student, to vote. He took the necessary steps, spent three or four days getting all these papers together, and when voting day came, he went to the poll to cast a vote on behalf of his son, just to be told that a student had already been there to cast a vote on behalf of his son. It happens sometimes that overly zealous people go and vote on behalf of others. With such a system as the one we have now, a person can very easily vote for about 10 others the very same day.
Such irregularities will occur so long as we do not have the identity card called for. I could give evidence to support my case. The big parties have it very easy today. They have a majority and are well organized. As for us, the cost of contacting in our ridings for instance a hundred or so people who would vote by proxy and ensuring that it is done in an orderly way would be prohibitive. A special collection would have to be made to pay the costs of getting in touch with those people. In my riding, three persons voted by proxy. And when I was asked for explanations I said: Don't make useless applications, it is too much trouble, costs too much and leads to nothing.
So, we might as well cross out the amendment, but anyway it is before the House and I am sure the government will want to let things stand, but there are other ways. I heard someone say earlier: It seeks to allow all people, as many people as possible, to vote. I would agree if that enabled everybody to vote, but vote themselves, and not have somebody else vote for them. There is a difference, because no one knows whom the person who will do the proxy voting will vote for.
With respect to proxy voting, we are told that people who have to stay in hospital cannot go to the polling station. I wish to draw the attention of the Chair, because it is a point which will require an amendment from the government. To end the ridiculous situation in hospitals, we should take up the method used in the provinces, establish one, two or three polling stations, and go from one room to the next, as in Quebec, to have everyone vote themselves instead of voting by proxy.
At the last election, we were told there would be a polling station in the hospital, and suddenly the organizers of a large party decided that, since there were too many Social Crediters in there, there would be no polling station in the hospital. We lost 510 voters, because 80 per cent of those people in the hospital voted for me. So they just closed the polling station there. This is merely an indication-
I did not care, Madam Speaker, I had enough people voting for me, but those people were not given the opportunity to exercize their rights as citizens as freely as
May 6, 1975

anyone else, and that is the point I am making, that it is not fair. They should, yes-


An hon. Member:: In cities-


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: That goes on to a larger extent in big cities. I have already seen what happened in cities. The same kind of thing went on on a larger scale in hospitals. They say it is not possible to have everybody vote by going around bedrooms. In large hospitals, if one voting station is not enough, they set up two, three or four. But in my constituency, they even established voting stations at the last minute for 50 voters in the forest. A poll was opened and delegates had to be sent 125 miles away to lumberjacks who had already voted on Saturday in their parishes, before leaving. They had already voted in their parishes. A poll was opened for them. That is why I say it is very easy, because we must not forget that all lumberjacks come down from the forest on Friday nights. They know very well that there are temporary polls. No need to fear, the temporary polls close. They have a poll in the forest. This often doubles the number of voters. I would be in favour of establishing many polls in hospitals so that all sick people may be visited and vote in their rooms.
All the provinces do it: why couldn't the federal government? Why? At the provincial level, it is considered fair; it would only be fair and equitable for all the sick to be able to vote in their rooms. To my mind that is the main point. Even if this bill was introduced merely to discuss this point, I invite the government to study it, because the problem exists right across Canada.
I had an unfortunate experience in my riding, but for the sick people, every election is an unfortunate experience. Of course, after the election, it is maddening to have 500 fewer votes than were expected! But what revolts me is that the democratic system is not respected by small time politicians who exist to foul everything, to keep those who do not share their ideas from voicing theirs. As for me, I respect every party in my riding, whether blue, white or red, and that is why almost everyone votes for me because I respect and defend them. I went to these hospitals, and was asked to bring this to the government's attention, in order that this same error does not happen next time. Because errors of this kind happened a number of times. And then there is the identity card error.
We have been proposing the identity card for more than ten years. This would be fair to the voter. After all, everyone has his social security number in his pocket. Why not add a photograph, this would double up as an identity card. The voter coming to the poll with his identity card cannot be mistaken for somebody else. But of course this would not suit the old parties.
With everything that is being done at election time, democracy is going down the drain. Quite often families living next to a poll do not vote, through laziness or otherwise. I believe the Canada Elections Act should be more stringent. Voting should be compulsory. If a citizen is too lazy to do his duty, he should be forced to. I also found it has come to the point where you have to pick up people at their homes so they will vote. Sometimes people living next door to the poll. If you do not pick them up, they will not vote. Can you imagine that? And then they
Canada Elections Act
say they have done their citizen's duty. I welcome this bill because it gives us an opportunity to point out to the government weaknesses in our electoral legislation. We are all elected members, and we are all interested in bringing justice to the people. Even if the bill is not discussed in committee, I expect the government will bring some amendments to the Canada Elections Act, which is often somewhat undemocratic.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, we have always had the belief out west that the eastern barons were after us, and I am very surprised to hear that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is going to be put in the class of these eastern barons, because obviously he is trying to take something away from the west. Perhaps I should not just say the west because the same thing could be said of the east coast. If the hon. member has not heard, we have a fair fishing industry along the west coast of British Columbia, and I understand the same can be said of the maritimes.
I think the hon. member for Crowfoot would have to agree that one thing the government should not be doing is trying to discourage people from voting. We have enough problems getting people to realize that the government they elect will control their lives and that they cannot be apathetic about voting. If the hon. member for Crowfoot had mulled this bill over a bit he would have realized that it is not the role of a government or politician to discourage people from voting.
I am glad to see the hon. member has come back into the chamber, because I want to tell him that in the northern part of my riding we have no roads or railroads. But we do have people who are prospectors, and although they do not have television sets or radios in many instances, they do have proxy voting. And here is the hon. member for Crowfoot trying to take away one of the few small things in life that these people up there have. At least at election time they have their proxy and they can vote. It may not be much, but they do have a proxy vote.
Perhaps I am being a little facetious in saying this, but one of the experiences I had when I ran for the first time in the last federal election was going to hospitals where there were people who were either sick or infirm because of age, and I was surprised at the amount of interest shown by them and at what it meant to them to be able to vote. I am sure many members must have had the same experience. It certainly brought something into their lives. This may sound a very small point, but when people are infirm, especially the elderly, an election gives them something to talk about among themselves, something to which they can look forward.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question?


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


Hugh Alan Anderson: Certainly, Madam Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Seeing that this bill is going to be talked out, we might as well understand each other very fully.

May 6, 1975
Canada Elections Act
May I ask the hon. member this question: in provincial elections in the province of British Columbia are there ballots in the hospitals? There are in Alberta, and I understand in Ontario.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I believe there are, Madam Speaker. I hope the hon. member will not use me as an authority on this because, to be quite honest, I am not sure whether they have them in hospitals or not.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why not have them in hospitals for federal elections then?


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member asks that question. I wish he had asked me a question about proxies for fishermen, if he thinks a different system should be used in our hospitals. Has the hon. member any question about a system that we can bring in to give fishermen out on the seas the same right to vote as the hon. member for Crowfoot?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Surely fishermen would find election day a pretty stormy one for fishing.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Obviously the hon. member does not have this problem in his riding, so I can appreciate the fact that he is not concerned about fishermen. However, I think the hon. member must treat all Canadians fairly, and surely those who are covered under section 46(1), I believe it is, of the act, namely fishermen, mariners, prospectors, people absent due to illness or physical incapacity, or full-time students absent at Canadian educational institutions, should be encouraged to vote at election time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They have the advance poll.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Would the hon. member like to put a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. We are not in committee of the whole.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member allow a second question, which will be the only question put?


Hugh Alan Anderson: Yes, Madam Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is obviously short of words. If he has to talk the bill out until six o'clock, I might as well help him out. Do the people in his riding take advantage of the advance poll; and does he realize that only 1,300 people in rural ridings took advantage of the proxy vote? I suggest that those 1,300 could have been taken care of by having ballots in hospitals and by greater use of the advance poll. So far as election day last year was concerned, July 8, does he not agree that the advance poll fell on a particularly difficult day-July 1?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I think the hon. member is sincere in his question. First, I do not know the exact number in my riding who used the proxy vote. I do know that in 1974 in British Columbia 650 people used the proxy vote. Interest-

ingly enough, in 1972 the number was 601, so the two figures were very close.
My point, which I think was emphasized before, is that I do not care if there is only one person who took advantage of the proxy vote in British Columbia-I would retain it in British Columbia for that one person, to make sure that all those who wished to vote have the opportunity to vote. I do not think the hon. member realizes that many fishermen do not go out to fish just for a day or two but for several weeks at a time. These are the sort of people we should be considering, just as we should consider prospectors. I do not think people fully realize that all Canadians do not live in cities, that all Canadians do not have the same facilities.
If I were asked for suggestions to improve the situation, I would extend proxy voting to the sort of person who works in the woods, who lives in Vancouver but works on northern Vancouver Island. These people should be given proxy voting because they are away from home for several weeks at a time, and they do not return home from a distance of 400 or 500 miles just to vote. As I said earlier, it is the responsibility of the government to encourage people to vote, not to discourage them.
I suppose I will be accused of speaking against this bill, and I apologize-I should not have used the term "baron from Alberta". However, sometimes we regard them as easterners too.
I was interested to note that Ontario and Nova Scotia headed the list in federal proxy voting. My theory is that we have not done a good enough job telling people about the proxy vote. I do not think people do not wish to use the proxy. Our information service has not been of the highest calibre. This is a relatively new act, and the 1972 election was the first one in which it took effect. As time passes I hope that more and more people will realize this right does exist and will utilize it. It is up to rite and to the hon. member for Crowfoot to do the job of making sure people are aware of this.
I would seriously oppose the suggestion that this privilege of voting by proxy be taken from people who, because of their occupation, are unable to attend the advance polls or the polls on election day. Perhaps we do not have the facilities in my area that the hon. member for Crowfoot has, although his is a rural riding also. The northern part of Vancouver Island lacks roads and certainly railroads, and in many cases boats are the only form of travel.
The provision for the proxy vote was well designed to meet a certain need. In the area of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I would assume that the proxy vote is used by people who are in hospitals. This is a humanitarian provision adopted by the government and members of parliament. It has been extended to those people who would not be able to vote normally. Surely hon. members agree with the principle. There may be different ways of carrying this out, but surely we all agree that the proxy vote has been a good provision. I suggest that anything we can do as members of parliament to encourage the Canadian public to vote is a step in the right direction, and I say that very sincerely.
May 6, 1975


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this matter in the short time we have available. I believe this has been a worthwhile and constructive discussion if nothing else, and for that reason, and because he had the courage to bring this matter forward, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) deserves congratulations. This is the type of thing that should be discussed at times in the House.
Mention has been made by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) of a permanent voters' list. Perhaps this is something that should be considered along with the suggestion of placing ballot boxes in hospitals, nursing homes, and elsewhere. There should be a better method for mariners, prospectors and fishermen to exercise their right to vote. These and other matters have been considered today. Does the government really intend to consider ideas and suggestions of this nature? These are things that should be given some priority of attention within the duration of this parliament.
There is one thing that does bother me in respect of the proxy vote provision contained in the Canada Elections Act. Citizens have the right to vote, and it is a right. We should make it convenient for all citizens to exercise that right. The thing that bothers me is that this provision does not enhance the right to vote, it provides an individual with the right to transfer that vote to somebody else. The right to vote should be a personal thing. The vote is a right one must exercise by one's self. I believe the intention of the government and parliament when this measure was enacted was to give those persons listed in Section 46 the opportunity to vote. I wonder if the provision does not in fact give them the opportunity to transfer that right.
There are several sections of the Canada Elections Act that should be deleted or amended, and I should like to take this opportunity to refer to them in the House. One involves the requirement that the leader of a so-called recognized party, or his delegate, must provide a certificate to be filed with the nomination papers of a candidate. To my mind this is very undemocratic, and this act should be democratic, just like the right to vote and the right to be a candidate. These should be rights just as is the right to exercise the franchise in as convenient a manner as possible, without coming under a fascist rule.
I trust this discussion will be considered by the government and that something will come of the comments that have been made here today on some very worthwhile and necessary matters.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I am overwhelmed. I should like to say in the few minutes left to us that we have had some discussions to determine what can be done to provide an opportunity for members of parliament to take a close look at the Canada Elections Act. It has been the practice in past parliaments that after an election has taken place there should be an opportunity for members to have a close look at amendments to the act and to promote ideas they have to change it, bringing it more in line with changes that have taken place in Canadian society.
I might say that the idea for a proxy vote arose from the discussions that took place in the privileges and elections
Western Grain Stabilization
committee following the 1968 election. Anyone who looks at the regulations governing the proxy vote will find that not only is the act drawn very finely, but the regulations which permit those people qualified under the act to participate in proxy voting are also drawn very narrowly. We have experimented through two elections with the proxy vote, and I think most members would say this has worked out reasonably well and the abuses we feared have not developed.
There are other groups in society who should be provided for under the act. We should be looking at other areas in order to extend the opportunity to vote in Canadian elections to as many eligible people as possible. While the proxy voting procedure may not be the most ideal, perhaps there are other ways in addition to the suggestion of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) of allowing people to cast their votes without having to go through the necessity of delegating the right. In the period of time we have from the opening of advance polls it may be possible that the returning officer in a given community could go around to those places or residences of those people who are unable to get out to vote. Perhaps the ballot boxes could be taken along in order that they might cast their votes in the way ordinary people can do so.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at five o'clock I was outlining the five basic points or fundamentals that go to the establishment of a logical and coherent policy on agriculture. First and most important is marketing. Second is stability of price. Third is stability of income, and fourth is a modern farm credit system.

Western Grain Stabilization
The fifth fundamental is the redevelopment of the industry to meet the new challenges and needs of an ever changing world.
In order to provide this package everything must be coordinated. Our policy must be based on one sound principle leading to the next one. This bill, C-41, should be a part of this package. It should enable the farmer to insure himself against the vagaries of income. As I mentioned earlier, the crop insurance legislation is doing a fairly good job in allowing the farmer to have some money to insure himself against the vagaries of weather, but on top of that we should build an insurance program so that he may be ensured a fair rate of income. For some reason or other the government has chosen not to keep this program within this package of a logical, coherent policy leading to the objective of a stable, healthy, agricultural industry designed to meet the demands of the world.
We have this particular bill introduced in effect under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The Canadian Wheat Board Act has nothing to do with stability of income in respect of agriculture. The C.W.B. is purely a marketing device to set prices. So, on the first test this legislation is not part of a coherent and logical package to help agriculture. Also, it should be under the Minister of Agriculture.
The second point about this bill is that legislation dealing with agriculture should treat all farmers alike. We have farmers in eastern Canada, and with them we associate the farmers of British Columbia, who are quite different in respect of their techniques and the products they grow from the grain farmers on the prairies. One reason is geography. Essentially we have a desert area which man has learned to master and has made into a great food source for the world. The other parts of Canada have different types of agriculture based on different soils, moisture, different heat units, and so on.
Here we are bringing in legislation by which the parliament of Canada gives one sort of a deal to the farmers of one part of Canada, and yet in no place in the government's legislation is there an opportunity to offer the same deal to all the farmers. So, on the essential question of the unity of the Canadian people in this industry of agriculture we have again divided the east and the west. This seems to be part and parcel of the attitude of the Liberal party when it is in power.
Second, on this question of treating farmers alike, there is a tremendous clash today in western Canada, for example, between the pure grain farmers and the livestock farmers. What is good for one industry sometimes hurts another industry. We are going through one of those periods now. With the present technology, livestock such as poultry, hogs, and cattle now require tremendous volumes of grain. The sudden rise in the price of feed grain in the world markets two years ago has wreaked havoc not only in Canada but all over the world with the price of red meat and the cost of producing it. Here in this bill we have in effect added and exaggerated the difference between the wants and needs of the livestock industry and the grain industry.
The third point, which bears on the first point, is that farmers look above all to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. 
Whelan) to be their spokesman in parliament on all matters concerning their welfare. They have seen the Department of Agriculture over the last ten years split and divided among four ministers.
Agriculture now comes under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce through the structure of the Grains Council. Agriculture also comes under the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). What abortion has to do with agriculture, we are never quite certain, but they are put together by this government. Agriculture also comes under the Minister of Agriculture once in a while; it comes under the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and, if you want to take all the other things with which it is associated, it also comes under the Department of Finance. But my main point is that we have seen the breaking down of the agricultural industry into little parts in so far as the administration of the affairs of agriculture in the last ten years are concerned.
I put this down to the fact that we have begun to worship here in Ottawa the idea that everything should be turned away from parliament, from the control of ministers, and put into the hands of technocrats who look at it from the point of view of diagrams on the wall. When a new department is set up, they put a certain number of squares on the minister's chart which, I suppose, give him prestige equal to that of other ministers. They look for some department from which to rob activities, and so the ARDA program came out of the Department of Agriculture and agricultural rehabilitation was put under another minister. No matter how well intentioned that other minister may be toward agriculture, the people in his department are not in contact with agriculture, their main interest being something else.
Likewise with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act-it was taken out of the Department of Agriculture. Here we have a whole section that was once the pride and joy of the Minister of Agriculture because prairie farm rehabilitation had brought a huge area, almost 1,000 miles in width, back into productivity after the great drought. It was an example all over the world of what could be done when technology and science were applied to a difficult program in so far as geography, soil and climate conditions are concerned.
This once proud division of the Department of Agriculture lies dormant. The division, which used to number 120 engineers ten years ago, is now reduced to 80, and as the years go by and some will retire there will be less of them. Nothing is given them to do. I have seen what a group of men can accomplish in bringing an area back into productivity. I know how much has to be done, and my only comment about PFRA is not that the objectives have been changed but that that program has been taken out of the Department of Agriculture and put under another department which has nothing to do with agriculture.
The men sit there waiting for their pensions. Yet we have so much to do, not only in rehabilitating the soil on the prairies-which should be done not only on the prairies but all across the country-but also in bringing this program back under the Department of Agriculture and applying it in the Atlantic area, the northern parts of Quebec and Ontario, and even the settled parts of these provinces, as well as in the valleys in British Columbia.
May 6, 1975

The great experience and technical know how of these men in rehabilitating soil and making it productive should be put to use. Once again I point out that there should be one minister in charge of the bulk of the agricultural divisions.
The minister who has particularly concerned us in western Canada has been the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He is obviously able. He passed all his exams in school, became the dean of law at the university of Saskatchewan, and came down here to become Minister of Justice-a tribute to his ability and seriousness. But it was a calamity to us in the west to have this inflexible man put in charge of our most vital possession, the ability to produce high protein wheat in dry land farming. He is not content to look after the Department of Justice and the Canadian Wheat Board. We hear announcements in the west that he deals with transportation there, and with labour problems, in fact with anything that concerns the west. No other minister is allowed to interfere in these matters.
We hardly see the Minister of Agriculture in the West. All the announcements about justice, transportation, regional economic expansion and everything else seem to come from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Everything this minister has touched, as many hon. members have made very clear, has turned out to be bad for us. I cannot name all the things, let me say simply that the LIFT program is on the lips of every western farmer. They were sold down the river on the basis of false statistics, they were taken out of production, and when the demand came and the price went up from $2 to $5 a bushel, many farmers did not have too much grain to sell, not to mention the fact that hungry people could have done with the extra 300 million bushels that would have been produced.
Then there is the grain exchange. For two or three generations farmers fought to get grain under the Canadian Wheat Board, and this minister said he was considering it for the handling of feed grain, but only considering it. Throughout the election that was fought last summer he said that was not the policy of the government, just a series of things which, as a good minister, he was considering. But, the minute the election was over, feed grains were put under the grain exchange.
Then there is the question of inland terminals. It goes back to 1921 when this was first proposed. There is the choice between a system ensuring the lowest cost of handling grain in the inland system or establishing a grain system that would be in harmony with the social and economic needs of the west. The inland terminal is economically sound for those who own it, but disastrous for the people who live within its shadow.
Next we come to the Crowsnest pass rates. This country, out of its desire to have a national railway, gave large chunks of land, great tracts of forest, and great areas of mineral wealth to the CPR in return for a guarantee that the grain from the prairies would be moved into position at a fixed rate.
Everyone knows that with the technology of the last 80 years the cost of moving bulk products has decreased year by year. Yet we see a program beginning, which seems to happen every time there is a lapse of about 10 years, to persuade the people of Canada that the Crowsnest pass
Western Grain Stabilization
rate deal must be broken. Who was it brought this to public attention? Naturally the men who run the railways would love to get at this helpless captive prisoner, the wheat farmer. They would just love to get their rates and charge the farmer the same price American farmers are charged to haul their grain to markets. American farmers did not give away half a continent to a group of men to build their railway.
I simply ask who brought this Crowsnest pass rate back into public discussion again? Sitting in this House 10 years ago the minister in charge of transport said that the Crowsnest pass rate would never be raised again. He became the head of the Canadian Transportation Commission eventually. I am referring to Mr. Pickersgill.
Who brings this back in? Who roused all the western farmers this last eight or nine months? It was the Minister of Justice. Then, when all the fires are burning, and every farmer and every group is talking about it, he says that it was just a personal opinion. A legislative chamber in Saskatchewan voted a resolution opposing it. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) had to send a wire repudiating his minister, by saying that it was just personal views he was expressing.
Why does the minister keep stirring everything up? Everything he stirs up is to get westerners alarmed about the possibility that the government is going back to its traditional practice of goosing the west.
Railway line abandonment is coming up this year. We were promised in this House 10 years ago that no railway line would be abandoned until we obtained all the information about traffic on each line and until each line produced the operating costs. It was not until this year that a bill was introduced into this House forcing the railways to give us this information.
Who should be our defender in these matters? It should be the Minister of Agriculture, but he is left wandering around in Ontario. We have no one speaking for agriculture in the west.
We had a little trouble on the west coast last year. Negotiations were going on under the principle of collective bargaining. Two ministers of the Crown went out and interfered with that collective bargaining procedure. It was not that we lost so much money on the wages we paid the terminal workers, but during the period of the strike we lost $12 million in demurrage, and the government refuses to pay for its own mistakes. Those two babes in blunderland wandering around out there cost us heavily.
Last year we had a debate across the country on resource taxation. The Minister of Justice even moves into finance and lays down an ultimatum in western Canada that those provinces are not going to push the federal government around, at a time when the provinces were fighting to get and hold control of what was theirs.
I would say that this is more than just a bill to stabilize net income. It is a tragedy that it has to be fought on this wider issue. This afternoon we gave the minister and the government a chance to withdraw from their position and let the farmers decide, after they have heard discussions of the bill, what principles they want. There was no flexibili-

May 6, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
ty or willingness to give the farmers a chance. We are seeing the same technique as we saw on the LIFT program. What the government decides is the law of the Medes and Persians. This is infallibility speaking, this is the ex cathedra announcement, and the farmer is not allowed to express his viewpoint. He will express it all right, after we have committed ourselves to principles which may not be acceptable to him.
It is clear that all parties, as well as the government, want to do something about the stabilization of the income of grain farmers. Hopefully the government wants to do the same thing for all farmers, but there are certain things which have to be done before any form of sound approach can be taken.
What is missing in this basic foundation? If we are to stabilize income and if we are to stabilize price, we should first ensure that it is possible for farmers to produce the maximum amount. Second, we should ensure that it is possible to sell all that is grown or produced. The first step in giving the farmer real security of income in the production of grain is to give him markets at a fair price. There used to be long term agreements with eight or nine different countries. Where are they now? We still have the agreement with China, but that is all.
From 1945 to 1967 the grain farmers of the world had an international commodity agreement. They set a floor and a ceiling price for three year periods. Where is that agreement now? It is gone because this government connived with the American government to get rid of the international wheat agreement. This government had a new philosophy: sell at any price; that it called competition. The government sent farm income plunging down in the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, after it destroyed the international wheat agreement.
In February, 1972, led by the Saskatchewan wheat pool, the farmers of this country joined with the farmers of the United States, Australia and Argentina, went to see the United States Secretary of Agriculture in Washington and pleaded with him to let the price of grain go to its real price because there was a shortage of grain. On this minister's orders, we kept selling grain during the winter of 1972 at a price below the cost of production. Then we ran out of grain, and I, along with the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), made the statement that we were running out of grain.


Daniel Aiken Lang: When did we run out?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: We ran
out in 1972.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Go on. Three hundred millions bushels is running out?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
minister is sensitive.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I am sensitive about the truth.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Yes, and it hurts.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the
minister would tell the truth he wouldn't be in the spot he

is now. He keeps quoting figures the statistics people give him, and those figures have been wrong for 25 years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This minister believes in computers. He said during the election campaign that "there is lots of grain, I have it from the statistics". The Wheat Board repudiated him and said, "We can't find it, where is it?"


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is false, too.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
minister has always acted on behalf of the system, and if the system has statistics which say there is a surplus, he says there is a surplus. These figures were wrong 20 years ago, they were wrong 10 years ago, and they are wrong today. And that is not the end of it. If we examine the same source of information with regard to beef in North America and Canada we find that in the last five years, according to the statistics this government takes as gospel truth because they come from a computer using a formula, we in Canada consumed 7 per cent more beef than we produced and imported.
The same applies in the United States. They are supposed to have been consuming over the last five years 9 per cent more beef than they produced and imported. So we have this silly situation of farmers being told by governments that the people concerned have produced more beef than they did this last ten years because the figures said so. How asinine! Those figures are just as wrong for beef as they are for wheat. The minister has not learned anything. He is like the Bourbons-he forgets nothing and learns nothing.
We need an international wheat agreement. Instead of talking about getting rid of the Crowsnest Pass rates the government should take the lead, as the government did in 1932, and also after the Second World War in 1946 and 1949, and get an international wheat agreement. Roughly 80 per cent of bread grain going into export markets today comes from the United States and Canada. Our two countries together could make an agreement. We could tie up with Argentina and Australia which would always follow good leadership. But we have a Prime Minister lying in the sun down in the Caribbean saying, "I am not going to join a cartel that sets prices for producers. I do not care about any sort of producer in Canada." This minister is just regurgitating what the Prime Minister is thinking.
Without a basic world price level and floor, Mr. Speaker, there will be no income stability, regardless of how many laws we pass and how much money we put into a fund.
If an incomes policy is to be put on top of a good international floor price there should be a good domestic foundation on which to build. Such a foundation is in place, and the Conservative Party is willing to tell the government how to administer the program if the minister does not know. There is already a workable crop insurance plan in place for which all the figures have been worked out. The federal-provincial machinery is working smooth-
May 6, 1975

ly, and the farmers like and trust the program. All that has to be done is build this income stabilization plan on top of the crop insurance program on an individual basis.
This afternoon the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) read into the record portions of a brief prepared for submission to the Senate Committee on Agriculture by the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation and the Manitoba Department of Agriculture. I should like to quote from the same brief, beginning with the last paragraph on page 8, as follows:
We regret to say, Mr. Chairman, that if that were the objective of the proposed Prairie Grain Stabilization Act, it could not be achieved by the measures envisaged in Bill C-41.
They are referring to protection of income here. It continues:
What is more serious in our view, however, is the fact that Bill C-41 does not have as its specific purpose the protection of farmers against losses due to economic events beyond their control. One of the most exasperating aspects of the bill is that it is next to impossible to detect the rationale behind it, and this lack of rationale together with the extreme complexity of the bill make any attempt at explaining this important legislation to farmers an exercise in frustration.
This is the view of the Crop Insurance Corporation of Manitoba. It will be the same in Saskatchewan and Alberta. Yesterday and this afternoon we asked the minister to put these matters before the farmers before we committed ourselves to these principles.
The brief continues:
Yet, since the scheme proposed in Bill C-41 is a contributory plan, farmers should know what insurance they are buying; in other words, the plan must relate to the needs of individuals, and it should be possible for individuals to determine what benefits would accrue to them if the events against which they are insuring themselves should occur. That is a cardinal principle of all insurance plans-
That means individual responsibility for payments in and payments out. Does this bill provide for such a thing? The farmers want a scheme that is best for a whole area, not the fallacy which appears in the PFAA legislation which caused us so much trouble.
I should like to quote another paragraph from the brief as follows:
A second cardinal principle of all such schemes is that indemnities are paid to those who experience the ill effects of the event against which the plan provides insurance, and not to others. The proposed Prairie Grain Stabilization Act sins against both these principles; in fact it completely ignores them.
I think you can see why we proposed that before this bill repeated the mistakes of the LIFT program and the mistakes of Mr. Bennett in 1932, farmers should have a chance to decide what they want. After all they are putting up the money. The government should have been flexible and allowed the amendment to pass this afternoon.
I had a series of other points which I do not have time to go into, Mr. Speaker. There is the need for a foundation under this incomes plan. We could have built it on top of crop insurance or on top of the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Either would have worked, but the crop insurance program would have been the most suitable. Income protection could have been put on top of it on an actuarial basis and an individual basis, and there would have been no need for a great bureaucracy.
Western Grain Stabilization
Some support has been voiced for a regional system. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, I know why the minister turned that down. It would not work, just as putting the whole area into one block will not work.
The government moved away from gross income to net income, but as cost it brought in a list of seven or eight items. One of the greatest costs in farming today is interest costs, followed by labour and management. It will be interesting to hear the government's reaction when farmers realize what is missing from the bill.
I have expressed my views about bureaucracy. We do not want any more in western Canada. We had it under the PFAA and the old PFRA, and got rid of it. The minister is trying to build a political machine, and so he wants to add this new bureaucracy under his control. We believe that the principles of this bill can be made simple and easy to administer. This type of legislation is necessary, but we have no confidence in the minister and would like to get him off the backs of the farmers. Let the farmers be consulted. Let them decide what the principles should be. Let them support, with confidence, the type of legislation which is so necessary today.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for several days for an opportunity to speak on this bill, which is very important to western Canada. Two years ago this party suggested a plan or tried to encourage the government to develop a plan for the protection of the western prairie grain producer. The proposals we put before the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) at that time would have supported agriculture in other parts of Canada as well.
It is a great obstacle to agricultural producers to have to deal with two ministers, neither of whom will act on good honest proposals submitted on their behalf. It is a great misfortune that the government has adopted this policy.
Two years ago we asked the Minister of Agriculture to adopt certain crop insurance policies which would set the pattern for the industry. Our proposals, if followed, would have obviated the necessity for further stabilization of the grains industry of western Canada, but the minister did not accept our suggestion and left the way open for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), minister in charge of the Wheat Board, to put his finger in the pie. That is why we are facing so many problems today. Actually, many of our problems flow from the inequities associated with those two ministers. I cannot differentiate between the two. They are responsible for several programs, including the ones coming under Bill C-19, Bill C-50 and Bill C-41. We also have our crop insurance program.
If these two ministers knew what they were doing they would bring in one or two programs which would stabilize the entire agricultural industry. Such programs would benefit all agricultural producers. The ministers have not done that. Apparently they cannot agree, and that is why we face difficulty in the agricultural sector of our economy.
Inequities associated with the administration of our grains business have necessitated the program which the minister has now brought forward under this bill. When

May 6, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
the present session of parliament began one of the first difficulties with which we had to deal was that of the grain handlers' strike on the west coast. Three Canadians contributed materially to that problem, namely, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The latter minister threw his weight, or authority, behind the Minister of Labour and behind the Prime Minister when the government tried to force grain companies on the west coast to accept a 61 per cent settlement. We, on my side of the House, said that such a settlement would set an inflationary pattern which would be unequalled in Canada's history, but the government would not listen. In no way would it pay attention to what we were saying.
I am glad to see the minister sitting in his seat. I hope he will listen to what we say. Allow me to quote from a speech I made in the debate just alluded to, and I am quoting from page 226 of Hansard for October 8, 1974. After quoting the minister's words at a Vancouver news conference on May 24, to the following effect:
The government will introduce legislation to approve contract recommendations by conciliator Dr. Perry as a binding collective agreement on the two parties.
I said:
On what advice or consideration was such a cowardly step based? I hope the hon. members opposite recognize the importance of the situation with which we are dealing. On July 18 the Minister of Labour reaffirmed the government's decision to force settlement terms upon the grain companies. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board urged producers to exert pressure on their own organizations in order that the inflationary conciliation recommendation would be accepted. What right did he have to do that? A telegram sent by the two ministers to the grain companies on August 23 reads in part:
'We have made it quite clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the
government will legislate the recommendations of Dr. Perry, if
necessary.'
Of course, that position met resistance. Why? Because the grain companies are owned by the producers and they backed the companies up to the hilt. Ninety per cent of them supported the companies. What else could they do? What else could the companies do, if they were to discharge their responsibility to those they served? Clearly, the three members of the government previously referred to have put the government into an intolerable position. Let me put on record letters which the companies have received from farmers.
I then read into the record the following letter from a farmer at Cupar, Saskatchewan:
Do I, as a grain farmer, also get a 61 per cent increase in the price of my products? In two years time can I negotiate as a body for another 60 per cent increase? ... I agree that when the cost of living increases 10 per cent, so should everything else-not 60 per cent. I, as a farmer, am finally able to get my head a little above water. If price and wages increase at the same rate, that water is going to get... deep again. Keep up the good work.
What I have just quoted shows why our agricultural economy is in difficulty. Government promises enabled the government, including the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Labour, to be elected in the July 8 election last year.
On April 8, as recorded at page 4599 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Agriculture the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and arises because of his presence at the Rome food conference. As it takes about one month to load grain for Bangladesh on the cargo carrier Amoco Cairo, one of the largest vessels ever to enter the port of Vancouver, because it is necessary to tow the ship into ocean water several times during the loading and turn it around in order to keep

the cargo balanced, and as this ship must drop anchor 65 miles from the port of destination because of shallow waters, it is obvious somebody boobed. Can the minister advise the House who is responsible?
Neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the minister in charge of the Wheat Board rose off his posterior to answer. Then we were told the ship would carry 4.8 million bushels of grain and would take about one month to load, if there were no delays. I point out that there was a ship in Seattle harbour which would take on 4.2 million bushels of grain in five days, using seven men to load. Further, the ship carrying Canadian grain had to anchor 65 miles off-shore from Bangladesh; it could not unload nearer the coast because it could not go into shallow waters. I said, when I asked my original question, that somebody boobed. I suggest that repeated boobs on the part of the two ministers concerned are creating problems for agriculture.
This afternoon we voted on an amendment which was defeated. We asked the minister to allow us to take this bill out to the producers and give them some input as to the type of program they want. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) mentioned that the Manitoba crop insurance people were in town today appearing before the Senate Agricultural Committee. I know crop insurance commissions from other provinces are also appearing before that committee. I think it rather unfortunate that a request I made of the Standing Committee on Agriculture was refused when one of these commissions was in town. The request was refused primarily because the government will not listen to advice from my side of the House. Ministers go along in their own bull-headed way and will not listen to good counselling.
The hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) suggested that the committee is going to travel. Has the hon. member discussed the idea with the Minister of Agriculture and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board? Certainly I see no support evident on the part of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac), or on the part of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). They are so busy patting the minister on the back for what he has done that they are failing those who elected them by not criticizing the government for what it is doing. In no way will the people of those constituencies receive adequate representation until those two members adopt a different stance.
Let me quote part of the brief that the Manitoba Crop Insurance Commission presented earlier today to the agricultural committee of the other place. It says in part:
We suggest that the present all-risk crop insurance programs operative in the western provinces could be broadened to include price guarantees. Prices for the various crops could be adjusted from year to year to reflect changes in the cost of production and to protect profit margins so that net farm incomes would be kept commensurate with the general standard of living in Canada. By adding price guarantees to the present yield and quality guarantees of the crop insurance program, farmers could be offered a complete package of basic income protection.
The program could be operated by the crop insurance administration presently existing in the western provinces. With a slight addition to staff Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation could administer a much more equitable crop and income insurance program than is envisaged in Bill C-41. It would also make it unnecessary to establish a complete new administrative organization to administer a separate western grain stabilization program.
May 6, 1975

Above all, the approach suggested by Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation is consistent with the cardinal principles of mixed private and social insurance, that the insured knows what he is insured against and what his benefits will be, and that payments are not made at random but to those who need them.
This is the type of program we want to see put in place. It would have been so easy, but apparently the minister does not understand. He does not seem to understand that the Crop Insurance Commission presently establishes that there will be so many bushels of grain sold at so much a bushel. If you multiply those factors you arrive at an answer in dollars and cents.
It is ridiculous for the minister to tell the House there is a great difference between the two systems. The scheme proposed here is unnecessary, and it will cause many problems for grain producers. The minister's record has been poor. He has probably been one of the poorest ministers any government has had.
One of the first problems with which I had to deal as a member of parliament arose because of regulations and laws connected with the operations of the Wheat Board which were not working to the benefit of producers. The producers were caught. Everyone knows that when a permit book is taken out a producer may allocate so many acres for, malting barley. Perhaps the House will allow me to use barley as an example. As we all know, frost, rain, and weather conditions generally determine whether the barley will actually malt or not. In this instance frost hit the crop and producers could not deliver their grain as malting barley simply because it would not malt. Therefore the agent required a permit from the Wheat Board to transfer those designated acres back to allocated acres.
I made representations to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, but he said he could do nothing. It would seem to me that, when producers are caught in this web of legislation passed by parliament, every effort should be made to help them, particularly by a minister in charge of the Wheat Board who is also Minister of Justice. Did this happen? No. They were hauled into court and had to pay fines of $50, as well as legal fees. The agent was fined between $200 and $300. This is not justice. We are not getting justice from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.
Here we are asked to bring in another piece of legislation, and even the minister is not completely aware what the bill contains. Last night, when the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) stated that an inventory would need to be taken at the end of the year, the minister said this was not the case. I will put this exchange on record. I realize that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) did so this afternoon, but we have to keep hitting the minister with it in the hope that eventually the message will get out to those who elected him to the House of Commons, and that those electors will realize what they are doing to the prairie grain producer. This is what was said in the debate last night:
Me. Lang: I wonder whether the hon. member can tell me how he develops the fear that any bin measuring is required at all. As I read the bill, everything depends upon the sales of grain. Some of his colleagues may have talked about on-farm transfers which were in fact not put into the bill because of the administration which would be involved. There is no necessity for the bins at all. I would like the hon. member to point out where there is any such necessity.
Western Grain Stabilization


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


Daniel Aiken Lang: Where is the inventory?


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


Daniel Aiken Lang: Nonsense.


Douglas Charles Neil: Where is it?


Daniel Aiken Lang: It is not in the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You wouldn't make that mistake, would you?


Daniel Aiken Lang: It was not a mistake.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that we are not supposed to deal with the bill in detail at this stage, but I should like to read just one excerpt because it does affect what we are discussing. This is from clause 9:
(4) For the purpose of determining the adjusted marketing to production ratio referred to in paragraph (1)(b) for a year under review, the Minister shall
(a) make the following calculation in respect of each of wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax seed and rapeseed:
(i)	divide the actual aggregate number of bushels of such grain produced in the designated area and sold by all producers in the year under review by the number of bushels per acre of such grain that is the average yield for such grain for the five years immediately preceding the year under review;
(ii)	divide the difference obtained by subtracting
(A) the opening inventory, in bushels, of farm stocks of such grain for the year under review, determined as being the closing inventory, in bushels, of farm stocks of such grain for the year immediately preceding the year under review, determined in December of that immediately preceding year.
The minister said it is not in the bill. He does not know what is in the bill. This is why the wheat producer is in such a horrible mess. If there were a business-like approach to the grain-handling system we could solve many of our problems, and there would be no need for programs like this intended to protect growers in years of hardship. What we are up against in Western Canada is the fact that labour leaders have been using the movement of grain as a whipping boy. The time is coming when we can no longer accept such a situation.
Every Canadian should be aware, too, that we depend to a great extent on grain exports to balance our foreign exchange account. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has told us that our balance of payments deficit will be in the neighbourhood of $4 billion to $5 billion this year, and I can tell the House why this is so. Primarily it is because we had a poor grain crop in western Canada last year. I should like to put on record figures showing movement of grain in western Canada over a six month period in the last five crop years. In 1971 there were 330.2 million bushels; in 1972, 386.6 million bushels; in 1973, 410.8 million bushels; in 1974, 293.6 million bushels; in 1975, 275.1 million bushels. These figures are for clearance of grain for six month periods during those years, and the figures show a decline in the years 1974 and 1975.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the lower price of grain at the present time is adding to the problems of the Canadian economy and our balance of payments deficit. According to a report that I received some time ago, no grain cars had

May 6, 1975
Western Grain Stabilization
been unloaded at the Pacific coast or Thunder Bay terminals since Monday, February 17. As I said a while ago, we are unable to get our grain moving. If the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, together with the Minister of Labour, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), and the Prime Minister would sit down with representatives of labour and get an assurance that our grain will be moved, our economy would be in a much better position.
I should like to put on record a comment in a newsletter put out by the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association as follows:
The government of Canada seems incapable, for whatever reason, to control inflation. In the absence of government guidelines and programs to curb inflation, it is difficult to expect labour and management to exercise restraint in wage demands and company profits.
Out of this situation arises the immediate problem: the complete shutdown in the movement of grain. This is resulting in a shortage of feed and food supplies for our customers and, most damaging of all, the loss of confidence in Canada's future reliability as a supplier.
To the Canadian grains industry this could be a near-mortal blow; Japan is our Number One customer for rapeseed and our Number Two customer for wheat and barley.
It seems to me that the way that the prairie grain producer would manage the situation would be to see to it that the grain is moved. If he made a contract for delivery, he would ensure that the person making the purchase would receive the product on time.
In the minister's speech he gave figures showing payments that had been made between the years 1968 and 1971 to the producers, but one thing he did not say was that one-third of the money paid out was subscribed by the producers. He said the money was paid out of a subsidy fund, and true enough it was, but one third was put up by the producers, the other two thirds being put up by the taxpayers of Canada.
We are concerned to see that this money is spent to the best possible advantage, and at the present time there is no way we can be assured that money paid into the fund will be used to the benefit of the prairie grain producer. It is a well known fact that any money returned to the producer will go to those in a strong financial position as well as to those who are not, something we ran into under the old PFAA. While that program was in effect one of its shortcomings was that money was paid out to those who did not need it as well as to those who did, and quite often some of the farmers who required money were overlooked.
I think it is unfortunate that the minister has more or less copied the old PFAA program, as well as incorporating into the new program the shortcomings of PFAA. I can think of farmers in any one of the three prairie provinces, as well as in the Peace River block in British Columbia, who could be completely wiped out because prices as well as production are up in other parts of the country; hence there would be no pay out. Producers may have to rely on this program to carry them over difficult periods, whereas we could have had an adequate crop insurance scheme for those who really require it.
If the minister had tied this program to a crop insurance plan, the extra money could have put in place a program that would not only have been acceptable to the producers but would have worked to their advantage. As it is we have no guarantee that the minister's present program

will work. Most of the crop insurance commissions in the four western provinces-I include British Columbia since it has a crop insurance commission too-fear that this program will have an adverse effect on their programs. I know the minister says these are two separate programs, and that one is complementary to the other, but things do not turn out that way, Mr. Speaker. People get fed up with this type of program. They may take one or the other, but I question whether they will take both in many cases.
When representatives of the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association appeared before the agriculture committee they told the committee that they were relying, and had relied, on crop insurance to get them over a bad spot. Now, in order to build up his ego, the minister is bringing in a program that could almost destroy the crop insurance scheme if the producers elect to participate in this new program and not crop insurance. If the producers do not accept both schemes, then actually one will work against the other. This is why the two schemes should be tied together. It is also why the crop insurance commissions are very pleased to have the opportunity of appearing before the Senate committee on agriculture.
I have felt that perhaps not too much good has come out of the Senate, but I hope that the Senate committee on agriculture will take a good look at this program before approving it. If, in their wisdom, they see it is not going to serve the purpose intended, then I hope they will turn it down. The vote we had this afternoon is an indication that the members on this side of the House do not have the manpower to turn it down.
I hope that our Standing Committee on Agriculture will have an opportunity of visiting the west and discussing this bill with the producers, individual farmers, and farm organizations, and that we will be able to put into effect a program that will benefit them. Certainly this is a grave responsibility, because the minute this program is implemented without any changes I would question whether it will serve the purposes the minister would like it to serve. I think he would like to put a program in place to do the job, but for the life of me I cannot see why he will not accept some advice in the development of a program that will work.
I see no reason in the world why the committee should not go out and discuss this matter with the farmers, and then decide what type of program is required. Let me impress upon the House, Mr. Speaker, that whatever program is set up it will be the only one, because there is not room for another. There is certainly no room for any more programs, and I would hope that this one will be designed so that it will serve the best interests of the producers.
I have a copy of a letter written by the Flax Growers of western Canada to the minister in which it is stated:
We would respectfully request that you use your best influence to assure that the Standing Committee on Agriculture hold public hearings in Western Canada on Bill C-41.
We believe that our members would gain a much better understanding of this bill and the mechanics of operation of the proposed stabilization plan, through discussion at a public meeting, than is possible from its perusal.
May 6, 1975

The subject is too important to be left to representatives of organizations alone. It would also be impossible for our members to make representation in Ottawa in any numbers.
Our association will present a brief on this bill to the standing committee and would appreciate the opportunity for discussion of its contents.
Surely the minister will grant this request because the agricultural community is going through a very serious period in its history. Grain has been dropping in price in the last six months. It would appear that western Canada at the present time is about a month late with seeding, and we are not sure just what kind of crop we are going to get this year. If we have an early frost, as we did last year, the crop could be as short as it was then.
In addition, there are increased costs of production. Fertilizers are up 50 per cent, including ammonia and 11:48. We were told the other day that as of July 1 freight rates are going up 25 per cent to the chemical industry. The minister was out west and flew a kite when suggesting that perhaps we could take another look at Crowsnest Pass freight rates. I believe he was in Edmonton when he said that. I think he was flying a kite, and he found out that western grain producers soon shot it down. He has been trying to retract the statement ever since. Just the other day I noticed a statement from the minister's Regina office which said that he was not going to touch those rates. If he was not planning to touch them, why did he mention this? He certainly frightened the very dickens out of the western grain producers when he mentioned that. They guard these rates very jealously because they know that if they are changed the cost of grain movement will quadruple over a 12-month period.
I have been asked many questions about this bill, and I should like to refer to one query by an officer of a grain company who is also a producer. He stated in his letter:
The plan is described as voluntary, which is some stretch of the imagination.
Farmers near retirement will not join the plan because they could not withdraw their contributions a few years later when leaving the farm.
Should feed mills receive financial consideration for the extra book work involved?
This is a very important point. I said earlier that this minister caused me problems when I first came to this House. I saw innocent producers and grain handlers fined in our courts, and there was nothing I could do. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board in his dual capacity as Minister of Justice told me there was nothing he could do either.
We are now getting involved in the same sort of thing, but it is even worse. There is a penalty section in this bill which provides for a fine of up to $5,000 for an infraction. These grain dealers are supposed to deduct the 2 per cent representing the producer payments and forward them to the stabilization account within 30 days. What happens in the fall of the year when these grain handlers or elevator operators are handling a great deal of grain, are very busy and go over the 30 days? According to the law that will be legislated by this bill if it is not changed, they will be liable to a charge and a fine in our courts of up to $5,000.
What happens to feed mill operators if they should happen to do the same thing? The minister has suggested that there can be the movement of grain through licensed
Western Grain Stabilization
grain dealers. What about the grain that is transferred from one farm to another? Is that to be included under this bill? What happens in respect of the grain sold by one farmer to another? I do not think there is any provision in the bill for that.
What this is going to mean is simply that if producers take part in the program the farmers will haul their grain and sell it to the feed mill operator, who will in turn sell it to the feeder. There will be extra charges and extra costs involved, which means less profit for the producer and for the feedlot operator.
There are so many faults and holes in this bill it is as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has suggested, just like a sieve.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: I recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The automobile man.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Is this a leadership race? The hon. member is going to make a speech on wheat in support of the farmers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to receive a round of applause from my Conservative colleagues on my right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He hasn't any of his own colleagues in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Those hon. members are wrong in their facts as usual.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I see the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has just come in.


John Edward Broadbent: That Alberta Tory is wrong in his facts again. My colleagues are here cheering from the seats behind me.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member just stated that, as usual, the hon. member for Alberta is wrong in his facts. What I said was that he did not have any of his colleagues in the House, and just as I said that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) came in. I see that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has arrived since I rose. The point I am attempting to make is that he suggested his colleagues were here, contrary to what the hon. member for Crowfoot just said. He can speak in defence of his colleagues as he has the floor, but he cannot dispute what I stated. Now here comes the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


An hon. Member:: They are coming out of the woodwork.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I keep on speaking I am sure all his colleagues will arrive. The point I make is that when the hon. member rose and I said none of his colleagues were here, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre at that moment walked in from behind the curtains. Up to that point the hon. member was alone in that part of the House. He is making a speech because he is running for the

Western Grain Stabilization
leadership of the NDP, and he wants to be on record as being in support of the wheat farmers of Saskatchewan.
I hope in some way that he does better than the member for Yorkton-Melville.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to continue. I should not be taken to task for the shortsighted opinions of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I can tell the hon. member for Crowfoot that one quarter of the members of my caucus are here tonight, and in relative terms that is substantially more that is present from his party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, it is not. I rise on a point of privilege-


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if we could put our private dialogue behind us perhaps I could get on with the comments I should like to make. In providing the last contribution to the second reading debate I should like on behalf of my party-the hon. member for Crowfoot has made his contribution and now he is leaving.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what I in fact said was that I can now step behind the curtain because I have made the member honest this evening. I would not want that statement to be considered in longevity or anything like that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my comments I want to re-affirm the commitment of the New Democratic Party to the principle of income stabilization for farmers. Indeed our party has been the pioneer of orderly marketing systems and price supports that would guarantee Canadian farmers a decent livelihood and would ensure the viability or rural communities. To those goals we remain firmly committed. We will continue to expose and oppose, with all the force and determination that we can muster, any attempt by the government to destroy the system of orderly marketing of western grains through the Wheat Board, and any attempt to force western producers back on to the mercy of the open or so-called free market.
It is perfectly understandable that members of the New Democratic Party are suspicious of the moves that are made by the Liberals in respect of western grains. Over the last few months we have been witnessing their attempts to weaken the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board by turning domestic feed grains back to the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.
We have been hearing proposals for the repeal of the Crowsnest rates, to which the preceding speaker for the Conservative Party quite correctly alluded. We have been hearing calls for the abandonment of thousands of miles of branch lines on the prairies. We have also seen amendments introduced to the Agricultural Stabilization Act which is now in committee, which make specific provision for the support of wheat, oats and barley grown on the prairies and marketed, not through the Wheat Board as they should be, but on the open or so-called free market.

Now, following an abortive attempt to foist an unacceptable stabilization bill on western farmers in 1971, an attempt that was stopped by the combined opposition of every farm organization and every provincial government involved, as well as by the determined efforts of the NDP members in this House, we have another stabilization bill that is simply too complex, too complicated, and too inexplicable. Several of my colleagues at earlier stages in this debate outlined our objections in detail to the bill so I shall be brief, much to the relief of some of my urban colleagues to my right.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No. I want to hear you.


John Edward Broadbent: I was very sorry that the amendment proposed by the Conservative Party this afternoon was voted down. I think it would have been most appropriate to refer the subject matter of this bill to a committee of the House before proceeding further. I agree with them on that point. Not only would this have permitted some clarification of the principles behind this particular scheme, it would also have afforded an opportunity to canvass, in co-operation with farm groups, other possible kinds of stabilization plans. I think that should be done.
I should like to summarize briefly some of the problems in respect of this particular piece of legislation. We will do our best to deal with these in the form of amendments at the committee stage. The purpose of this legislation, briefly stated, is the continued operation of a free market in western grains and the need to protect producers from its inevitable failings. Production surpluses and deficits will continue to exist after the passage of this measure. Under this bill the government is to play no active role in determining the allocation of productive resources. In our view this is a fundamental fault.
The stabilization effect of the plan is reduced by a number of factors, and I shall single out a few. We are in a period of decline. The five-year average of net cash flow would become progressively lower. Net income would show a progressive decline. Producers would continue to contribute the levy. Pay-outs would occur during periods of relatively high but falling commodity prices, whereas no pay-out would occur during periods of relatively low but rising price levels. The cost of the plan to the federal government is overstated, and the stabilization effect reduced due to the fact that a portion of federal contributions, around 15 per cent, would be recovered through taxation when a payment is made.
Because the stabilized margin or net cash flow is not indexed to inflation, net income would decline in terms of real dollars at a rate approximately equal to the rate of inflation, with no support payments being made. Stabilization payments themselves are not included as proceeds in calculating the five-year average. Further, the levy is based on the financial position of the stabilization fund, not on ability to pay. The levy could actually increase in a bad year. Surely this is an undesirable situation.
Finally, the support level drops to 90 per cent of the five-year average after the fund has been in a deficit position for three years. What are the implications of aggregate calculations and pay-outs? Because the plan operates on an aggregate basis, all regions and all grains are lumped together in the calculation of aggregate pay-
May 6, 1975

outs. This offers little or no protection on a regional or commodity basis. For example, rapeseed producers may experience depressed markets but not receive any payouts from the plan if the aggregate proceeds from all grains-and wheat of course is dominant-remain at or above the five-year average level.
Eligible expenses incurred in the production and sale of grain include only cash expenses as listed in the bill. They exclude depreciation on buildings and machinery, interest on indebtedness, interest on equity, and the labour and management of the producer himself. Surely this is another undesirable feature of this measure.
An individual producer's share of the aggregate pay-out, in a year when a stabilization payment is made, is determined in proportion to his share of contributions through levies for that year and the immediately preceding two years. In other words a producer who has had good sales, and therefore has made a relatively substantial contribution to the fund, will receive a proportionately high payout. A producer who has done less well will receive proportionately less. The plan therefore rewards good fortune, and penalizes misfortune. He who needs most gets least.
At this point I would like to refer to an important point that was made before the Senate committee on agriculture this afternoon by the deputy minister of agriculture for the province of Manitoba in a discussion of this bill. He compared some of the provisions of this bill with what exists in our unemployment insurance legislation. It reads:
If the Unemployment Insurance Commission operated on the same principle as the grain stabilization plan, it would calculate for all of Canada the average annual bill for wages and salaries on which unemployment insurance contributions are made, adjust it for changes in the number of unemployment insurance contributors and for certain changes in the consumer price index, and if the adjusted total wage bill fell below the average of the previous five years, the Unemployment Insurance Commission would make a payment to all wage and salary earners. Each would be paid proportionate to his contributions; those who had paid the maximum would receive most; those who had paid less would receive less, and the unemployed who had made little or no contributions would receive little or nothing.
I know that such a scheme to stabilize the net proceeds from wages and salaries in Canada would be rejected not only by the ordinary working people in Oshawa but by the working people in every village, town and city across Canada. Yet such is the principle at the heart of the bill.
I believe that all Canadians, consumers as well as producers, whether they live in cities or rural areas, have come to see the urgency of providing adequate and stable incomes for our farmers. I think also that most people can understand the need to support the farming industry as a whole, just as our society now supports, through a variety of means, almost every industry in one way or the other by way of sharing in a variety of governmental schemes. What we must insist upon, however, whether in respect of industrial subsidies or support for agricultural producers, is some assurance that the funds so used will be used to achieve their desired effect. It is in this respect that my colleagues and I object most seriously to a number of details in this bill, although there is over-all agreement on the basic principle.
Wheat Payments
It is concern with these detailed objections that will lead members of my party to present to the House and to the government amendments at committee stage, and we hope at that point that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will show more wisdom and flexibility than he has up to this point in the debate on this very important subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: 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 C-13, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, with an amendment, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


TWO-PRICE WHEAT ACT MEASURE TO PROVIDE FOR PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT PRODUCED AND SOLD IN CANADA FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: That Bill C-19, an act to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada for human consumption in Canada, be amended by deleting "1980" in lines 27 and 32 at page 2 and substituting therefor "1977".
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Bill C-19, and on the motion which I put forward, I should like to point out that this debate is taking place at a very unsettled time with regard to the world food situation.
I am one of those who, over the years, have been deeply concerned about people throughout the world starving, and I was particularly pleased and proud that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who was at the Rome food conference in late 1974, vouched for the Canadian contribution to alleviate the plight of starving people throughout the world. I was disappointed at that time that the United States, a much wealthier country than ours, a country much more capable of producing food for human

May 6, 1975
Wheat Payments
consumption than is Canada, was so reticent in offering its resources to satisfy the hungry world.
Having said all that, I now come to Bill C-19, an act to provide for payments in respect of wheat produced and sold in Canada. The concept of Bill C-19 is basically that world wheat demand and world wheat prices will rise, but wheat sold to Canadian millers will sell at $3.25 a bushel. Any amount of money above $5 a bushel, at which world wheat sells, will be compensated by the producers, and any amount of money between $3.25 and $5 will be compensated by the government.
This is a very interesting piece of legislation at a time when world food supplies are, I repeat, in what might be called an unsettled condition, a thunderstorm, a reoccuring storm, or what might be called at best stormy conditions. We saw world wheat prices rise well above $6 a bushel in December 1974. In early 1975 we witnessed the withdrawal by the USSR of its offer to purchase wheat from the United States. This caused world wheat prices to drop from January 1 until the middle of April by about $2 a bushel. The interesting thing is that throughout that drop no comparable drop took place within Canada. Wheat prices within Canada dropped from about $5.90 per bushel on the international market to $5.16 at Thunder Bay on April 1, the asking price of the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason I point this out is that it must obviously be clear to everyone that the Canadian wheat farmer is still subsidizing wheat later by the Canadian consumer.
This bill locks the wheat producer into a seven year agreement. I cannot overemphasize that. Everyone in this House has witnessed several labour negotiations. I can recite the railway negotiations, the longshoremen on the west coast, grain handlers and longshoremen on the St. Lawrence, and so on. None of them relate to a seven year contract. Bill C-19 locks wheat producers into a seven year contract. What has this parliament got against wheat producers? Why lock them into a fixed price for their commodity?
We all know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is unable to control inflation, much as we might wish he could. We might admire his command of the finance portfolio, but we know that he cannot contain inflation within Canada because he does not have the support of the Liberal party or of the Liberal cabinet in his back pocket. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) runs this country, and the Minister of Finance is just one of those people who must grapple with the facts. Grappling with the facts does not enable him to reach the proper conclusion with regard to inflation. We have come to the conclusion that inflation will continue, whether we like it or not.
Bill C-19 locks Canadian wheat producers into a seven year agreement which suggests that Canadian millers will buy wheat for $3.25 a bushel, and the government shall make up the difference between $3.25 and $5. On anything over $5 the poor-I cannot overemphasize that word- producers must bear the loss. When this bill was studied in committee, we were told that all farm organizations agreed with it. But before I get to the committee question, I should emphasize what my amendment does. It proposes

to delete 1980 in lines 27 and 32 on page 2 and substituting the year 1977.
In other words I am saying that we should stick with $3.25 and a subsidy up to $5 until the year 1977. That is a two year contract. Is it so unusual for this House to be asked to support a two year contract? What labour and management negotiations has this House dealt with in recent years? It has dealt with the railways, the grain handlers on the west coast, grain handlers on the St. Lawrence river, and all of them in two year contracts. Why should we superimpose our desire for a seven year contract upon the farmers? Do we think farmers are so naive that they will willingly negotiate this contract? Do we think farmers are so ignorant that they do not know the facts?


Robert Elgin McKinley: There are no farmers in the Liberal
Party.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Conservative Party whip is absolutely correct when he says there are no farmers in the Liberal Party, and that is a sad situation. I dealt with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, earlier. He grew up on a farm, but he hates farming. His assistant, his little boy, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), hates farming as well, and he has never farmed.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mclsaac)-


Daniel Aiken Lang: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has said that I grew up on a farm and hate farming. I know he often says things which are wrong, but in a few short words he was wrong in a double barrelled fashion, and I know he would not want to mislead the House. The fact of the matter is that I did not grow up on a farm and I do love farming.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, everyone reaches his own conclusion about his fellow man. If the minister says he did not grow up on a farm, I was wrong. If he did not grow up on a farm, he grew up in the farming community of Humboldt in Saskatchewan.


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is wrong too.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But he did not choose agriculture as his vocation, he chose law. I have nothing against lawyers. I have a secret desire for my son to study law, if he can qualify. My secret desire results in a fight or squabble between us. He wants to remain on the ranch and farm. The minister did not pursue agriculture, he pursued law because he did not like agriculture and did not want to have anything to do with agriculture.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You don't like it either.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Furthermore, he never even practised law.


Erik Nielsen: Thank God for that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I wouldn't hire him even if I was guilty.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think the minister would be a lot better person today if he had practised law. He would have learned more about humanity than he now knows.
May 6, 1975


Mr. Caccia:: How about talking about the bill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no question that I have deep reservations about the bill. Farmers have often found themselves pitted against unions. One does not have to be born and raised in Saskatchewan to realize that. I do not have to be a member of the NDP to realize that farmers often find themselves pitted against the unions. I am asking the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who comes from Saskatchewan, to recognize something that we all know, "Ask not more of the farmers than you will ask of your unions". This bill does ask more, Mr. Speaker. It asks farmers to sign up for seven years. When the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) spoke this afternoon about another bill he asked "what union would sign this bill?" He did not think any union would sign up for seven years.
My amendment is a simple one, Mr. Speaker, and even the Minister of Justice could understand it-just change the words 1980 to 1977. If the government is worth relying upon, what is wrong with saying let us move in two stages? That is all I am asking. If the minister cannot equate the cost of production figures to this bill then he should not ask farmers to sign up for seven years, but take it stage by stage. But the government says no.
When the bill was considered in committee the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), the minister's good little boy, had some strange and interesting things to say about it. Committee proceedings No. 4, pages 26 and 27, report him as saying:
I think there is a basic problem in the confusion that resulted from those comments between this measure that is before us, which as the minister has pointed out is really dealing with the consumer subsidy aspect of the two-price wheat program, and the stabilization program.
He went on to say:
It is interesting to look at what the farm reaction has been in fact. According to the announcements and pronouncements of the various farm groups with respect to his two-price wheat program-and to find that specific reaction you have to go back to last fall to look at what the farm groups were saying-it is interesting to note that they have not had much to say or many comments to pass on this legislation-
I am not going to read the whole paragraph but later, as appears on page 26, the hon. member had this to say.
Almost every farm group that I have heard of endorsed it. At the moment I cannot think of an exception that voiced a contrary opinion last fall to this legislation. Some had reservations when the initial discussion was proceeding during the late summer when that legislation was proposed; I think that announcement was made on September 12. The farm groups, almost to a man-I would want to check my records to be absolutely sure-endorsed the idea.
That is what the hon. member for Assiniboia said to the committee-that almost to a man they endorsed the idea.
I would like to read what farm groups had to say about the amendment I put before the House, and which is being debated today. I defy any member of the House of Commons to say that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is not the most reliable group to put forward the concerted viewpoint of what is best for agriculture. When they appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture on Bill C-19, they had this to say as reported at page 6 of committee proceedings No. 9:
Adjournment Debate
Since the guaranteed price was set in September of 1973 to the end of September this year, the farm inputs cost index for western Canada has increased by 14.73 per cent and for Canada as a whole by 12.6 per cent. By taking a 13 per cent average and increasing the base price by 13 per cent for the 1974-75 crop year the indicated starting guaranteed price which should be in the bill and the Wheat Board regulations would be $3.67 per bushel-
This bill deals with a basic starting price of $3.25 per bushel, and they deal specifically with $3.67. The brief concludes:
In summary, it is the policy of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and its members that the producers' guaranteed base price should be reviewed annually and indexed with changes in the inputs price index with additional payments up to the maximum of $1.75.
I am just asking for a simple amendment to reduce the number of years by three. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture asked that the basic price be reviewed annually. They may condemn me for asking for it every two years. The minister claims to love agriculture so why does he not believe the federation when they ask for an annual review? The minister may not have been born on a farm, and he certainly never went into agriculture when he chose a career. Instead he took law to "bleep bleep" the farmer.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader if we will continue with consideration of Bill C-19 tomorrow?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be the intention to continue with this bill, and probably go on to Bill C-57.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am going to speak in the adjournment debate on the question of bringing foreign doctors into Canada when we have many fully qualified medical students who are being rejected by our universities. One student was even rejected because he was one point too low in mathematics.
It is incredibly selfish for us to bring in half our supply of doctors in the provinces from less affluent countries. Is that Christian ethics, or is it foreign aid in reverse? One doctor came from a country which only had one doctor for every 5,000 people. We have one doctor for every 700
5540
i

May 6, 1975
Adjournment Debate
people. Many of those doctors could not qualify for our Canadian medical schools because their education was held to be inadequate. We are concerned about our medical manpower, but where is it? Are the medical authorities concerned about this, or are they shelving their responsibilities? Is medical manpower receiving attention at the federal level?
The only criterion for entrance to Canada is that a doctor wishing to come here must practise where a doctor is needed. That is the admission ticket, and that is some ticket. If a foreign doctor comes to this country and goes to some remote area, he may find it cold, or develop arthritis. He will be lonely and upset, and may develop emotional difficulties and go to the city. Of course if he is in B.C. he can go to Vancouver or Victoria and enjoy a fairly warm climate.
To say that escalating health care costs and abuses can be cut by cutting the number of doctors in practice is nonsense, is pure rubbish. People want to see a doctor; they do not care how many doctors are on the street; they only want to see one. A health care program, if honestly handled, would in no way increase health care costs. It always amuses me to hear people say, "We are well fixed for doctors; we have one for every 620 or so." Let us look at the figures.
About half our doctors are specialists and only see referred patients. What about the othef half? Many of those doctors have administrative jobs. They work as insurance medical examiners. They do part-time work. They include members of parliament. Others do local parttime work only when they feel like it. Some work short hours, and only in hospitals. So really, how many doctors are there in general practice? Is there one doctor to every
2,000	people?
In addition, of course, you must consider those who are teachers and researchers. Their numbers must be subtracted from the total. Anyone who argues that health care costs will not go up must, of course, show the government how to take care of all the old people who become ill as they go over the hill in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. As people get older they tend to develop more and more diseases, and you see multiple diseases developing in the same person. We are training geriatricians. Western University, at London, Ontario, I believe has a qualified geriatrician as head of that university's intended chair of geriatrics. Queen's is making a start in this field. Actually, Western had to go outside Canada to obtain a qualified geriatrician.
Let's consider the list of applicants. The University of Toronto leads in having the most medical freshmen born outside this country. I understand that 25 per cent of their freshmen class were born outside Canada. But we reject hundreds of Canadian boys and girls who were born in Canada, who have been brought up in our customs and know our reactions. Many of them have a burning desire to minister to the sick. Many have compassion and feel the urge to become involved in this field. When rejected by this country and its institutions, they go to Ireland, Mexico, or other countries, and come back, after taking this circuitous route, to practise in Canada.

You know, it has never been proven that brilliant students make better doctors. Often the bright and the brilliant suffer from offsetting disadvantages. Often the average student with average marks makes the best doctor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: All of us in the profession can point to examples showing the truth of what I say. After all, what have mathematics, physics and chemistry to do with general practice?
In conclusion, we say we need foreign doctors to go to our wide open spaces. I object to this tactic. We are asking those doctors to go to places where our own, native trained doctors will not go. How wise are we? I suggest that we shall often find that these foreign doctors will practise for a little while, but then become sick. It is cold in outlying parts, and they are not used to those conditions. They develop arthritis; they get emotionally ill, so they head for the big cities.
Wouldn't it be far better when the prospective medical student is filling out his application for entrance to the university, to ask him: are you willing to go into general practice in outlying areas or where required for the next three to five years? Give him incentives to do that- remove his income tax. You would then find you would be able to pick the number of doctors who would go there, and they would be all the better doctors because of their training in that field. I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to accept his responsibility in the medical manpower field, to admit some of these average students of medicine, and to stop discrimination against students who may be, in the long run, the best general practitioners of all.


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 1975, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) undertook to inquire about data concerning applications made by medical students to universities in Canada indicating their willingness to do general practice for a stated period, and/or indicating their willingness to go where there is a need for medical manpower in Canada. A check with the department and the provinces has concluded that at the moment no data appears to be available in any comprehensive form at national and provincial levels on either foreign or Canadian medical students applying to the medical colleges indicating their willingness to do general practice for a stated period, and/or indicating their willingness to go where there is need for medical manpower in Canada.
According to the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges, in some medical colleges applicants may be interviewed on their future interest in general practice and their willingness to practise in areas where there is a need for medical manpower, but the answers to these questions are not recorded in any usable form.


NATIONAL PARKS-RIDEAU-TRENT CANALS- AUTHORIZATION OF TOLLS-ESTIMATE OF REVENUE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my subject of debate at this time on the
May 6, 1975

adjourned motion is one of vital interest to the tourist industry of southern Ontario in the region traversed by the Rideau-Trent canal systems. Up until this year, 1975, these systems have historically remained, as they should always be, free of tolls. Their construction is unique in the western hemisphere and a marvel of construction methods of the 19th century, especially in the Rideau system where the name of Colonel John By, its builder, will endure for centuries.
These canal systems have drawn an increasingly important patronage to the tourist industry, not only from our own users, but all over the North American continent, and a healthy and prosperous tourist industry has been built up along these waterways. This industry has helped our balance of trade more and more each year, and no impediment should be placed in its way. But now the government, through the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has announced that it is placing toll and lock charges on these waterways. I must protest this action as strongly as possible.
I first brought this matter to the attention of the minister in the form of a question on March 24. A supplementary question yielded the information from the minister that the expected revenue would be more than $11 million. He did not give me the right answer to my question. I was asking how much revenue they expected to receive from the canal systems. His answer of $11.6 million was the expected revenue from the whole parks system. I have learned since that they only expect about $300,000 per year revenue from users of the canals, Mr. Speaker. This sum is not worth the effort and should not be levied, considering the damage it is going to do our tourist industry and outfitters along the canals.
I have always been among those who advocate as much freedom as possible in our roads, waterways and communications systems. That is why I have always fought the increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway just as I fight the installation of tolls and lock charges on the Rideau-Trent tonight. The government is apparently seeking to Americanize our free systems and, in doing so, to stultify and discourage private business. These two waterways have been the vehicle which has helped build our tourist industry and brought business to tourist operators. These operators in turn, individually and collectively, pay tremendous amounts of taxes, municipal, provincial and federal.
I brought this matter up the other night in committee, in fact on April 24. I stated there, and I state again, that the action of the government in placing tolls and lock charges on these formerly free systems directly promotes inflation. By placing charges and tolls on publicly owned and free waterways, the government in a sense is saying, "We are going to get ours-our revenue" and is saying to the tourist operator, "You get yours the best way you know how".
The natural result of this move by the government is to reduce patronage of the waterways by the Canadian and American public, and at the same time reduce patronage and use of the tourist hotels, outfitters and tourist businesses all along the waterways, including the sale of fuel,
Adjournment Debate
licences, fishing tackle, liquor, beer, meals, marina services, room and motel and hotel accommodation, and everything that is required for holidayers and tourists. The reduction of gross business may necessitate the raising of rates for accommodation. This is inflationary.
The government already has a taxation stake and interest in those other revenues, so in imposing tolls for the comparatively paltry sum of an estimated $300,000 the government is only going to cut off its nose in order to spite its face. If the government has any regard for the people of southern Ontario who depend on the tourist industry for a living, it should forget about this installation of tolls.
I am not alone in my fight. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has protested this, as has the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). Here is a recent report from the Ottawa Journal of April 30 headlined "Lock tolls will hurt tourism":
A federal government plan to charge lockage fees on the Rideau Lakes waterway has drawn sharp criticism from resort and marina operations and the boating public.
Regulations now being drafted by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (which administers Parks Canada) would have pleasure craft under 18 feet paying from $3 a day to $50 a season to use the locks. Craft more than 18 feet would pay from $4 to $80.
It's the first time in 70 years that tolls will be charged. And businessmen along the waterway are worried.
"It's bound to affect that tourist trade," said Roy Towle, president of the Smiths Falls Chamber of Commerce. "When people add up the cost of boats, campsites, gasoline and now this, they just won't come."
Joseph Kenny who runs a hotel at Jones Falls, near Elgin, Ontario, is worried his business will drop this summer and he's been writing to his regular guests urging them to protest to Ottawa.
Mr. Kenny's hotel at Jones Falls is typically one of hundreds of small businesses to be unfairly and adversely effected by this toll and lock charge policy.
There is also another point, Mr. Speaker. There is more than the tourist industry involved here. The government is discriminating against the local farmers, landowners, residents and cottage owners along the canal systems who have always used their historic right freely to use the waterways. Farmers often have to go up or down through a set of locks to tend their cattle or livestock, to cut wood, or practise forestry in the husbandry of land, and indeed often have to go through a set of locks to go fishing. Cottage owners often have to go through a set of locks to go to the nearest village to buy their provisions.
These people have riparian rights that the government is now going to charge them to use. If the government insists on putting tolls in place Mr. Speaker, it should give the people I have mentioned special free permits to use the locks; but I protest, as strongly as it is physically possible for me to do so, the charging of tolls to anyone.
On behalf of those in business and resident along the Rideau-Trent waterways from Ottawa to Kingston and from Trenton to Georgian Bay, I call upon the government and its ministry of Indian and northern affairs to reconsider this ill-advised scheme which will be so harmful to these residents, to the tourist industry, to the province of Ontario and to Canada as a whole, and to maintain the free use of these waterways by the already heavily taxed public.
29561 -714

May 6, 1975
Adjournment Debate


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough has attempted to show that lock tolls and other levies on the Rideau-Trent canal system will have an adverse effect on tourism. I should like to reassure the hon. member that experience elsewhere, in situations analagous to the canal system in question, has shown positively that tourism continues to grow, and in fact increases if additional funds collected by such charges are used to enhance the service, as will be the case in this instance.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not the hon. member for Hillsborough.


Iona Campagnolo: I submit that the charges authorized by the minister are indeed reasonable when one considers the level of services given.
In response to the hon. member for Hillsborough on March 24, the minister stated that in 1975-76 $11.6 million would be realized from the total operation. It was the minister's understanding that the question asked pertained to the over-all revenue estimate for parks in Canada. On further reflection it would appear that it was the intention of the hon. gentleman opposite to be apprised of projected estimates from canal systems only. The figure for 1975-76 is $571,000, which I would like to point out is estimated as 7 per cent of the operating costs of those canals. Let us just look at the operating costs estimated at $8,400,000 from which we may subtract user fees estimated at $325,000, and land rentals and licences at $246,000, which total the aforementioned $571,000 in expected returns.
Surely this amount cannot be deemed to be excessive, and it is only prudent to expect that a minimum and reasonable return be made on the investment made by and for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I realize I am not allowed to rise on a point of order during the adjournment debate, but I should like to point out to the respondent for the government that I am not the hon. member for Hillsborough. I am the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.


Iona Campagnolo: Might I extend my apologies to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NAMIBIA-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT FALCONBRIDGE MINES FROM EXPLOITING WORKERS AND END PRIVILEGE OF CLAIMING FOREIGN TAX CREDITS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, Namibia, formerly Southwest Africa, was assigned to the Dominion of South Africa by the League of Nations to be held in trust; with a mandate to guide that territory toward political modernity and economic development. For nearly 50 years South Africa neglected her responsibilities and treated Namibia as a colony of her own. For years, as she does today, South Africa refused to co-operate with international organizations, arguing that the United Nations did not have authority over a territory assigned to her by the League of Nations, a different

organization, all the time exploiting the resources of Namibia, which rightly belonged to the Namibian people.
Finally on October 27, 1966, the General Assembly of the United Nations took decisive action by terminating the South African mandate and declaring the area to be under the direct responsibility of the United Nations itself. That was United Nations Resolution 2143 (XXI) of 1966.
In July, 1970, the Security Council called upon all states in Resolution 276:
-to withhold from their nationals or companies of their nationality not under direct government control, government loans, credit guarantees and other forms of financial support that would be used to facilitate trade or commerce with Namibia-
In addition the council asked states:
-to discourage their nationals or companies of their nationality not under direct government control from investing or obtaining concessions in Namibia and to this end withhold protection of such investments against claims of a future lawful government of Namibia.
The issue has become increasingly more important. The International Court of Justice in a recent ruling regarding South Africa's presence in Namibia stated:
-that a binding determination made by a competent organ of the United Nations to the effect that a situation is illegal cannot be without consequence-the precise determination of what is to be done is a matter which lies within the competence of the appropriate organs of the United Nations.
This is a specific reminder to countries like Canada of their obligations to uphold Security Council resolutions dealing with Namibia.
Finally the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia issued a decree on the natural resources of Namibia, which has as its purpose the outlawing of any extractive industry in Namibia which operates without the permission of the United Nations Council for Namibia.
It was this kind of background which led me to place some eight questions on the order paper to probe the extent of Canadian involvement in Namibia. These questions led to the discovery that Canadian based corporations operating in Namibia can claim a foreign tax credit under Section 126 of the Income Tax Act.
The largest of these corporations is Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. which shares ownership, 75 per cent to 25 per cent, with the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa in Oamites Mining Company Ltd.
Falconbridge's performance in Namibia is not one we should be proud of; contract labour, poor housing conditions for black workers, vastly inferior wages and benefits for black workers, and no job advancement for Namibians. Through it all our Canadian government is calmly studying it all, and studying, and studying, and waiting for this report and that report.
It seems to me that this situation is quite clear cut. Canada has agreed by its vote at the United Nations that the government of South Africa is an illegal authority in Namibia. It is not right that Canadians should seek economic gain there in ways which, directly and indirectly, involve an acceptance of such an authority.
How much more reprehensible it is for the Canadian Government to go on making all sorts of fatuous state-
May 6, 1975

ments about helping developing countries achieve economic stability and health! How gross it is for our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to be talking about a new economic world order which would give citizens of third world producer countries a better deal! How phoney! The only ones getting a better deal in the Namibian experience are the shareholders of Falconbridge Nickel Mines, and the bosses of South Africa. And don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that even more despicable is the fact that Falconbridge is extracting non-renewable resources from Namibian lands and seas, so that when South Africa finally decides to turn Namibia over to United Nations trusteeship, and eventually to SWAPO, there will be few, if any, resources left.
I would urge the government to initiate the following action now: First, to inform Canadian-based companies that Canada recognizes, as the only legal authority in Namibia, the United Nations Council for Namibia. This position is totally supported by the International Court of Justice, the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations and our vote in that body. Second, since the only legal authority is the United Nations Council for Namibia, henceforth no Canadian-based corporation in Namibia will be permitted to claim foreign tax credits for income taxes, fees, royalties and other payments where such were paid to the Government of South Africa. Third, the Canadian government instructs all Canadian based corporations to negotiate any exploitation or concessions of Namibian resources with the only legal authority there, namely, the United Nations Council for Namibia. Fourth, all Canadian-based operations in Namibia must be informed of these decisions.
That is the kind of action that is needed. Is the Acting Prime Minister trying to tell this House that a government which was as tough as it was in 1970 bringing in the War Measures Act to crush a handful of dissidents, lacks the courage to live up to our international commitments? Who is the Acting Prime Minister afraid of? Was he afraid of world opinion when he supported the United Nations' free Namibia? Is he afraid today to tell Falconbridge Nickel Mines that he supports that position? I don't think he is afraid. I just think he and his government are mealy-mouthed. We have seen that in the so-called energy crisis, the Chilean fiasco, and the recent stranding of approved South Vietnamese immigrants to Canada. Truly it may be said of the Acting Prime Minister and his government as it was said of the seventeenth century Spanish viceroys in New Spain, "They obeyed all laws, but enforced none".


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I
Adjournment Debate
wish to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Breau).
The Department of External Affairs, in consultation with other interested departments, has for some time now been examining the question of Canadian companies operating in Namibia. Under Canadian law the government cannot force a mode of conduct on business operations of subsidiaries of Canadian corporations in Namibia. It is, furthermore, a principle of government policy not to interfere in the operations of Canadian companies abroad. The various Security Council resolutions on Namibia, and the General Assembly resolutions of 1967, are not mandatory resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and do not, therefore, impose binding obligations on member states, as is the case with regard to Rhodesia.
The government's position on Namibia has been outlined publicly several times, at the UN and in other international bodies. While we have articulated it in response to inquiries from individuals and companies, it may be appropriate and useful for us to repeat it here. Canada does not recognize the right of the Republic of South Africa to legislate in or for Namibia. In 1971 we informed the government of South Africa that Canada accepted the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice to the effect that South Africa's administration of Namibia was illegal.
However, we must recognize that South Africa does de facto remain in control of Namibia. But, as I indicated, the Government of Canada does not recognize this as having a legal basis. The Canadian government recognizes that the Council for Namibia has the right to make decrees concerning Namibia that are within its competence. The applicability of such decrees, their effectiveness and their status, however, must be examined individually and are dependent upon further action that the United Nations may take either through the General Assembly or the Security Council.
The Canadian government considers that any Canadian companies operating in Namibia do so entirely at their own risk and initiative. Should such companies be subject to confiscation or nationalization of their properties in Namibia, the government's attitude will accord with this position.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, May 7, 1975